I recently discovered something unexpected whilst reloading my data bank for a series of posts I'm preparing on the past peregrinations of our dear little House donkeys. (Part One is already here on the site.)
It just popped up in front of me, thanks to that damn old parlor cat Vann Woodward, and it's been haunting my inner nights ever since, like I'm a murderer in a Poe tale.
Well here I am, unable to take any more, unloading my burden:
In the annals of donkey-controlled Houses, there is one stark, bright counterexample to all our ravings, here at Stop Me, about donkeys having brays but no kick -- eclair-like spinal systems that sway like that mountain in a recent movie, etc. There was, in point of fact, a moment when a donkey-controlled House actually stood up, yes stood up, and against a Republican White House and a Republican Senate -- stood up against 'em and damned if they didn't prevail.
And there's still more pertinence here. These Democrats were opposing an armed occupation by US troops -- and in a real drama, like we can only dream of today, this fearless band of House Democrats refused to pass any legislation to fund the army. None at all, even with strikers rioting in the streets of Pittsburgh -- not a penny would they vote, till that occupation force was removed.
They held their ground for 9 months, steadfastly refusing to budge, even as one Republican president suceeded another. They held their ground till finally the other side caved in and those troops were removed.
So yes, the Daily-kosnik dream of an end to our Iraqupation, just by taking control of the house, has a solid precedent....
If the congressional Democrats of today can take on this outrageous oil-patch Republican reign of darkness in the Middle East with the same gumption that their predecessors, back in 1877, showed against the extremist, bloody-shirt Republicans' armed occupation of -- ahh, you guessed it! -- the defeated Confederacy.
Comments (5)
A dem controlled House? Not much to worry about there. Between Rahm's mighty prowar sockpuppets and the current feckless bunch of trough-wallowing incumbants; I'd bet even money that the most scandal-ridden of scandal-ridden Republicans feel all safe 'n snug in their gerrymandered districts - visions of porkbarrels dancing in their heads.
Posted by AlanSmithee | January 31, 2006 5:21 PM
Posted on January 31, 2006 17:21
Yep. Bush and Cheney would have to be caught in flagrante with a quadruped for the Democrats to have a chance in hell of taking the House. But these hypothetical scenarios are fun, aren't they?
Posted by MJS | January 31, 2006 6:03 PM
Posted on January 31, 2006 18:03
Of course, they were standing up for a bunch of recalcitrant racists at the time. It's standing up for anyone that doesn't have power where their spines turn 'eclair-like' (I love that phrase).
Posted by DoubleHelix | February 1, 2006 1:25 PM
Posted on February 1, 2006 13:25
I'm going to scream if I read one more time that "infiltrating the Democrats" is the answer. How does one infiltrate an organization that's already been infiltrated ? Isn't that a double negative ?
I got occasionally snickered at and mostly ignored at the end of 2004 by other feminists when I suggested that the reason Reid was elevated in the party was precisely *because* he was pro-life. That it was not a coincidence. But I suppose if I bring his presence up as a motivating factor (as opposed to a coincidental presence) in the Scalito debacle, I'll be acused of being a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist who needs to put down her bong.
Shit.
Posted by alsis39 | February 1, 2006 9:28 PM
Posted on February 1, 2006 21:28
Too late. Too late. Congress is the College of Thieves and Idiots.
Posted by ddjango | February 3, 2006 6:02 PM
Posted on February 3, 2006 18:02