Why does it take politicians YEARS to figure out what we see in seconds?

[garybeck]

One year later, Kerry thinks the election was stolen?

2-1/2 years later several Democratic congressmen start to think it was a mistake to give Bush authorization to use force?

Rising suspicion that the administration manipulated intelligence and lied about WMDs?

WTF?

We all saw this, and much more, while it was happening. It was plainly obvious. It doesn't take a brain surgeon.


If they just had the mind to see things as they are, maybe we wouldn't be in such trouble today.

We pay these people to represent us, to think things out, to do the right thing. If we can figure it out just by paying attention from the outside in, there is NO EXCUSE for them not seeing it. It is not acceptable to let things slide while they are happening and "figure it out" a year or two later.

[Cactus44]

1. They saw it too.

It just took this long for the political atmosphere to become such that it's OK to say so.

[garybeck]

3. If that's the case, it's no excuse.

I don't care what the "political climate" is. Speak the truth. Vote the correct way. PERIOD.

[Orrex]

5. You're right, but it's even worse than that!

Not only did they vote pro-war because of their perceptions of the political climate--they did it despite the fact that countless observers recognized immediately that it was a NeoCon tactic to maneuver Dems into an untenable position.

The Dems were complicit in their own castration, with Daschle personally wielding the scalpel.

[samdogmom]

12. I'm with you! It's time to stand up for what you believe.

I'm no longer supporting politicians that take stands depending upon which way the wind is blowing. There's a difference between right and wrong. I want representatives that speak the truth and worry about the consequences later. We've got a whole bunch of politicians unwilling to admit that our present "emperor" is naked. How can they live with themselves? I find it very troubling that "principled" men and women are willing to sell their souls for a little power and some campaign cash. I say, if you're not constantly trying to make a difference, get out of the way and let someone else try.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Unfortunately a lot of people around here insist that the pol

should not only stand up for what he believes, but agree with THEM on every decision. Lookit what happens to Feingold every time he votes to approve a nomination--he votes in accord with his particular belief about the system every time, and every time people scream that he betrayed them. Russ also voted the "wrong way" at one point in the Clinton impeachment process due to his beliefs & people tried to tear off his head on that one too.

I personally think Russ would be a great President, in particular because of his consistent voting, but a lot of people think he failed their particular litmus tests & won't back him.

[samdogmom]

18. True. But I have the utmost respect for Sen. Feingold.

Because he has followed his beliefs and not popular opinion, I trust his votes more. Sometimes he disappoints me, but I still send him campaign contributions. And, often when he votes differently from my opinion (i.e. "Yes" for the Rice and Gonzales nominations) I go back and re-evaluate my thinking. He doesn't change my mind, but I respect him for standing up to "peer" pressure. Believe me, I let him know my opinions. He always responds with a well-reasoned argument for his vote. Bottom line, I truly respect him because he "walks the walk and talks the talk".

[Jackpine Radical]

20. I'm with you all the way on Russ.

BTW--I was at the Sauk Co fairgrounds in Sept--bet you can guess why.
(Chippewa/Eau Claire type here)

[JVS]

17. By not saying anything they created that atmosphere themselves

[ElectroPrincess]

19. Exactly! And the lack of balls isn't only present on the DEM side of

the aisle. These politicians make a CAREER out of schmoozing about to be re-elected. That's why it's so difficult to beat an incumbent.

I hope we all remember "the few" (Boxer, Kucinich, Conyers, etc.) representatives and senators who actually stood up FOR THE PEOPLE of the united states without worrying how it would play in the polls. That's courage and good character.

The Senators who voted for this war are *gutless* because they knew, like we (and millions of others) and the rest of the world KNEW --> the Administration was "cooking the books."

The senators who voted for the war (to give Chimpy authority = one and the same because we all knew he would go in) were more concerned with their CAREERS / RE-ELECTION to take a truly honest and moral stand.

