Still No Specifics From AWWMNUUBM

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 16:17

Let us all unite under billionaire media moguls:

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.

Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.

Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.

It was nice of them to toss in Whitman is a token non-white dude. "Gridlock in Washington" must only be a major problem for people who are so rich and powerful that they have to make-up problems in their lives. This is because, over the last five years, Democrats in Congress have only blocked the following pieces of legislation:

  • Three conservative judges (out of several dozen)
  • Privatization of Social Security
  • Retroactive immunity for telecom companies in the warrantless spying program.
  • Legislation to deport millions of illegal aliens

Given that these are the only conservative pieces of legislation that Democrats in Congress have blocked in the past five years, one must assume that a "government of national unity" means a government that will confirmation 100% of all conservative judges, the destruction of social security, retroactive immunity of telecom companies, and the mass deportation of twelve million people. If this third-party did not favor these things, then there would be absolutely no need to form "a government of national unity." Those four things are the sum total of what Democrats in Congress have prevented Republicans from passing, and thus are the entirety of what Democrats have contributed to "gridlock in Washington." Every other reform has been blocked by Republicans.

It would be nice, for once, if the constant drumbeat from Aging Wealthy White Men for National Unity Under Billionaire Media Moguls (AWWMNUUBM for short)  decrying polarization, the lack of bi-partisanship and gridlock in Washington would actually provide specifics on what legislation their hated polarization, partisanship and gridlock is blocking. Of course, they won't actually do that, because blaming national problems on vague, undefined concepts like "polarization" and "gridlock" is much easier than actually analyzing the contemporary political scene in America.

Chris Bowers :: Still No Specifics From AWWMNUUBM

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

UM (0.00 / 0)
Isn't Christie Todd Whitman a dudette?  (Or I guess you meant a non white-dude, being that she's a white dudette).

The problem for all these fantasy candidates is that they think that money can do anything, and that there is no need for an organization.  It's almost like saying the people don't really count.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

Bipartisanship and unity (0.00 / 0)
is like Men's Rights Advocates who say they have no voice in their girlfriends' pregnancies when what they really want is 100% control over the decision-making process. Civil rights leaders ask for unity when they want to silence women and gays. 

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

Is this a Unity '08 meeting? .. (0.00 / 0)
seriously ... one those people is going to run as Bloomberg's VP under the Unity '08 label?  Huckabee is less of a joke

Honestly, (0.00 / 0)
There are circumstances under which I'd vote for Bloomberg. In fact, I agree with Bloomberg on most issues (we're both libertarian kinda guys) -- if we nominate a candidate I couldn't stomach voting for, I would vote for Bloomie.

In that case (4.00 / 2)
I'd stop using the word "we" to refer to Democrats then.

[ Parent ]
Re: In that case (0.00 / 0)
I wouldn't.

If your sister married someone that you disapprove of, would you stop considering yourself a Bowers?

Terrible analogy, but disagreeing with one person in the entire Democratic Party (no matter how prominent they are) shouldn't mean I terminate allegiance with the party itself.

I am a Democrat, but I do not and could not support all Democrats.

[ Parent ]
"one person in the entire Democratic Party"? (0.00 / 0)
You mean only its leader, and presidential candidate, the prospective president of the most powerful country in the world? That insignificant "one person in the entire Democratic Party"--not to mention the 50+ million people who will be supporting and voting for them?

Anyone who not only refuses to vote for whoever the Democratic party nominates (assuming that by some really weird set of circumstances this person is not David Duke or Alan Keyes), but votes for someone other than a Democrat, is simply not one. Not in '08. (But also not in any other year, I would passionately argue--including all those Nader assholes who helped give us Bush.) Call yourself whatever you want, but if you don't vote Dem at the top of the ticket next year, you are not a Democrat. At best, a LierberDem, which is no Dem at all.

Didn't you get the memo? We're still a big tent party but lines have been drawn, and not voting Dem in '08 is absolutely one of them. Not even approaching negotiable.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Uh (0.00 / 0)
How is Bloomberg libertarian? Wasn't his smoking ban a few years ago exactly the kind of thing libertarians complain about? He's also a strong proponent of gun control.

[ Parent ]
"Libertarian" (4.00 / 1)
"Libertarian" = Doesn't threaten the rich

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
Dems might have only blocked a small handful of important bills and right-wing agenda items, but through their hyperpartisan symbolic votes, overly contentious speeches and rhetoric, and truly inconvenient petition drives and rallies, they sure made it hard to pass the other 99% that did get passed. And that's just not right. Either we fast track whatever the establishment wants, or else we have truly horrendous partisanship. And we simply cannot have that at such a critical juncture in our glorious republic's march towards its date with destiny.

Seriously, they're looking at a foreseeable future filled with ever more effective (or at least troublesome and costly) progressive resistance to their conservative agenda, and they want to squash this before it gets too out of hand. It's not just about getting their policies enacted, but about doing it as quickly, fully and easily as possible, lest it cost them valuable time, money and opportunity. They see the future and it is corporatist, authoritarian and efficient, and they do not want anyone or anything to not just stop it, but delay it. Macht schnell!

And please lets stop calling any LieberDems who attend this would-be repeat of the 1856 GOP convention "Dems". They are not. But they're free to drain as many votes from the GOP as they like (of the sort that would never have voted Dem in any case).

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox