More Crap from the Democrats

You’d think an article titled “Democrats launch scorched-earth strategy against Trump” would have some good news in it, but it turns out to be more useless, cowardly nonsense from the Democratic Party. Go read it, then come back here for the fisking.

There’s so much wrong in this story that it boggles the mind. Here are just a few things that jumped out at me:

Some party leaders are wary of the implications of teeth-baring, no-holds-barred opposition. They worry about the difficult position in which it puts vulnerable Democratic senators — 10 of them will be up for reelection in 2018 in states that Trump carried.

Translation: If we’re mean to Trump, his supporters won’t vote for us! Guess what, geniuses? They’re never going to vote for you! Your game here is to show undecideds and pissed-off lefties that they can trust you to stand up to President Tic-Tac, not coddle him in hopes of turning his acolytes. Voters respond to strong, confident action, not soothing words.

There are also concerns about the dangers of appearing overly obstructionist, and the possible blowback it could create for party officeholders up and down the ballot in 2018.

Yep, appearing “overly obstructionist” absolutely devastated the Republican Party, didn’t it?

An explicitly aggressive approach also stands to shape the 2020 presidential field, incentivizing potential candidates to compete in expressing their level of anti-Trump vitriol.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

“We need to remember that one of the reasons young voters, especially, were uninspired is you can’t have a message of, “I’m not him,’” cautioned DNC vice chairman R.T. Rybak, the former Minneapolis mayor.

Are you kidding me? Someone kick this guy out. Voters weren’t uninspired — Hillary got more votes than President Pussy-Grabber! Voters were unevenly distributed. And given Trump’s first week, I think a hell of a lot of people would vote for “Not him.”

Democratic lawmakers have still found ways to embarrass Trump…

You can’t embarrass this guy. He has zero shame. Stop thinking embarrassing him is a victory!

…less objectionable picks through without a fight, like Housing and Urban Development Secretary nominee Ben Carson…

Oh, so “less objectionable” = “clueless, inexperienced, and with no idea how to handle the issues he’s been given.” Gotcha. I await my appointment to the Joint Chiefs.

…senators believe they can inoculate themselves from the criticism of obstructionism often leveled at McConnell during Obama’s presidency.

See above. McConnell is still standing, jackasses, and he’s stronger than ever!

By delivering a massive slight to the president on the first day of the Trump era — roughly a third of the House Democratic Caucus refused to attend his inauguration — Democrats sent a strong signal about their intentions both to the White House and to the American public.

Oh, God. This is the point at which I’m ready to put a gun to my head. If you think anyone in America noticed or cared about this, you need to resign right now. Symbolic gestures are absolutely meaningless in this case. If you’re really going to go scorched earth, you have to actually, y’know, set the ground on fire. You can’t just talk about getting the can of gasoline.

Like this:

I’ve said before that the Democratic Party needs to toughen up. This article is worrisome because it shows that it thinks it has, when it clearly hasn’t.

Comments

  1. Doug Piper says:

    Hi Barry, I’ve been thinking about your posts and ACLU fundraiser. In general I like your support of the ACLU. I suspect they will be quite busy for the foreseeable future. However, I’m not sure we’re on the same page wrt the stance that Democrats should be taking. I think “scorched-earth” sounds too much like playing the game by “their” rules. I liken it to the parenting adage that says “if you find yourself arguing with a child, you’ve already lost”. I don’t think we need more outrage; I find there is plenty of that to go around on both sides. I think we need more calm firm leadership. And I think the child analogy is a good one. Rather than arguing with Trump and his minions, we need grown ups saying “No, Donnie, that’s not what we’re about, and that’s not how we act. When you’re done having your tantrum, we’ll talk about this without shouting or name calling.” Hillary basically did that in the first debate and it gave her a big boost. And frankly, I think Trump would be even more susceptible to it now.

    Granted, the bag of tricks are limited given the R’s majority in Congress. In my mind the best that can be done is to remind voters that they’re getting what they’ve asked for, and remind representatives (and some senators) that in 2 years they’re going to be held accountable for their support of Trump and his policies and his appointees.

    I guess what I’m against is the opposition for its own sake. For example, I don’t see a strong case against Gorsuch, other than an FU to Trump and/or revenge for blocking Garland. But I for one am tired of that BS; the R’s got away with blocking Garland, and they were wrong and assholes for doing so. Doesn’t it make D’s hypocritical to turn around & try to pull the same tricks? I’d like to think D’s could get some mileage out of saying “we’re demonstrating how responsible grown-ups legislate. Put forward a qualified appointee, and we’ll make sure he/she is duly vetted and then grant our approval”. I’m not saying don’t dig in against stupidity like the immigration ban, or appointees like DeVos. I’m saying choose when to crank-up the rhetoric and when to dig deep in to the political play book. Otherwise, the bigger issues get lost in the unending cacophony of outrage.

    I’m probably being naive, but I think Ds would be best served by emphasizing their differences from Rs not just on issues, but also in tone. I think it’s worth a shot – at this point what do they have to lose?

    • Hi, Doug,

      Thanks for your considered and insightful comments.

      My current issue with the Democrats is that they have thus far not shown that they CAN be as tough and as recalcitrant as the Republicans when needs be. Until they’ve proven it, I can’t endorse a “be tough when necessary” attitude…because I don’t believe they CAN be tough! Once they’ve proven that they can be as tough as necessary, I’ll be fine with them backing off and being smart when it’s prudent. But I need to know — they need desperately to demonstrate to their VERY angry base — that they can dig in and get bloody.

      Thus far, that hasn’t happened.

      Your analogy about arguing with a child is flawed, however — children have no power and no authority. The Republicans have both, and are wielding them both indiscriminately and irresponsibly. If your kid can close down the EPA, you argue until you’re blue in the face.

      As to the Court: I disagree vehemently. The vacant seat was, for all intents and purposes, stolen by a feckless and grotesquely cynical GOP. That seat was Obama’s to fill and they stonewalled for no good reason. Trump did not “earn” the seat in question and has zero right to fill it. It’s ill-gotten gains. Stolen goods. For this reason, Democrats must say — at a minimum — that they will consider no candidate for SCOTUS until the Senate considers and votes on Merrick Garland. This is not a matter of “revenge” — it’s a question of what is right.

      • Doug Piper says:

        All good points. Have to admit I like the vote on Garland stance. Wouldn’t change the end result but makes a good point. More to the point I’ve always felt that there are probably thousands of organizations that I’d rather support than any political party. So, whatever your reasons are for supporting the ACLU over the DNC, I approve. Looking forward to reading more of your work!

Leave a Comment

*