Commentary on Gore

[AndyS40]

First of all I would like to praise Al Gore's speech (having read the whole thing but not seen it). I want nothing I am about to say to detract from the fact that I deem it a very important and powerful attempt to communicate with the American people on crucial matters that deserve their full attention (however much his speech will be dumbed down by the prostrate media and sheeplike masses).

So take what I am about to say as a disagreement-among-friends that is not meant in any way as an effort to take Al to the woodshed.

Must we ALWAYS line up the obligatory Republican yes-man when we want to "legitimize" something a progressive says?

The Republicans are not our friends. They aren't the friends of democracy, freedom, civil liberties or divided government (necessarily partisan government) either. Whether some Republicans have traditional issues or anti-government suspicions that momentarily align with progressive values, I think it's been proven over and over again what a huge mistake it is to cooperate in any way with Republicans in general or even individual Republicans who happen to be in office.

As proven by the current crop of Republicans in Congress and the White House and their paid, screeching media shills, what was formerly known as "bipartisanship" does not pay. In short there is nothing to be gained and everything to be lost in terms of having dealings with the Republicans, even if there is an agreement on one particular issue or set of issues.

Every time a Republican smirkingly points out erroneously or otherwise that "Democrats took money" from Abramoff or money Abramoff once touched, just remember that that Republican is rewarding the Democrats with the fruits of their "bipartisan" labors.

Appearing with Republicans to legitimize our points does not strengthen us, it only weakens us. It strengthens the predominate media meme that says nothing a Democrat says has any value unless it is backed up by the Republicans.

Similarly, cooperating with people who have extensive ties with the Republican party, either monetary or otherwise, is the kiss of death. By the Republicans' own admission, they want the Democrats destroyed. Merely being a minority isn't good enough for them.

The key to fixing our system of government and the overwhelming incompetence and corruption of the present isn't to join with Republicans we think "agree with us" on any particular matter, it begins with defeating the Republicans and that cannot be done by meekly playing ball with them when they agree with us and then crying "fascist" when they all too predictably use dirty handed tactics to cut the rug out from underneath what small effective opposition is left to their benighted policies.

What I suggest may mean some hard choices. Democrats should stop taking donations from major Republican contributors, stop co-sponsoring Republican legislation and generally stop any collusion with the Republicans on pretty much everything, even if such "collusion" is the normal way things are done in an expectedly collegial Congress.

Democrats need to wake up and smell the coffee: If the Democrats want to say the Republicans are criminals and fascists, then cooperating with them makes them criminals and fascists as well. That then means this is not a party of opposition, but one of resistance. You cannot use the words of a resistance party and then act like it's merely a business-as-usual opposition party and expect to get anywhere with the people. The hypocrisy of such obvious doublespeak is palpable.

Even as I speak, the freepers and wingnuts are ripping through the blogs attempting to spread the meme that in order to win elections, Democrats must cooperate with Republicans in power, to become more "bipartisan". And as usual they have a half-point; ever have people on the right been ever quick to smell blood; this being what they do. And what the freepers point out IS one half of the stark fork in the road in front of the Democrats. So what people must do is ask what they believe: Do they believe the Republicans in general and that they are leading this country to ruin as progressive blogs and the like would have us believe, or not?

What is true about what some right wingers say is that in the short term, having our opposition becoming more staunchly one of resistance isn't free .. there ARE costs and what-passes-for-elections will be lost.

In the short term, adopting the resistance course may even cost any chance of winning back Congress in the short term and the Presidency in 2008. The right wing media will mock resistance Democrats and their well oiled media machine will effectively Deaniate any elected Democrat official who elects not to cooperate with the powerful entrenched Republican Party state.

But for all those who would say "oh no, we can't have that" remember this: The true left and the progressives have been in the right on every single issue since the beginning of Bush's presidency. We've been right and all our naysayers have been wrong from the very beginning. Completely wrong. On everything. People are beginning to realize this. More will as the Republican/Centrist Democratic rhetoric increasingly collides with reality. The more progressives allow collaborationist Democrats and Republicans to coopt part of the message of the left, yet allow them to claim we've been "cooperating" with them all along, the weaker we become in the long term.

My view is this: Democrats who cooperate with Republicans are, to put it quite simply, collaborators. Al Gore is a collaborator for metaphorically "sharing the stage" with Bob Barr in his speech. He's not a bad man, and I'm not even saying Bob Barr is a bad man for all this. Whether Bob Barr is a bad man or not is irrelevant to my point; he's a Republican and that's all that matters for purposes of my argument.

Al Gore simply believes in how this country has functioned for 200 years and that accommodation with the two party system is best for all. He was behind the curve regarding what was being done to him in the 2000 election and he's behind the curve now. While I don't fault him for wanting to believe in that, it is still collaboration if this country and its presidency is run by fascists.

So the choice for so called "centrist Democrats" is to deny what's been said all along; either the Republicans are a legitimate governing party or they're not. It's high time we got rid of Democratic doublespeak about this.

[catnhatnh]

1. Because there is a balance BETWEEN parties....

And this NEEDS to exist...In the america of my youth the democrats ushered in laws to promote social equality and republicans pushed a business agenda that kept America strong-neither was wrong-they had differing agendas and both had good points....whether the republicans still have a point I now cast into doubt because I doubt that their embrace of downsizing and outsourcing has the interest of America-the one that I knew as a kid-above increasing profits....but that a republican congress critter has doubts about Bush I would believe in a cocaine heartbeat-and that this needs to be shown to republican constituents,I have no doubt...

[AndyS40]

6. And does that "balance" still exist? n/t

[NYCGirl]

2. Bull. Bob Barr's involvement makes it even more impressive.

I'll take any allies in this we can get, even if they're Republicans.

