|
|
|
|
| Betreff: Secondly, It's Our Responsibility to Govern |
| Von: "Jesse Lee, DCCC" |
| Datum: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:32:49 -0400 |
 |
| |
||||||||
 |
"Frist said at a press
conference in August that 'maintaining our majority is our top priority
in many ways. Secondly, it's our responsibility to govern.' The fall
schedule was designed, he acknowledged, to draw contrasts between
'standing strong in the war on terror or cutting and running,' and on
demonstrating that the GOP is 'for cutting taxes' and Democrats 'are
for tax hikes.' We'd advise Frist to make governing his party's top
priority while there's still time - or it may well lose its majority." There are some choices that are so devoid of
rationality, common sense, or common decency that to call them
"mistakes" is to give them a legitimacy they do not deserve. The
following front-page Washington Post story discusses one such
choice. It reminds us that in many ways, the November elections do not
feature a contrast of competing visions for America, but rather a
battle between a genuine attempt at good government from Democrats and
a view that government exists for no other purpose but to keep those in
power where they are. Corruption is not an ideology, and cronyism is
not a vision for America.
"After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon. DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel gave a statement on the article: "After refusing to listen to the generals, the Bush administration decided to hire Bush-loyalists instead of war-zone-experts to rebuild Iraq. The unending stream of errors from the Bush White House has slowed reconstruction, irrevocably wounded goodwill in the region and has put Americans at risk. The fact that there was more Bush-Cheney paraphernalia than body armor in Baghdad only confirms that it's time for a new direction." The prioritization of politics above good policy
is certainly not limited to the Bush administration, Congressional
Republicans practice it across the country, especially those in tight
races. One of the problems such Republicans are now facing is that
they've spent the entirety of the war trying to prove that they were
right and denounce those who disagreed, instead of doing anything about
the actual problems in Iraq. As a result, they've backed themselves
into a corner where their talking points begin to implode on
themselves. For year after year they talk about "real progress" being
made - but how many years of "real progress" can you have without any
improvement in security to show for it? They will say that two thirds
of the Iraqi army is trained, etc., then say that "as they stand up,
we'll stand down" -- then shouldn't some of our troops have been able
to stand down by now? Is there an extra step between being fully
trained and "standing up"?
"...By the end of an hour, it was clear to everyone that the war has reduced this 60-year-old, nine-term veteran of the House to a complete head case - consumed by the convoluted efforts to square the circle of his own conflicting impulses. It almost moves one to sympathy that Mr. Shays would be so conflicted and distraught, but one wishes it did not take him until the end of a pivotal election year to find such doubts.  Politics Over Policy on Osama bin Laden When President Bush first began quoting Osama bin
Laden two weeks ago, as part of an apparent campaign to instill fear in
the public going into the November elections, Washington Post
columnist Dan Froomkin issued the following analysis:
"The spectacle of the president of the United States extensively quoting Osama bin Laden to bolster his controversial policies during political season deserves notice, and reflection. Ironically, it has been in these same recent weeks that President Bush's cynicism has been exposed in the most stark terms. It was more than four years ago that President Bush first said of bin Laden, "I truly am not that concerned about him." But now even as President Bush seems to be ramping up the fear campaign, we hear this from Fred Barnes, editor of the right-wing Weekly Standard: HOST: Alright Fred, you and a few other journalists were in the Oval Office with the President, right? And he says catching Osama bin Laden is not job number one? But after all this, suddenly on Wednesday we got a turn-around. CNN reports that President Bush now claims "he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location." An odd contrast with his both Fred Barnes' claims to the contrary, as well as President Bush's position the previous Friday, when he suggested that he would not because "Pakistan is a sovereign nation." Apparently the politics of the situation have changed. Politics Over Policy on the Economy Saying that the economy is booming doesn't
necessarily make it so, something many Americans can attest to by
looking at their shrinking pocketbooks. As President Bush continues to
tout "economic performance" as a winning campaign issue, the Republican
candidates who march to Bush's drumbeat this fall may be in for a rude
awakening come Election Day. Americans know the truth about the
economy, because they feel the increasing pressure to make ends meet
every day --- and a wageless recovery may satisfy Wall Street, but does
nothing to win votes from real citizens...
"Used boots fetch $3 and old salt-and-pepper shakers bring in a buck at a makeshift flea market along Highway 27, presumably not what President Bush and Republicans have in mind when they herald a vibrant economy. The glaring discrepancy between real-life circumstances and the transparent GOP portrayal of an economic "upswing" for campaign purposes will not be lost on the American public -- making it especially ironic that President Bush is hoping for a midterm election outcome based on economic performance, as noted by DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel... "There is bipartisan agreement on this point but the president should be careful what he wishes for. Under George W. Bush and the Republican Congress we've gone from record surpluses to record debts and we're stuck in a wage-less recovery with gas prices, prescription drug prices and college tuition hitting new highs all the time. There are two pillars of security - national security and economic security and Bush and the Republican Congress have failed on both. It's time for a new direction on the economy because American families simply cannot take two more years of more of the same." These economic challenges that Americans currently face, far from being merely anecdotal, are clearly substantiated by the findings of the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities... WHOSE RECOVERY? 
As voters go to the polls this November, no amount of Republican slogans will be able to counteract the truth about the deteriorating economic conditions that families face all across America. The GOP-led economic agenda of recent years has centered on huge tax breaks for the wealthiest few, along with huge economic burdens for the rest of the population - a direct reflection of their donor base -- and it is no surprise that the benefits of the "recovery" have fallen along the same lines. The Democrats stand poised to reclaim the Congress this November, and to turn the economic tides for the majority of Americans who haven't had a break in far too long.
IL-06: Tammy's Story |
|||||||
bravenet.com
