Politics Over Principle

[...] But there is something deeper -- and less justifiable -- at work. The Democratic leaders in Congress, in both the House and Senate, largely have abandoned principle and long-term strategy for the short-term tactics they think will help them in this November's election.

Tom Daschle's desire to hold the one-vote margin in the Senate and Dick Gephardt's hope to pick up the six additional seats that would switch control of the House are driving decisions -- even on large and consequential matters. [...]

[Washington Post: Editorial]

David Broder of the Washington Post has written an editorial this week about some of the questions that he finds coming out of the webchats that the Post hosts each week.  This weeks hot topic was, of course, the possiblity of war in Iraq, but he said that one of the other major topics had to do with where the Democrats are in regards to their views and policy on something like this.

I have to be honest.  I'm a registered Democrat - not so much because I agree with everything the party stands for, but because I live in Kansas, and a few years back, Fred Phelps (the "God Hates Fags" guy) tried to become the Democratic nominee for the gubantorial election.  By registering as a Democrat, I was eligible to vote in the Democratic Primary, and therefore could vote against Phelps.  I've kept my registration the same since then, just in case he tries to do it again.  (Yes, I feel that strongly about Phelps, but that's a whole different rant...)

So, as a Democrat, I think I have the right to comment on what it is they do, and frankly, I've not been happy with much they've done in years.  This latest refusal to show any kind of leadership is just one more drop in the bucket.

Since the beginning of Bush's term in office, it's often felt like we have only one party - not so much because they Democrats and Republicans are so much alike (though the are a bit similar for my taste), but because the Democrats have seemed to be somewhat afraid to really stand up for, well, much of anything.

While I found the tactics the Republicans used during the Clinton administration to be deplorable, I do think the Democrats could learn a few things from their example.  No matter what else was going on in the world, questions about Clinton's sex life, fund raising practices and involvement in the Whitewater debacle were constantly being brought to the front and center.  Why haven't the Democrats made a genuine effort to keep the many questionable activities of those in the current administration in a similar position?  Between the entire issue of corporate fraud and excess (which, regardless of who's "fault" it is, tends to reflect badly on the Republicans because of their close ties to Big Business), John Ashcroft's attack on civil liberties, Tommy White's malfeasance or ignorance while working at Enron (and what that portends for him in his current position in administering the Armed Services), George Bush's fanatical (almost paranoid) need for secrecy, questions regarding his involvement with possible insider trading or other financial hijinks while at Harken, Dick Cheney's responsiblity for possible fraud at Haliburton during his tenure as CEO, how much involvement companies or individuals who were members of the Energy Task Force contributed to the apparently contrived energy shortage in California, and so on.

It is very possible that with many of these issues there's no "there" there, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be thoroughly investigated and reviewed to make sure of that. In my opinion, many of those issues are of far greater concern than what Clinton did with whom, where and smoking what cigars, yet the Democrats don't seem to be interested in making sure any of these issues are persued.  And its hard to tell why - whether its that they don't want to come off looking as "low" as the Republicans have, they don't have any backbone, they're afraid of "making waves" or something else entirely - but I definately see it as a problem.

I want to elect politicians whose beliefs are similar to my own (which usually rules out most Republican candidates - I have some very conservative views, but they're usually secondary to my more liberal ones), but I also want to elect leaders who will actually LEAD.  Hopefully someday soon the Democrat party will realize that the less they lead, the less we'll follow, and get back into the game

Spotted Sept 20, 2002 in Salon Headlines:

Cheek. Correcting the sin of omission, this company adds extra sex, nudity, profanity or extreme violence to our favorite screen gems.

Sept. 20, 2002  |  [...]  A San Fernando Valley, Calif., man announced today that he is offering a new film editing service that will insert violent and pornographic images into classic Hollywood movies.

Rod Cumming, 34, president of FilthyFlicks Ltd., a film production company in Reseda, said that he is doing it for "educational and religious purposes."

 [Salon Headlines]

Hmmm... maybe it's a case of Great Minds Think Alike?  Or maybe it was just such an obvious response :)  Either way, it cracked me up - given the comment I made on the 18th in different strings:

I have to wonder how they would feel if someone took a good, wholesome, family-oriented movie, and, in order to fit in with their desire to see more sex and violence, added scenes of shoot-outs and orgies to it, and then rented it to whomever. I doubt many people would be willing to agree that they have a right to make such changes, and there'd certainly be an outcry over the "degredation" of these clean-cut films.

[different strings - 3rd story]