F**k Them! It will take a lot of ACTION on the behalf of the Average Working American for me to forgive the Senators who voted for this war. :puke:

[MadisonProgressive]

2. Either ignorance, or pure politcs

[unblock]

4. they see it all just as fast as we do. when it become PUBLIC...

that's the question.

it's all about power. the workings of the shrub misadministration has been that they have power, people are convinced that they have power, people fear their power, so everyone plays along.

everyone KNOWS about this scandal and that scandal, they know about the lies, they all know, or at least strongly suspect. but as long as they perceive that shrub has the power to get away with it, everyone plays along. as long as he's serving the interests of the powers-that-be, they support him.

it's only when the powers-that-be no longer see him as useful, or no longer see him as effective, that all this crap "suddenly" comes out.

it's not that any of this is a surprise. the only real change is that the powers behind the scenes finally decided to cut him loose and let the media tell the truth, at least somewhat.


personally, i think katrina was what did it. it convinced the true banana republican powers-that-be that shrub would not be useful in the '06 and '08 campaigns, and therefore it became in their interests to destroy him swiftly and develop future campaign strategies without him as a liability.

[garybeck]

8. they gave him the power.

by conceding too early, Kerry gave him the power. A year later, it is useless to suddenly realize the election was stolen.

by authorizing the use of force, they gave him the power. Saying it was a mistake, 2-1/2 years later, is very sad. We saw it back then.

[zalinda]

6. It's because they have to have proof

not just suspicion. Remember, most of these people are lawyers and are trained to look for PROOF. If you only suspect things then you might, let's say, go to WAR, for no reason.

zalinda

[garybeck]

10. proof was there. they ignored it.

Kerry never even looked into what happened in Ohio. Conyers had to do it for him. we all knew it was happening, though.

[noahmijo]

7. It's not a question of figuring it ou it's a question of ACTING

They know what we know probably before even we know it. The delay lies in the action taken to quell it or in most cases for the media to report said action is being taken.

[Dora]

9. Forest.... Trees....

It's all a matter of perspective, IMO. We have a different view on what's happening than Kerry, or any other politician has.

They're "in" it, for one thing. They're so involved with the inane pettiness of daily political life that they are blinded to the larger issues. They don't see what's happening because they can't see.

We're not in it, we are watching it on television and the internets. We are the victims and beneficiaries of their mistakes and good deeds. Twenty days with twenty focus groups will not teach these politicians the things that we, the populace, have learned through experience and observation. Why is that? Because focus groups are picked, groomed, selected, seeded and weeded.

So, they're beginning to see the forest despite the trees. It's up to us to say to them, "Yeah, quite a view, eh? Now whattaya gonna do about it?"

[hedda_foil]

11. Howard Dean explained it in a speech I attended.

He said that most politicians are risk averse late adopters, but that when they change they do it very rapidly. That's as good an explanation as any for how they've behaved and what they're doing now. What it boils down to is that most of the people we elect are not leaders.

[CJCRANE]

13. The MSM creates a "narrative"

and anyone who goes against that narrative is made to look like a crackpot.

Example narratives: * found his vocation on 9/11 and became a brave and decisive leader. "Values voters" turned out in droves in the '04 election and * won the popular vote by 3 million etc etc.

The "narrative" is slowly changing as the evidence accumulates. Eventually it'll be open season on * once his replacement is in place to step in.

[fjc]

15. What about the report of the Senate Committee on Intelligence

issued in July of 2004? Here's a link:

http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf

This report very pointedly raises questions on the veracity of Mr. Wilson and this whole episode of "forged documents" which is, as I understand it, the basis of the charge of manipulated intelligence. Anyone out here read this report? None of the recent news reporting on this issue, particularly after Mr. Reids forcing of a closed door session over Iraq, even mentions this report and its findings. Anyone out here able to shed some light on this?

[Village Idiot]

16. You only have limited visibility when your head's UP YOUR ASS!

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

21. They may see it, but won't say anything without some convincing

evidence to back them up. It really has been a compicated and terrible thing that has taken our nation.

Paul Krugman said in his OpEd (Oct 31) in the NY Times "Ending The Fraudulence"

"...So the Bush administration has lost the myths that sustained its mojo, and with them much of its power to do harm. But the nightmare won't be fully over until two things happen.

First, politicians will have to admit that they were misled. Second, the news media will have to face up to their role in allowing incompetents to pose as leaders and political apparatchiks to pose as patriots.

It's a sad commentary on the timidity of most Democrats that even now, with Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, telling us how policy was "hijacked" by the Cheney-Rumsfeld "cabal," it's hard to get leading figures to admit that they were misled into supporting the Iraq war. Kudos to John Kerry for finally saying just that last week...


So the long nightmare won't really be over until journalists ask themselves: what did we know, when did we know it, and why didn't we tell the public?"


http://select.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/opinion/31krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman