Regarding bloggers talking about the politics of censure (click around Ben’s post for more):
Look, it’s fun to play Karl Rove/James Carville, and suggest moves for the Dems to take. It’s kind of like being a baseball fan: “The Sox would win if they only landed Clemens!” etc.
But you know, that’s not really our job. Maybe we should let politicians be politicians, and let them rationalize and jockey and posture and grandstand. That’s their job; that’s what they do.
Maybe for us Joe Q. Publics out here in Blogostan, that’s not our frickin’ problem. (Thank goodness, right?)
Maybe we should just say what we think out here, and let the pols do their thing. They can listen, they can ignore, but let’s not put on their shackles of political calculation any more than we have to. We’re supposed to tell them how to act, right?
I’m not arguing for naivete. I’m saying that so-called “political reality” often bears little resemblance to “real reality.” I would suggest that we need to bear witness to the latter.
I agree with you, Charley.
I think of Anna’s letters from her experience volunteering in New Orleans: very graphic: 6 months later they still need bleach, water, electricity. We know it and it changes how we understand Katrina’s aftermath.
I think of John Sununu stopping the Patriot Act, although only briefly. He must have had lots of letters from his constituents in NH – telling him what they thought. Same thoughts about Senator Murtha.
Usually I am pleased with my Senators’ and my Rep’s positions but I do not know the jockeying they must do to be effective – and not just in making speeches but in getting real stuff done. I do not want to do their job.
When they act, I tell them, “thanks”.
My mid-west relatives used to ask how I could support Ted Kennedy! horrors! I told them he speaks for me…
So he, and all my other representatives need to hear what I know to be true.
very good points all. I know I’m guilty of looking to the “political reality” all too often.
<
p>
Hell, if I had it my way Al Gore would be in his second term, we never would have been in Iraq, never would have had domestic surveillance, and we’d be talking about how in 6 years America had become 100% debt free, had led the world in innovative clean renewable energy production, ratified Kyoto, and expanded health coverage to (almost) EVERYONE.
<
p>
More Idealism from me (but still no illusions).
… and I would just say that doing away with illusions includes the illusions of a “conventional wisdom” that is more conventional than wise.
From the Post article you cited:
<
p>
At a time when Democrats had Bush on the ropes over Iraq, the budget and port security, Feingold single-handedly turned the debate back to an issue where Bush has the advantage — and drove another wedge through his party.
<
p>
Basically, I think Feingold was suffering from premature ejaculation. But as with anyone suffering from a potentially serious health problem — in this case iwanttobepresidentitis — his posse needs to rally around him, not turn a cold shoulder.
In determining whether this action has merit:
<
p>
1. Who cares what Feingold is running for?
2. Who cares what other Dems do? If all your friends decided to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you run off after them
<
p>
I think he actually knows precisely what he’s doing. Nothing premature about it. He’s upping the ante.
I respect you a lot Charley and I think you have great ideas but I am not really sure it is anyone’s place to say what is our “job.” As a voter in this country I wanted to let those who thought that Feingold’s move was a bad one politically, politically meaning voters wouldn’t like it, that I as a voter fully supported Feingold’s move, so I put up a post on my blog about it. I know you aren’t suggesting naivete but I can’t really figure out what you are suggesting. People should engage in the political debate, not say I am not a politician so it isn’t my concern.
… but what I mean is that the political “strategery” mustn’t be our primary concern as voters.
<
p>
In other words, worrying about whether this or that is “good for the Dems” or “bad for the Dems” can obscure what’s good for us.
First off, Kennedy and Kerry both supported the censure of Clinton!
<
p>
As it happens I hate Clinton – but this is insane. Yes Clinton lied – about some sex stuff. But Bush is taking a run at our constitution – very, very dangerous stuff.
<
p>
If these two can’t censure Dubai W, but were all for going after Slick Willie – well, let’s just say that I’ll make sure to dissuade everyone I know from voting for them next time ’round.
<
p>
Second, in case nobody’s noticed, our country has all sorts of problems. Am I the only one who has noticed that the more that politicians do “because of political realities” instead of “what’s the best thing to do”, the worse things get?
<
p>
I’m utterly tired of spineless rich boys (and girls) worrying more about their political career then what is right and what is wrong.
<
p>
We, the People, have gotta make our views heard by our elected servants – even if we need to use sharp elbows to get the job done.