[LiberalEsto]

3. except he didn't show up at the speech

which has me a bit worried.

[hippiechick]

5. He was supposed to be via satellite and they had problems ...

... he was on in the beginning for a bit, then it cut out and they couldn't get it back, so Gore went on w/o him.

[Upfront]

4. Stumped

I agree with you both. Must be the Wine. Thank you Mr. Prisident Al Gore!

[dsc]

7. Yes we sure shouldn't try to erode Bush's base

by targetting libertarian republicans who voted for the man. Much better to keep losing elections.

[AndyS40]

8. I think my point is, in part

that results of hubris are doing the job of destroying BushCo's credibility with the people much faster than any other possible force.

As for so-called "libertarian" republicans, I don't think for a second they are "allies"; I think they will use dirty tricks to destroy any representation Democrats/progressives have just as fast as any other Republican would and will be just as underhanded and dishonest about it in the process. They will not even stop at using the very fruits or information gathered from any such cooperation/alliance on one point to try to wipe out any meaningful Democratic opposition at another.

And yes, whoever would point out that it's "just politics" to try to defeat the other side's candidates, that is a given, but what we have seen lately is the Republicans using the backblow of their own corruption and sleaziness and trying to defeat Democrats with it.

It is this corruption, sleaziness and hubris I don't want Democrats to have any part of. And I am asking, right out.. is it possible to deal with any national Republicans or the Republican party on any meaningful level whatsoever and not get slimed?

[dsc]

11. on some issues yes

Barr is lots of things. I wouldn't vote for him under pretty much any circumstances, but that said, he is principled. He really does think Bush has gone way too far with his power grab. Frankly, I think he would have no hesitation impeaching Bush like he did Clinton if he were still in the House.

[AndyS40]

9. Also, "libertarian" voters are one thing

Republicans in office are another.

[dsc]

12. In order to reach libertarian voters

we need to work with speakers they trust. People like Barr and Ron Paul are the people they will listen too.

[Toots]

10. Well my take on it is that the Law is non-partisan

The question Gore asked was are we a nation of Law or are we a nation of men. In your approach we are a nation of men but in Gore's approach we are a nation of Law. I like Gore's approach.

[AndyS40]

14. No, my post has nothing to do with the dichotomy of

"nation of laws" versus "nation of men". I believe in a nation of laws, which is why we should not have Democrats associating with or cooperating with the party that doesn't.

[mandyky]

13. My parents are Republicans, not rabid RWers

Some Republicans are genuinely concerned, just as we are. It is good that some are willing to stand with us, esp on this wiretapping issue.

My parents raised me and I am a LIBERAL Democrat, so not all Republicans are bad. I did not care for Bob Barr when he was after Clinton, but I respect him for being anti-Patriot Act, etc. We are all Americans before we are in a party. I am willing to ally with anyone who feels that way.

[AndyS40]

15. Alliances are not required, though.

If Bob Barr, et. al. feel that Bush is a threat to liberty, they are free to act independently to remove him. An "alliance" is not required to vote on an issue that all factions independently agree with. I do not share your respect for Republicans but nothing I said constrains their independent action to clean up the mess that Bush and the Republican Party have created at the national level.

If they want to do the honorable thing, then let them be honorable and do it. If they want to earn the trust of Democrats if they feel working together is necessary, then let them earn it.

If things continue along their present course, the Republicans will simply go down under the weight of their bad policies and decisions. If in that eventuality Democrats haven't cooperated with them in such actions as we have seen up until now, we will, at that time, smash them politically. On the other hand, nothing requires Democrats to collude with the Republicans if events take a different course. One advantage in being a minority with no power is that of being able to take a stand and stick with it until the public comes around.

[PBass]

16. Agree with what mandyky said...

We should try to differentiate between Republican voters, and the crooks and clowns in office who currently represent the GOP.

The idea that there is "no such thing" as a Republican with integrity, scruples, honor, is patently ridiculous. These "good Republican" folks may be badly represented by the clowns holding high office (who they voted for), but I don't for a second believe that "all" Republicans are bad, evil etc etc.

"If the Democrats want to say the Republicans are criminals and fascists, then cooperating with them makes them criminals and fascists as well."

I guess I don't agree with the basic premise.

Do I think BUSH is a criminal? Oh hell yes. I would not paint every Republican with that broad brush

But I do believe there are Republicans out there, who are as truly alarmed about Bush as I am.

At least, I pray to God there are...

Don't get me wrong, I have never voted for a Republican in my life. But Team Bush are not the average Republican, they are far-right radicals.

[AndyS40]

18. And I never said that they're all criminals

I simply think a tipping point has been reached in that associating with the Republican PARTY, or its members in high office, is a mistake, in my opinion.

Again, if they're honorable, nothing stops them from acting honorably. They don't need associations or alliances with Democrats to be honorable on their own time.

[AndyS40]

17. As for "We are all Americans before we are in a party"

I suppose before the 2000 elections I might have agreed with that sentiment completely.

As of now ..well, to me, too many Republicans in office (not saying anything about individual run of the mill Americans who just so happen to put "R" on their voter registration form) have done too many things I consider blatently unamerican or anti-american. I must confess it's really difficult, at this time, after everything that's happened, for me to see them as my countrymen. It's not my America most of them seem to want, but something I hardly recognize.

I too have Republican relatives. My brother, whom I love dearly, is a far right winger politically. And I must say, the events of the last 6 years have been alienating for him and me. What he wants is something I also don't see as recognizably "American". Most of all, I see this country as a 200 year old democratic republic. He wants what I can only describe as charitably as possible, an police state imperium.