molly ivins says it better than i can

I read Molly Ivins’ column in The Progressive today: Enough of the D.C. Dems, where she expresses her utter disgust for the current crop of Democrats vying for the 08 run for the prez, including Hillary Clinton. She articulates what I’ve been thinking. There’s nobody, and I mean nobody, in DC that I would even consider supporting for president (Ivins says Feingold is ok, but I don’t know enough about him to know if I agree). I, too, am so sick of the gutless wonders and the bullshit artists and I keep waiting for one of these natterers to take a Democrat stand and stick to it.

Ivins wrote:

As usual, the Democrats have forty good issues on their side and want to run on thirty-nine of them. Here are three they should stick to:

1) Iraq is making terrorism worse; it’s a breeding ground. We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible. We are not helping the Iraqis by staying.

2) Full public financing of campaigns so as to drive the moneylenders from the halls of Washington.

3) Single-payer health insurance.

Every Democrat I talk to is appalled at the sheer gutlessness and spinelessness of the Democratic performance. The party is still cringing at the thought of being called, ooh-ooh, “unpatriotic” by a bunch of rightwingers.

Take “unpatriotic” and shove it. How dare they do this to our country? “Unpatriotic”? These people have ruined the American military! Not to mention the economy, the middle class, and our reputation in the world. Everything they touch turns to dirt, including Medicare prescription drugs and hurricane relief.

This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.

Yeah. Because I would like to vote FOR someone for prez, like I am for the US Senator from CT (Ned Lamont), rather than against the greater of two assholes, like the last election. And while I will continue contributing to individual candidates I support, I will never pay a dime to the Democratic National Committee or the CT Dems as long as the current bunch of so-called powerbrokers (more like powerlosers) are calling the shots. I think it’s time to seriously consider pushing for term limits for the US Congress. Twelve years is long enough for the Senate, and 10 years is probably too long for a Representative, but hey, gotta give them some incentive to do right ...

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 03/12/06 at 04:59 AM
  1. Were you at Ned Lamont’s appearance in New Haven on January 28?  I remember him saying that he doesn’t plan to stay in the Senate forever, two terms max.  Not that you need convincing when it comes to supporting Ned Lamont, but at the very least he seems to agree with you on the 12 years is long enough point.

    [Ned Lamont Resource]

    Posted by spazeboy  on  03/12  at  04:35 PM
  2. I’m with ‘ya in terms of being unimpressed by the current crop of presidential wannabes from the Dem side. 

    I can’t, in good conscience, support Hillary (and she’d be slaughtered by the Republicans if she won the nom - and my gut says she won’t run because she knows she can’t win).

    Kerry, of course, is going to try running again - for waht reason, I don’t know.  Biden will run to represent the big business side of things - again, what’s the point?

    Edwards is still interesting to me, though he’s gotta ramp up on the definitive statements of who he is in order to gain any voter confidence.

    Wes Clark could be good - provided he has a sound domestic policy on which to run.  He’s got the foreign policyt part down cold, though.

    (Can you tell that I’m interested in our foreign policy?)

    Feingold is a great senator, and would be a progressive’s ideal candidate.  But he’s going to have an insanely tough time making it out of the first three caucuses (Iowa and the two others that will take place before the New Hampshire primary).  I still fail to understand why the Dems let folks who seldom vote Dem do the initial vetting of candidates - that’s why we end up with compromises like Kerry.

    But I have a feeling that “the candidate” has yet to really show his face yet.  There are signs: Mark Warner (former gov. of Virginia) is an interesting character, though not my cup of tea.  Bill Richardson (gov. of New Mexico) is another interesting possibility, though he’s still got a bit too much of an “insider” status to really stir my tea.  And there’s always the “reborn” Al Gore, whose post-veep persona is much closer to the guy who won many terms as senator than the guy who nuanced everything to fit in with Bill Clinton and the DLC.

    (And yes, I say “his” because there are still many places in the U.S. where gender parity is still abhorrent, as wrong as that is.)

    BTW, regarding donating to the DNC: most DNC dollars go to local parties and campaigns these days in an effort to build a “farm team,” much like the RNC did back in Reagan’s days (and a big reason why the Repubs rose to national prominence in the 1990s).  This is a big part of Dean’s strategy to rebuild the party, and while the DSCC and DCCC are pissed about it, the DNC is still looking toward building up the next generation of Dems.  The DC establishment isn’t overly happy with this, mind you, but it’s a way to give the party back to the people - something that these “lifers” in the hall of congress fail to recognize.

    So I’d still give some money to the DNC, staying away from the CT Democratic Party.  Give to individual candidates, as well, and perhaps to some local progressive orgs (e.g. Democracy for Connecticut).

    Posted by Rudi  on  03/12  at  08:09 PM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

<< Back to main