It’s hard to know where to begin…

The New York Times published a piece that seems to be 100% authored by the “Republicans are strong on security, Democrats are listless and disorganized” meme. The story claims that Feingold’s censure motion has incited a great deal of Republican backlash in the form of unity and strong messaging against the Dems. This has only been helped by the minimal support Democrats have given Feingold’s proposal.

While the Times pushing the same, tired, patently false narrative that the GOP wants them to push isn’t exactly news, the manner in which David Kirkpatrick does it this time is. Rather than going to a slew of Republican pols and strategists, he bases the overwhelming number of facts and quotes that build-up to the point of his article on Republican partisan pundits and commentators. To wit, the Wall Street Journal and Rush Limbaugh.

Four times. Four fucking times Rush Limbaugh is quoted in this article. This is journalism? When was the last time a paid partisan pundit was quoted in the paper of record so extensively? Sure, Carville, Matthews, and Russert might make their way into stories from time to time, but they’ve actually worked in political offices or are stalwarts of the Beltway journalist circuit. Limbaugh’s name should never grace the pages of the paper of record, other than in instances where, as a celebrity, is the subject of news - like “Rush Limbaugh Admitted to Rehab for Drug Addiction” or “Limbaugh Remarries for a Fourth Time”. Would you ever dream of Jon Stewart, Al Franken, or Ed Schultz getting quoted as a source of a NY Times article on the Dubai Port Authority mess or on a speech by Bush on statement about Iran? These are things that have united the Democratic base, but the Times rightly doesn’t turn to the partisan punditry for a quote. It’s inexcusable that they would go to Limbaugh to bash the Democrats four fucking times.

Now, it is true that the Republicans are flocking to defend the president from any consequence for his illegal wiretapping of Americans. Republicans know that if Democrats get their shit together, Bush will continue to lose on the NSA scandal. Lose all the way to the bank:

“Impeachment, coming your way if there are changes in who controls the House eight months from now,” Paul Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer, declared last month in an e-mail newsletter.

The threat of impeachment, Mr. Weyrich suggested, was one of the only factors that could inspire the Republican Party’s demoralized base to go to the polls. With “impeachment on the horizon,” he wrote, “maybe, just maybe, conservatives would not stay at home after all.”

Now, to me, when Republicans say they’re scared about impeachment it’s because they know Bush has provided us with a pretty damned big hammer to use against them. They are scared. When scared, Republicans cluster around the president to provide him with ample protection from the situation he’s placed himself in. It is not a bad thing for Democrats to have Republicans thinking Bush will be impeached if we win back the House. Good God, the fact that they’re even publicly talking about Bush being impeached because he broke the law should read like a giant fucking billboard over the Lincoln Memorial that says “Democrats: You Can Win On This, America Is Behind You!” Our base is motivated - the blogosphere is behind censure, America is against Bush.

But Democrats aren’t there. They aren’t behind Feingold and they’re running around scared shitless of what the next attack ad the RNC might run will say. Let me make myself clear so we can move past this: No matter what you do, Republicans will accuse Democrats of being soft on terrorism and weak on defense. Support the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, but later voice doubts about it: you’ll be called weak. Reject the Patriot Act and demand our troops be brought home so not another one has to die for the president’s lies: you’ll be called a wimpy traitor. Fuck. That. Noise. It’s not true and it will never change until you grow a pair and stand up for what you believe in. You cannot run a national political party based on your fear of your opponents next attack ad. And if you Democrats can’t take a look at the blogosphere, the vanguard of your political base, and see that we have a spine and we’ll happily inject it into you given the opportunity, well then you don’t deserve to represent us anymore.

There’s a lot of weak-ass common wisdom about why Dems shouldn’t and haven’t gotten behind Feingold’s censure motion. Digby does a great job of debunking it point by point.

Please tell me that the Democrats are not going to withhold criticim of Bush because it might make Republicans rally around him. Karl Rove and Tom DeLay have run the GOP with an iron fist for almost eight years. The Republicans have lost the ability to function without them. They are confused and rudderless and they will run back and forth toward Bush and against him dozens of times over the next few months. They literally don’t know where to turn.

Yes, Feingold probably did bring Republicans together. For five full minutes until the latest polls came in which have George W. Bush at 33% today. Do Democrats really think that Republicans can turn that around if they vote for this censure motion? (If they do then Rove and Delay have already done their jobs well. They have convinced the Democrats that the GOP is omnipotent.)

[…]

Well yes, by all means a strategy whereby we count on Specter to hold “real” hearings is spot on. What could possibly go wrong? Why, if we wait until after the 2008 election, he might even do it.

I said this yesterday and I’ll repeat it. This image of “powerlessness” at a time when the Republicans are on the ropes is the biggest problem we face for the fall elections. If Democratic pols don’t understand that they are flirting with terrible grassroots defeatism, then they are going to lose. They must take action (and I don’t mean boring press conferences and 10 point plans) or it won’t matter a damn if the Republicans are on the ropes — demoralized Democrats are not going to bother with them. Come on. Speak for us. If not now, when?

I’m glad I’m not a Democrat in Washington. From what I can tell a qualifying trait is paralysis from fear of warrantless accusations. It must take a truly horrifying level of fear to get to the point where their will is so weak they refuse to do what is good for them. The hue and cry from the blogosphere against this adminstration, for the Democrats to do something about it, is so overwhelming that it blows my mind every time I see Democrats back away from the right side of an issue.

Democratic strategy shouldn’t be an oxymoron. It shouldn’t be a last-man-standing approach to winning back control of the country — as in, “well the Republicans have cancer on their big toe and if we stand around and don’t do anything about it, in fifteen years we’re bound to get power back and then it will be happy days!” The Heretik puts the situation well:

As reality catches up to Bush, Democrats are still pictured as running away from challenging the mighty Commander in Chief (of the armed forces) who has lost command of the terms of the debate.

With Bush at 33%, Democrats should be gearing up for a major push. Start with censure, hold hearings, rework legislation to strip some of Bush’s dictatorial powers, and get a case going in federal court that can put Bush in his place with his notion of endless war, infinte powers. Instead, the Democrats look like they just had a forty-five car pile-up in an six lane intersection with a broken stoplight. One’s left wondering if the Democratic response to Bush is actually as big a clusterfuck as Iraq. Is it fortunate or unfortunate to say that the Dems, in fact, are not as big a clusterfuck as Iraq.

Of course people immediately trot out the “coordinating Dems is like herding cats” line, but that is frankly a load of bullshit. Sure, we’re a diverse party and forty-five of our senators want to be president. But getting politicians from the same party on the same message is completely doable - the Republicans are known for it. The problem isn’t a lack of coordination, it’s a lack of will to win created by an absolute fear of how the Republicans might next defame them. But now the netroots are here and we’ve got the backbone, research staff, and wallet to help you win. Digby, the remix:

Come on. Speak for us. If not now, when?