Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Lieberman? Rahm Israel Emanuel? Democrats?

Change? We can believe?

The American electorate, in numbers too large to ignore, voted for Barack Hussein Obama II and his slogan, “Change We Can Believe In”. So far, the Obama pre-administration has shown little if any change from the staid and rancid ways of Washington.

Yesterday the Senate Democratic Caucus, with the encouragement of Barack Obama, voted to allow the former Democratic, now Independent Senator, Joseph Lieberman, to retain his Chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. This after the “Independent” Senator Joseph Lieberman (2000 Democratic Vice Presidential candidate) deserted “his” party (Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats) to campaign vigorously for the Republican Presidential candidate, Senator John S. McCain and other Republican candidates in various other races!

In the meantime, Barack Obama has appointed Rahm Israel Emanuel (remember, Israel is my middle name!) to act as Obama's White House Chief of Staff. It would be well to remember that Emanuel was Bill Clinton's senior advisor in the White House from 1993 to 1998. After resigning his position as Clinton's advisor, Emanuel became an investment banker earning $16.2 million in 2½ years which provided the wherewithal for his bid for the 5th District U.S. House seat. (Wikipedia)

Sigh! This is change? We can believe?

The Democrats have remained true to form. At the very least, the form they have shown for the duration of Bush the Lesser's administration and especially since their victories of 2006 and 2008. Just a day after the 2006 elections in which Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives, new Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi promised Wednesday that when her party takes over, the new majority will not attempt to remove President Bush from office, despite earlier pledges to the contrary from others in the caucus.” ~ NYTimes

And, let us remember, Nancy Pelosi has stood by her pledge to keep “impeachment off the table” despite vigorous agitation by the progressives who were instrumental in helping the Democrats regain the House.

Democrats? Change? To use these words in a single sentence seems to be an oxymoron, much like the idea of “military intelligence”! Granted and acknowledged, it was of utmost importance to remove the Republicans from Washington's levers of power. However, the “hope” of “change” the people are investing in Barack Obama and the Democrats would seem sadly misplaced.

As I noted in a piece I wrote immediately following the 2006 elections:

Granted, it is vitally important that the incoming Democrats do not immediately institute comity and the sense of bipartisanship. It is vitally important that the Republicans be treated under the very rules they themselves promulgated and instituted against the minority Democrats, not so much in the spirit of vindictiveness but as an object lesson of why comity and bipartisanship are irreplaceable and necessary facets of proper and fair legislation. It is fit and proper for the Republicans to toil in basement meeting rooms; that they suffer the indignity of having their lights and microphones arbitrarily cut off; that they not be notified of hearings on bills and are forced to search Capitol Hill for the location of the hearings…from which they will be summarily excluded.” ~ “Which way you goin' Billy? Can I go too?

The Democrats did nothing to make the Republicans pay any price whatsoever for the egregiously uncivil and undemocratic behavior they demonstrated toward the opposition when they were in power. Now, that the Democrats have increased their margin of majority in the House and are within a loud shout of 60 votes in the Senate, the Republicans (and the great reichwing Wurlitzer) are bleating piteously that the Democrats are bound to demonstrate “tolerance” and “bipartisanship”. Bipartisanship? Just how much more “bipartisanship” do the Republicans want? The Democrats have been shameless in repudiating their own constituencies and seconded virtually every demand of the Bush (mal)administration and the Republicans! The Democrats have backed every Bush era ravaging of the Constitution, from the gutting of FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms to “enhanced” interrogations. Just how much more “bipartisan” do they want the Democrats to be? The only possible increase in “bipartisanship” the Democrats could demonstrate would be for all the Democrats to simply become Republicans.

All I can say is: "Place not your faith in princes."!

Byzantine Blog