BS: Political Demo Convention

Subject: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 12:30 AM

Did any USAers listen to Senator Kerry on the MSNBC show after the speeches tonight. He was on a panel with Brian Edwards, Chris Matthews, Peggy Noonan, and the perennial expert on all things presidential, Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Senator Kerry, who I personally think is a great Senator, was trying valiantly to distance the Democratic Party from liberalism! What's going on here?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 12:47 AM

There was an interesting discussion on that very thing on Talk of the Nation on NPR, today, DougeR and there was plenty of disagreement among those on the panel. All about them wanting to go more "centrist" and others saying no, we cannot lose that liberalism. Who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 12:50 AM

Geez Doug, next yer gonna be tellin' me that they're tryin' to distance themselves from Bill!!

Actually I thought ol' spiral dork gave a pretty good speech the other night. So did Lieberman tonight. I doubt Gore's will be anywhere near as good, 'cause try as he might he just never looks comfortable. The debates should be great though. I'd love to just listen to Joey and Chaney go at it without the other two.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 01:08 AM

yes, Rick, I'd like to hear that debate too! I like Leiberman. Frankly, I'm not sure he is not best of the bunch. I do think (and understandbly so) he has softened his stance somewhat since getting the nomination. He can't be a successful VP candidate and oppose the nominated President's views, can he?

I'm trying not to let my bias get in the way, but I really was not impressed by any of the speeches tonight though. I think the Democrats (not the common folks but the handlers) are trying so hard to show that this ticket is different from Clinton that they are doing overkill. The common folks (Democrats) still love Clinton in spite of anything. Were he able to run, he would get the nomination again in a split second.

It is puzzeling to me though to see Senator Bob Kerry, an excellent U.S. Senator, (Democrat) trying to distance the party from it's traditional liberal stance.

The only (in my opinion) difference between Democrats and Republicans in the U. S. is that the majority of Democrats are liberal and the majority of Republicans are conservative. I'm not inferring that either party is controlled by extremists on the left or right, but that always seemed to me to be the major difference betweent he two parties. Liberal VS Conservative.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 01:34 AM

Now I know we don't vote for a Vice-President, but as I sit here listening to the replay of Lieberman's speech, I'm overcome with the thought that, all ideology aside, both Lieberman and Cheney are a lot more interesting and act more "Presidential" than Gore or Bush. Forget the positions for a moment and just listen to Joe Lieberman........You can't help but get the idea that the guy is honest and trustworthy. To some degree the same is true of Cheney. They at least LOOK and SOUND the part. They appear to actually have a personality and be people you could sit and talk with.

Now I know this is no way to determine how to vote.....I just find it amusing that the veeps are so much more loose and entertaining than their running mates and that's not generally the case.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: SeanM
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 02:44 AM

I'm sorry, but as I'm both a Democrat and living in the LA metropolitan area (Long Beach) this kinda gets to me.

What the hell is up with this year? Are these two bozos the best we can do? I see the values that I believed in and supported within the party being minimalized in the all important search for the 'sound bite', and can't believe that any of the two 'parties' are in it for more than corporate goodwill.

I'm damn near 30. I should be heading into the staid predictable period of "things are better for me, so screw you". Instead, I find myself disgusted by the utter disdain that both major parties seem to feel towards the general population.

What happened?

I really wish I knew.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: Susan from California
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 12:33 PM

Sean, It's just politics. The major parties feel that they have to appeal to the "mushy middle" during the race in order to be elected. So during election time it might feel as if the two major (and the only viable--sorry) parties are grossly similar. But don't let that fool you--they are very different. I won't go into a looooong post. because I don't want to write it right now, and you don't probably want to read it :-), but what I do is try to think about WHO the 2 parties want to protect, and I keep coming back to the R's want to protect the wealthy, and the D's want to protect everybody else. Add that to potential Supreme Court nominations, and I know who I am voting for.

