Thinking about the way the Democrats approached the objection to Ohio's electors, I was prepared for little to be concretely accomplished. I was not prepared for the weak and rather sniveling rationale made for bringing it up when they did. They went to all the trouble of making an historic objection, and then the very first thing they said was, "But Bush won fair and square." Heck, they'd telegraphed that opinion BEFOREHAND. People like Obama, and Dayton even in the Senate testimony, gave their argment as "Bush won, but because the GOP controls both chambers, we're never going to get to debate this ever again if we don't do it now. So give us two hours of complaint, and let it be on your conscience. After that, we'll vote with you to accept the electors, not vote at all, or be conveniently in Iraq."
WTF? The whole point was that the irregularities and improprieties were so numerous, pervasive and seemingly intentional that, while there were no votes to elevate John Kerry, there was no confidence in a full and fair election for President in Ohio. If thousands were intentionally suppressed by long lines, how do you count them? You can't, but you can recognize that it impugns the integrity of the process. Put enough shenanigans together, and you start to wonder if you have a duly elected officeholder. Many Democrats standing in favor of the objection seemed to grasp this idea--but immediately forgot it when it came time to vote.
They did the same goddam thing across the hall at the Abu Gonzales hearings. Several of them gave Gonzo tough questions--as with the challenge, on completely legitimate issues that should give one pause--but at the same time let it be known it was just tough love when it came to forming their opinion. They'd vote for Gonzales anyway. Again, WTF? If you're willing to stand up and say "this is wrong," how can you turn around and validate the wrongdoing? I have no problem with sticking ideologically to a losing position--as long as you actually stick to it. If you're willing to watch an ad first, Nation has much the same point to make.
On the other hand, will Republicans tear each other apart before the Democrats simply forfeit? At the same time the good news was ultimately good for Bush Thursday, there's definite unease in the GOP on Social Security. They're waiting for the press tour to begin, but they're asking for it to begin soon. Most seem happy to overlook the adding-to-the-deficit part, but they're not stupid, and the 50% benefit cut seems to have made the news. And then a memo from Rove's deputy laid bare the lie that this was a fiscal health requirement, asserting instead it's very much a philosophical movement about the program in general. AARP is moneying up as we speak, to Harry-and-Louise their opposition. And 50% of Iraq's population was declared not ready to vote by US officials. Is it simply a question of whether the GOP will collapse under its own weight before Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid roll over and concede the point to them?
--TJ
Comments