You are herecontent / A Note to Randi Rhodes
A Note to Randi Rhodes
Dear Randi Rhodes,
You were talking today about our poll on impeachment, so Bob Fertik called in to speak with you. But you spent the whole conversation attacking the idea of impeachment, claiming that it couldn't succeed and would therefore make any Democrats who tried it look stupid.
Randi, Randi. Such fatalism! From YOU! Such misguided "pragmatism" and "strategic thinking." Don't you realize that people won't vote the Dems a majority BEFORE the Dems stand for something?
This whole chorus of "We'll try it once we have the majority," is self-contradictory. You can't GET the majority that way.
It's also inconsistent, because Dems are introducing and fighting for some bills, just not others. Have any of the bills and resolutions demanding investigations of the war lies or the Plame outing been more likely to pass than impeachment? Do you think Conyers and Lee and Holt and company all look stupid now?
And this way of thinking is also at odds with the record. When you elect Democrats with this line of thinking, you get the sort of Democrats who still don't do anything. You see things from New York, Randi. I see them from D.C., where people HAVE NO REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS. And for how many years did a Democratic majority fail to do anything about that?
To be fair, Randi, you did offer another strategy: "praying to god" that the Dems win some elections. But do you think that'll actually work?
Have you looked at the example of how the Republicans moved into the majority? Was it through self-censorship and fear or through aggressive futile attacks and getting a message to THEIR base, not OURS?
(If you answered "It was through stealing elections" that only shows that you're on our side and we need you, Randi.)
You're a wonderful voice, Randi, a hero and an example. Please don't buy into the defeatism of the corrupted thinking we're all fighting against. Please don't tell the Democrats they have to compromise in order to win. We have the network news and the New York Times to do that already.