As an aside, I went down to the protest area yesterday, and I have to say that in general, things were quite calm until the protesters were surrounded and not allowed into the "pit"--the caged off protest area right next to Staples. I went merely to observe history, and I am predisposed to believe that almost all police officers are good people doing a difficult job. That being said, some of the tactical decisions made were not what I would have done--why keep the protestors FROM THE DESIGNATED PROTEST AREA? Some protesters were just looking for a fight, some were not, but keeping them from that area was kinda dumd, in my opinion, and gave them something to be angry about. Some of the protesters were actually ***alert*** not child friendly**** pissing in bottles, supposedly to throw at the police. Now, just how rude is that? At a rally to protest brutality it seems to me that the protestors would be better off by behaving in a manner that is beyond reproach. Just my opinion...

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: kendall
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 12:53 PM

I did not watch the republican convention, or the Democrat convention. It's very simple for me. I ask myself.."Am I better off than I was 8 years ago?" YES. What have the republicans got for an issue? they act like they are running against Clinton with all that morality crap. That dog just wont hunt, Willy is not running. Here we go again with priorities.. Jefferson humped his slave, Cleveland fathered a love child, Harding was caught in the act in a closet with a white house maid, Roosevelt had a mistress, Ike had one,Kennedy needed a calculator to keep them straight. The Actor traded guns for hostages, lied about it, ran up 3 trillion dollar debt after promising to balance the budget, now along comes Willy, he gets a little nookie on the side and the hypocrites want to hang him. How screwed up can we be?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 01:04 PM

Susan: Your statement that "the Republicans are concerned only with protecting the wealthy and the Democrats concerned for everybody else" proves only one thing: that the Democratic spinmiesters are more successful than the Republicans at disseminating mis-information.

The major pieces of legislation that have been signed into law and have benefited Americans of all income levels during the past four years, could not have happened without the support of the Republican majority in the congress.

Who is trying to get the marriage tax penalty repealed? The Republicans! Who opposes it? The Democrats!

Surely you don't believe that all married folks are rich.

Who originated the recent legislation that allows millions of Americans over age 65 who wish to continue to work (or must), to keep all they earn without having to lose part of their social security earnings as a penalty for earning too much? The Republicans!

Which party wants to reduce taxes so that people can keep more of what they earn? The Republicans! Who opposes tax cuts? The Democrats. The Democratic spinmiesters would have you believe that tax cuts only benefit the rich. Think about that. Everybody pays taxes, an across the board tax cut can only result in helping everybody!

Only a few examples that show that Republicans are not concerned with just protecting or helping the "rich."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 01:36 PM

So DougR, who're you going to vote for?

Seriously, I can't really tell the difference. They all say one thing then do another. It's the same old choices: Coke vs Pepsi.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST, Banjo Johnny
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 03:11 PM

Back to the original question for a moment. I'm pretty sure the party is still trying to secure the support of labor unions. Labor -IS- the "traditional" mainstay of the party (not the liberal wing), and the hard hats are dead center. Once they lock down the AFL, UAW, Teamsters etc, they will start paying more attention to the environmentalists. I think they are keeping low-key on the gays and other fringe elements of the left. Don't misunderstand: I'm liberal and proud of it, but I'm trying to be realistic about the need for labor support.

== Johnny in OKC

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: kendall
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 03:14 PM

The republicans are desperate for an issue. Tax cuts..budget busting tax cuts. Listen..THERE IS NO SURPLUS!! we have a multi trillion dollar debt (thanks to the Actor) How in the hell can you give a tax cut on a "Projected" surplus? For the first time since Eisenhower we have a balanced budget, now in order to re capture the white house, at any cost, the republicans want to blow it on tax cuts. I would get about $200.00. how much do you think George Bush would get? It is a bogus issue. I repeat THERE IS NO SURPLUS!!

