Apropos of the subject below, David Mamet has a good column in today’s LA Times:
In politics as in poker, the only way to win is to seize the initiative. The Democrats need to make bold wagers or risk being rolled over again. [Read the full column]
George Bernard Shaw once said, “Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn.” That may be true in many instances, but when it comes to George W. Bush and his cronies, it doesn’t work. Unfortunately, there are those in the Democratic political establishment who believe that when it comes to Katrina, silence is the opposition party’s best weapon.
Late last week I got into an e-mail exchange with a couple of Democratic consultants and a top Hill staffer. The discussion was prompted by a comment from one of them who is based not too far from areas hard-hit by Katrina. He wrote, “From here, it looks so bad that the facts speak for themselves. We don’t need to beat the partisan drums now. Do our friends have the discipline to refrain?”
The other consultant agreed, “Blaming Bush will become a red state/blue state fight, and Bush always wins those fights. Keep him out of it, and target FEMA, which can not be defended in lieu of the money spent since 9/11. Keeping the spotlight on FEMA will bring forth what a crummy agency it is, and in this case, guilt by association is your friend.” The consultant added, “Do you want to be right or do you want to win?”
I kinda went nuts. Or rather I vigorously expressed another view. Of course I want to win. But, I replied, the way to do it is not to abandon the debate to the Republicans and the media. We’ve tried that. It doesn’t work. Democrats have been losing elections because they have let the Republicans set the agenda for public discourse and because they haven’t stood up for anything. If the opposition party doesn’t speak up now, in the wake of a massive disaster compounded by the policies and decisions of the ruling party, then when? And, knowing that the Bush administration can be counted on to aggressively disseminate disinformation and propaganda, should the Democrats simply sit on their hands once again while the latest version of “Swift Boat Veterans” goes on the attack, buttressed by the right-wing echo chamber?
A day or two after my exchange with my Democratic consultant friends, E. J. Dionne wrote a column in the Washington Post to which I said amen:
This crisis has been an exceptionally clear lesson in this White House’s overall approach: Try to get everyone to believe that any criticism of the president will blow back on the critics because Americans just don’t like that sort of thing. Attack “finger-pointing,” and make sure your allies madly point fingers at your opponents.
Say no one should play politics with a disaster — and then make sure Republican leaders in Congress set up a commission to investigate the relief effort without asking Democrats for their input on how the investigation should be carried out.
Bush’s critics aren’t backing off, because they’ve been here before.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist was eulogized as a gentlemanly steward of dignified deliberative process and a thoughtful advocate of rebalancing federal and state powers. I did not hear one word, however, about what is likely to be seen as his true legacy.
The honorable Mr. Rehnquist presided over one of the worst decisions in the history of the US Supreme Court, Bush v. Gore. As Justice Stevens said in his dissent,
The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
Justice Stevens couldn’t have imagined that day that the decision not only would sow disrespect for the Supreme Court, but would lead to a series of disastrous events for our nation. For one thing, how many of those who have died in Iraq would be alive today were it not for our highest court’s partisan hackery on September 12, 2000?