Had enough? (with a twist)

Abysmally fractious and deadly conditions in Iraq ignited by colossally wrongheaded Republicans at home should, in the reality-based political world, be producing only harmony and brotherhood among Democrats, right?

Ah, trick question. Combining the words "should," "Democrats" and "reality" is actually just an idle, metaphysical exercise, something wholly removed from Earthly existence, as is the otherworldly fantasy of Democratic "brotherhood." More practical is the pondering of angels and pinheads.

Why the snideness? Aside from the hurling of potshots at the Democratic Party as a national sport, it comes from a recent flurry of good news and bad news, and then, of course, a little more bad news. The first development was dropped in Democrats' lap, while the latter two -- the negative ones, naturally -- were of their own making.

First the good news. As scribes of all stripes are reporting these days, the wheels have done fell off the Bush administration's monstrously indifferent "stay the course" politics and monstrously cynical criticism of Democratic "cut and run" poltroonery. This two-part, Iraq-as-forefront strategy was meant to both rouse and intimidate, but the ghastly reality of senseless human loss has unraveled its effectiveness.

Hence it is now "the Democrats who have seized on Iraq as a central issue.... Rather than avoiding confrontation on Iraq as they did in 2002 and 2004, they are spotlighting their opposition in new television advertisements that feature mayhem and violence in Iraq [and] denounce Republicans for supporting Mr. Bush." And it's working.

But "denounce Republicans for supporting Mr. Bush"? With respect, precisely, to what time frame? Sorry, but by and large, Congressional Democrats were right there by Bush's side in launching this vulgarity. They knew better, just as anyone with an IQ larger than his hat size knew better. Nevertheless they took the easy, popular, jingoistic route then, and they're taking the easy route now: the hypocrisy route.

The New York Times quotes one Matt Bennett, "founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic organization that has been briefing Democrats on discussing the war and national security," as saying "For the first time in modern memory, Democrats are actually on the offensive when it comes to national security. It is really stunning."

It's stunning all right. It's stunning that any party can honestly aspire to national leadership when it doesn't honestly lead. Sorry again, but the Democratic Party's willful participation in hatching an imbecilic, obscene war that has needlessly wasted thousands of lives and billions of dollars is a piece of supremely distasteful history that's hard to forget and even harder to swallow when now, only when it's too bloody late, it asks for a seat on the remodeled bandwagon.

I don't know about you, but when voting next month, my nose will be adorned with a clothespin.

And all that was the good news. The bad news is, leading Democrats are "complain[ing] that the party is on the verge of blowing a once-in-a-decade political opportunity because of financial troubles."

Well blow me away.

It seems, as the Washington Post reports, that according to the Dems' internal polling the number of winnable House seats is expanding, which of course is an opportunity screaming for a fast infusion of cash. But -- and here's another shocker; bad news #2 -- the leadership is "deeply divided over the smartest political strategy for profiting from a political environment that has deteriorated for Republicans."

Democratic numbers-guru Stan Greenberg shouted, I imagine, that "You would be crazy not to get your donors to do whatever they can and borrow what you need" to carpet bomb every feasible district with television ads, and James Carville blurted, I'm sure: "I am saying this is a twice-in-a-lifetime environment. You try to maximize it."

Now I expect you think the Democratic National Committee finds both sensible observations sensible. Yes? Well, you would be wrong. For the Committee "has no plans to help finance a last-minute push.... 'We are looking, but unfortunately there is not much more we can do,' politely said a disinterested DNC spokesperson.

Predictions are tricky, risky things indeed, yet here's one I'd wager a few farthings on: By the dawn of 2007, Howard will be DNC history. When x-number of doable House seats fail capture on election night for the perceived lack of DNC assistance, the accusatory ax will be sharp and swift.

Look, everyone knows the Democratic Party has never prided itself on ruthless unity of opinion. In fact, it prides itself on not priding itself for ruthless unity of opinion. But this is ridiculous. It may have screwed everything up three years ago; still, it's had those three years to herd at least the leadership into the same organizational corral -- one that doesn't resemble a squabbling daycare center.

Comments

[jon]

I couldn't agree with you more.

What a sad state for American politics when the party with the worst ideas (Repug) can't be overthown by the party with the lack of conviction (Dems). Oh, sure, the Dems might just pull out a slight advantage in one or both sides of Congress, but even if this happens their slim majority won't matter hardly at all when they can't seem to agree on anything. This election seems to be nothing but hope for incremental change in Washington.

If the Dems should actually win the House, they had better choose one issue to work on immediately, ethics. They must begin by changing how the ethics committee is run. The Dems have declared a "culture of corruption" thus they had better start changing the culture. Lobbying rules with teeth should be on their agenda as well.

[kris]

Lord Almighty! I wish you people would make up your minds. I may be looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, but I happen to think that the dems are due for a good ride. Maybe we don't have tons of cash to shove at tv ads etc., but we definitely have the right message. I happen to believe that by telling the American people that tax breaks for those earning over $300,000 per year will be rolled back; the minimum wage will be increased; that college tuition will be more affordable and that something is going to get done about the cost of health care will bring out the vote.Also, I think that changing course in Iraq and going diplomatic with Iran and North Korea is the answer. I cannot think of one thing wrong with any of these messages. As far as the Christian Right is concerned, I would hope that they would realize that Jesus Christ was a Liberal.

[Theophrastus Bombastus von Hoehenheim den Sidste]

Very good: let us sabotage any possiblity of a Democratic groundswell that might deprive the Republican warmongers of their monopoly control over our federal government.

Who, precisely, is waiting in the wings to lead us into the promised land?

[banjobailey]

If the Democrats do not win it means they still have not figured out how to defeat a lawless organization. Criminals, in other words.
If they continue fighting over whether they want to win only the coastal states or do they want to establish themselves in maybe, 50 states, they will continue to wound themselves and that makes them incompetent politically as a Party because they cannot respond to this lawlessness.
If Dean has been "successful" enough to have supported some really healthy, realistic folks on the ground in state after state...well, they may be the firewall we need to challenge this lawless organization. On the ground, where these crimes are committed. And where 44 Democratic Senators representing 161` million people live and VOTE..and are going to have their eyes and ears open on November 7th.

[Vic Anderson]

Democratic Entropy, Absolutely
... NOT!

[RicardoT]

I gave up on the Democratic Party over 40 years ago but I've never been able to completely shed the hope that someday they will do something right. It's a little like being a Cub fan.

[Gerard Pierce]

The Dems simply have to remember the days when Fiorelo LaGuardia ran for mayor on a reform ticket -- and he was the incumbent.

And he won.