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 03:19 PM

I do think the issue is not just whether to cut taxes, but also how much, and for whom. Most people who move beyond sound bites and get into the particulars recognize that the tax cuts the Rebublicans are most intent on enacting have an impact that disproportionately favors those who need them the least, however they are packaged for public consumption. But the Republicans are getting good at naming, and thereby framing, these issues -- the so-called "marriage tax" and "death tax" make for pretty good sound bites, and since most people don't dig into these issues any deeper than the sound-bite level, the phrasing matters greatly.

I also think it's interesting that a number of people seem to feel the VP nominees are better qualified than the Presidential candidates. I don't necessarily feel that way this time around, but I did several years ago, when I cast the only write-in vote of my life for Lloyd Bentsen, Dukakis's running mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: Bert
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 03:21 PM

...how much do you think George Bush would get? - Perhaps even more than last time

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: kendall
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 03:22 PM

Doug R what has the republican party ever done for the common man? Tell me something that compares with Social Security, Minimum wage, overtime, womens right to vote, the creation of unions to protect the working man from the "Robber Barons". Do you really think the repeal of the marriage tax is equal to any of these? I dont believe they have ever done anything that didn't benefit them directly. If I'm wrong, tell me and I will say so on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST, Banjo Johnny
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 03:31 PM

Kendall is dead right. There is only a "projected" tax surplus. Who did the projection? What if it doesn't pan out? I think Gore is right, to reserve any excess taxes --if received. == Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 03:35 PM

Well, Whistle Stop, the "marriage" and the "death" taxes do exist. Should the basis for opposing or supporting an unjust tax be based on how it affects us?

The "death" and "marriage" taxes don't affect me;they do others, but since I'm not affected, they are good taxes and should continue to be levied. Is that what you are proposing?

It all goes back to the tired old Democratic argument that the wealthy are responsible for the fact that the majority of the people in the country are NOT wealthy.

Would those of you who really believe that, think about that a bit? If you are not wealthy, please point out to me, and the rest of the world which wealthy person prevented you from becoming wealthy. Please!

:>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: kendall
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 04:46 PM

You evade the question Doug

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: Susan from California
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 05:50 PM

DougR

You wrote "It all goes back to the tired old Democratic argument that the wealthy are responsible for the fact that the majority of the people in the country are NOT wealthy." I will take on that statement for now.

I have never claimed that I am not wealthy :-) and it all depends on perspective. The students that I teach think that I am, and compared to them, they are right. Many of my friends in the private sector SEEM really rich, and compared to me, they are. I know that I could make a lot more money elsewhere, but I am teaching because I have the idealistic notion that I can help an occaisional student to change his or her life for the better, and that better may have little or nothing to do with money. The Dems that I know do not blame the wealthy, they DO however, think that helping those who may not have the advantages that $$ brings is crucial to the overall health of our country.

BTW--I am definately affected by the so called "death tax" but I won't mind paying the tax because that is the price I pay to live in and be a part of this society. Don't know if I'm affected by the marriage tax, I suspect probably not but again, I am well aware of the benefits I have from living here, as the educated spouse of an educated person. I have rec'd intangible and tangible benefits from having educated parents. My children are better off because they have parents who are educated and involved. Not everyone has these benefits, and if some of my $$ can go towards making someone else's life better, then I am happy to share. I give $ to charitable organizations, to political causes, to religious groups and even *gasp* to people on the streets. I pay my taxes and I still have plenty left to live a decent life.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: bflat
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 06:02 PM

I simply do not want a refund in the near future that will only delay a taxable burden to my children. If indeed a surplus is identified I would hope it would be used to pay down the national debt and reinforce Social Security given the numbers who will derive benefits is on the upswing and the tax base, the young men and women of the US, are a decreasing sum. We need to be responsible to the heirs of our actions. Vote for Gore/Lieberman.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 06:26 PM

Susan: I think it is wonderful that you pay your taxes with a smile. I have no complaint about paying a reasonable tax on my income either. I support 100% the payment of taxes to support the federal government to do the job it was intended to do.

