Well, well, well. Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. Hoo-ah. That’s Interesting. And good, of course. If nothing else, it’s yet another taboo broken; the next female Speaker won’t have to be the first female speaker. I’ve never particularly liked Nancy Pelosi, but that’s from back when I was in her district, and I was all cross that she was, you know, reasonably centrist. I mean, it’s nice to work your way up the party system, but if there’s anywhere in the country that could have elected a Charlie Rangel, surely it was Ess Eff. There’s the other thing, too, that I usually don’t much like my own reps. I didn’t like Rep. Capuano, or Rep. Lynch, and they were fine. I just didn’t like them much. I voted for them and all, sure. And the job of Representative, even Representative for my district, is not to be liked by crazy socialist process wonks.
Speaking of which, have we all noticed that there’s a socialist in the Senate? Not a Socialist, but clearly a socialist. And, OK, he hasn’t actually taken oath yet, but he will. Get ready, America!
Anyway, Gentle Reader, you will undoubtedly have already heard that the Republican Party apparatus is attempting to associate Speaker-presumptive Pelosi with San Francisco Values. You know, as opposed to heartland values. Of course, San Francisco values are my values, as the essential San Francisco value is that people are different, one to another, and that is what makes the city so interesting and fun. Heck, in the City, Victorian houses are painted different, one to another, and that’s what makes a bus ride interesting and fun.
My own preference is for Democratic surrogates (and I’ll include here back-benchers in the House, but mostly newspaper columnists, broadcast personalities, A-list bloggers, as well as former office-holders and campaign consultant types) to quickly change this to city values. I know, I know, we’re all supposed to be scared of being associated with cities. But we don’t have a choice. We’re the City Party, and we like suburbs and rural areas—heck, we love parks and wildnerness and farms and all—but the bulk of our support is in the Cities, and if the Republicans are sticking it to us, we have to redirect it, rather than just try to block it and fail. So. No apologies. When the buffoon Chris Matthews asks you if the party can shake the “San Francisco Values” label, you say “Our big cities made this country wealthy; we’re not ashamed of San Francisco or St. Louis or Dallas or Richmond. The values of the city—productivity, commerce and invention, as well as the ability to live with each other, to come together to make skyscrapers and bridges and symphony halls—those our American values, and I’m proud that they’re Democratic values as well. Now the Republicans failed to protect our cities, true, but they also failed to protect the suburbs and towns, and that’s why they are so unpopular, and why they lost so badly.”
chazak, chazak, v’nitchazek,
-Vardibidian.
Why, oh why hasn’t someone — Democratic party leadership, news program, something — given you some kind of national bullhorn yet? I mean:
Beautiful.
I think the answer is that nobody is given a national bullhorn — you have to take it for yourself by grasping for attention, and the sure way to do that is through the mantle of extremism.
And that is why reasonable people who prefer reasoned discourse are so unpopular.
Yes, well, I was asking the question a bit rhetorically. You’re absolutely right — much like Douglas Adams’ famous observation that those who want to weild power are usually the least fit to do so.
Still and all, what can be done to get thoughts like the one above out into the broader conversation?
youtube
Actually, he has a bullhorn. It just happens to be an empty toilet paper roll. Do-do-do!
Posts and comments on sites such as dailykos or mydd, a livejournal feed, letters to the editor, comments on major news sites that allow comments, calls to c-span, and my personal favorite — print up your own posters and tape them up.
Y’all are very sweet, but I should point out that many of your suggestions would require actual work, and some of them would require wearing pants. On the other hand, if some of y’all want to do the work part, I’m happy to do the blathering. And do-doodling with my cardboard trumpet.
I’ll also add that the Dems seem to be doing just fine without my two cents. A better response to the buffoon would be to laugh in his buffoon face and say “are you really saying that the Democrats need to change something? Or else what-they’ll win seven seats next time?
Thanks,
-V.
Well, to say that the Dems won, hooray, is all very well and good, but unless the Dems are motivated to actually DO something about the tyrany that still exists in this country and elsewhere (repeal the Torture Bill, bring back checks and balances to our much-lauded government of checks and balances, reinstate Taxes on Rich Fucks, lower the deficit, crap like that), we’re just as fucked with rich, greedy, corrupt Dem politicians as we are with rich, greedy, corrupt Rep politicians.
So, yes, the Dems need to change something. They need to change Business as Usual. And that will take backbone and elbow grease and integrity, which has been sorely lacking in American politics for a long time, on both sides of the aisles.
So give that man a bullhorn. And keep fucking yelling, V. ‘Cause the Dems need to hear the people, too. Whether they’re in power, or not.
we need to start greenhouse gas reductions very soon and with gusto. nothing is comparable. screw the deficit, screw social security, screw changing the tax brackets back unless it’s part of a deal to pay for the changes we need to make.
the amount we’ll need to deal with north american emissions is a lot more than the recently estimated 1% GDP, at least as an initial outlay. most of the mitigation measures will pay for themselves later but disaster preparations won’t.
all of the current reduction plans are way too slow and will need to be adjusted harshly within a year or two, to address the parts they don’t currently: deforestation and other (currently rapid) carbon sink loss, and high population growth in the country. my guess is we’re within 3-5 years of a crash diet. what changes we can make now we should, to give ourselves a head start.
That’s a good point.
I actually have more to say about this, but when I start talking about it, my psychosis becomes apparent (oh, dear, is my psychosis showing?), so I tend not to in public forums.
The short version is “Oh, hibiscus, you silly. It’s WAY too late for THAT.”
And I guess if I really believe that, then you’re right that the rest of it doesn’t matter either.
peace
Matt
different surgical procedures have different chances of success. not being able to figure the odds should have no bearing if there’s no other way to save the patient. we’re not an HMO, we’re the only conscious patient.