Grover Norquist really understands Washington. When asked what he thought would create more social comity between the parties he wasn't just being cute:Is it too much to ask, at this point, not why Feingold has introduced a censure resolution without getting permission from his party, but instead why his party didn’t introduce it a long time ago? Is it too much to ask, rather than castigating Feingold for making a bold move without his party’s support, that instead we look at his party and demand to know why their support wasn’t assured?Rock-ribbed Republican Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, proffered a solution, tell[s] us that Democrats must accept the finality of their powerlessness. "Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."He was showing a deep understanding of how today's political establishment works. The DC pundit-strategist class have "accepted the finality of Democratic powerlessness." People like Marshall Wittman and Eleanor Clift are telling the rest of us to do it too. Remember the GOP is the "daddy party" and you all know what he's like when he get's mad. Don't make trouble…
If the Democrats lose in November, I'm sure [Clift will] find plenty of reasons to blame Democrats, but it won't occur to her that the reason people didn't vote for the D's was because the party listened to people like her and campaigned like a herd of neutered animals instead of listening to their hearts, their minds, their constituents and their leaders who were prepared to take a stand for what we believe in. No, they'll blame the "extremists" who want a safety net and a sane terrorism policy --- and leaders who defend the constitution. It couldn't possibly be that their tired, stale reflexive passivity is to blame when half the base fails to turn out because they just. have. no. hope.
If saying, “I’m bloody grateful that someone is trying to do something” makes me unsophisticated, shows my simple mind for what it is, that’s fine with me. Call me crude; call me a dullard; call me a radical; call me anything you like. I don’t really give a flying shit. Because if after spending my days immersed in news and politics, my vacant, irrational mind can’t wrap itself around the intricate processes of politics that makes doing nothing the smart thing, and my woefully inadequate powers of perception can’t help me translate what appears to be slack-jawed passivity into the brilliant political strategy it actually is, then the Dems have a real problem on their hands.
Telling me repeatedly what a naïve little fool I am isn’t convincing me. It’s only pissing me off. And, boy, I’m trying to see the folly of my ways. I’m making a concerted effort to understand exactly what the elaborate and clever plan is that I just keep missing. But there’s a whole country of people out there who give it approximately one-billionth of the effort I do, and, as it happens, lots of them support censuring Bush, and none too few of them are wondering what the hell is the problem here. And what that leaves us with is a whole lot of people who apparently just can’t get their insignificant, empty, useless heads around your strategy. So on behalf of we legions of numbskulls, let me just suggest that perhaps your brilliant strategy is simply too brilliant. We’re just too dumb to get the subtle nuances that facilitate an understanding of how inaction=action.
Maybe you’ve got to bring it down a peg. Indulge our small- and literal-mindedness and try action=action.
Conversely, continue to condescend and pat us on the heads and trust that we’ll trust you. Bush has certainly showed us that blind faith in politicians who exhort patience and trust, because they know best, is a great idea.