However, the "Marriage" and "Death" taxes are, in my opinion, punitive and unfair.

It is commendable that you do not mind paying the death tax. I personally do not believe that you should have to pay it, however.

I believe if a parent (or parents) are fortunate enough to acquire an estate valued at more than $675,000 (U.S.), they should be allowed to pass that estate on to their heirs without the government taking a slice of it.

As an heir, someone as public spirited as yourself, could voluntarily share their newly acquired wealth with those less fortunate than themselves if they wish.

However, without the tax, the money could be directed to the charity of your choice, not to some line item of expense in the federal budget.

There is no assurance that tax money raised through the "death" tax will be used for philanthropic purposes anyway.

It could be used to buy a tank. Or a piece of artillery!

I incidentally, have no reason to believe I will ever be subject to the "death" tax.

On teachers:I have great admiration for school teachers. My wife was a school teacher, and one of my daughters teaches school. I believe that my wife approached her vocation exactily as you do yours, with almost a missionary zeal. I believe that my daughter, who still teaches, does the same.

Teachers are maligned, underappreciated, and are involved in one of the most important vocations that exists. I'm all for them. DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 06:39 PM

Sorry Kendall, I didn't see your question.

By implying that the Democratic Party single handedly is responsible for: Social Security, Minimum Wage, Overtime, Women's Right to Vote and the creation of Labor Unions, you are also implying that the Republicans were opposed to them.

Without doing some historical research, I cannot refute your claims. However, I will do the research I promise you.

Gee, whatever happened to that good old Democratic philosophy espoused by your hero, John Fitzgerald Kennedy? "Ask not what your government can do for you; ask what YOU can do for your government!"

:>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: Fortunato
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 07:05 PM

I like Al. From what I can gather he is the most qualified man to be president. If he is not affable like Reagan, still he is not an actor. If he is not charismatic like John Kennedy, still he is every bit as high minded in his public life. If he is centrist, then forward thinking about our environment, our children's health, etc. should be centrist.

I could go on. Chance

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: kendall
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 07:23 PM

point of fact Doug, JFK was not a hero of mine. He did nothing outside the battle for civil rights. I encourage you to research what I said, and, I believe you will find, as I did, that every one of those programs I mentioned were fought tooth and nail by the conservatives in congress. Hell man, the republicans are STILL fighting against minimum wage! I cast my first vote for Eisenhower. I supported Goldwater, I voted for Nixon (once) in fact, I came within inches of joining the John Birch Society!! God, I cant believe I was that blind. What changed my mind? Education. I majored in history when I attended college at the age of 40. IF YOU WANT TO LIVE LIKE A REPUBLICAN, VOTE DEMOCRAT. Harry Truman.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 08:23 PM

Hey, DougR- I see you practice the time-honored Republican virtue terminological inexactitude by mangling Kennedy's quote to make your very dubious point. I should think that the difference between being asked to do something for your 'country' rather than for your 'government' would be obvious, especially to a self-proclaimed patriot and champion of the common man such as yourself. And by all means, do yourself, and us, a favor and take on that historical research you mention above prior to sounding off- I think it might be instructive for you to discover that Kendall is indeed correct- might make your posts a trifle less condescending to those that don't share your Republican point of view.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 08:44 PM

Getting a bit testy Greg? Well, that's your right, I guess. Most of the postings on the Mudcat are pretty civil (one to another) but there are exceptions of course.

I shall do the research as I promised Kendall.

In my opinion you are drawing a rather thin line when you differentiate between government and country, as I believe Kennedy meant it to be. I fail to see how the country can do something for someone (like provide food, drink, sustence, medical care, etc.) without it being dispensed by the government.

If you feel that my remarks, comments, statements of opinion have been patronizing, I have not intended them to be. I think it about strange that after over a year of posting on the Mudcat, you are the first to point this out to me.

Best,

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 09:24 PM

Hi Doug! We've been through this already, you and I. I would like to point out the difference between "Your government", and "Your Country".

Your government is a collection of elected officials, generally professional politicians, who are paid to serve their constituents. The average elected official 'wins' with roughly 12% of the voting population, because of the low voter turnout these days. The constituants usually boil down to the "most economically influential" PAC groups...

Your Country, however, includes ALL the people old and young, And it implies land use factors also. For the future generations, Replace the word 'Country' for the word 'world'. National boundaries are meaningless to the corporations (except as a leverage for more profit...), and any nationalistic ferver at this point will probably benefit them the most.


vote nader

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: kendall
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 10:22 PM

Doug, I just want to say that in spite of all the dis agreements we have had, you have not offended me, and, I defend your right to be wrong LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST,Luther
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 10:32 PM

well, DougR, you can start with, hey, freeing the slaves! That's right, the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order from a Republican President!

Of course, it only applied to slaves in the Confederacy, but it's the thought that counts. Now, let's see those democrats top that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: Sandy Paton
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 10:58 PM

Gee, DougR, Al Gore must have been reading your posts. I assume you heard what he had to say tonight about death taxes and marriage penalties. If you didn't, you should get and read a copy of his acceptance speech. Might give you pause to reflect.

Sandy

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 11:12 PM

Kendall: I just watched the Vice President's speech. I agree with you that there is actually no surplus at the present time, though both parties have announced plans as to how it will be spent.

After listening to the VP's speech tonight, which I thought was the best delivery he has ever made, I couldn't blame anyone for voting for him. After all, he offered everybody a free lunch! Everbody! Free! Wow!

If, however he is elected (and can there be any doubt?), there certainly will never be a surplus! If he is successfull in giving everybody everything he promised, we will back deeply in debt!

Thomas the Rhymer: I just don't know what to say. But I'll go along with your suggestion: Vote for Nader!

Oh, and Kendall, I wouldn't say anything intentionally to offend you. I think you know that. I'm just sorry you went to the wrong college in your 40s. You obviously went to one that taught weird history, and the Republicans lost a good conservative! (kidding of course).

Luther: that probably wouldn't count because it happened a long time ago, and critics would probably charge that Lincoln did it just to please big business.

Uh oh. We are lost. The gentleman just delivered the closing prayer and asked God to be with Gore and Liberman, and didn't mention Bush and Cheany. So, I guess that's it. The end. kaput. I'll go fishing election day. No need to show up.

Ooops! Diane Fienstein just asked God to bless the Democratic party and didn't mention the Republican Party, or the Green party, or the Independent Party or any other party ...so no doubt about it. Gore is going to win.

Shucks shoot. I was wrong again. I also was wrong in 1941. I thought they were going to attack Guam.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 11:24 PM

Gore certainly did a fine job tonight and I think he stood out and away from whatever negatives can be made of the "Clinton Shadow." He'll get a significant boost in the polls and probably more than what can normally be expected out of a convention. I think the Dems can celebrate a victory of conventions here at the very least.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: MarkS
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 11:35 PM

When Kendall asked "How screwed up can we be?" he asked the right question.
The only way to break the lock both parties have on society and use your vote to call for meaningful reform is to support Ralph Nader.
Do I expect him to win? No. Do I hope he gets enough support to have his candidacy affect the debate even more next time? You Bet.
True, lasting reform must come incrementally. Take the small step this time and support Nader. Next time his influence and ideas will be greater still.
MarkS

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 12:09 AM

Got to agree with you, Spaw. I don't think my party has a chance. And just think, it happend with only one speech!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST, Banjo Johnny
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 01:32 AM

All these preachers are giving God a bad name.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 02:34 AM

The Republican party of Lincoln's time was equivelant roughly to the demacratic party now. I don't remember why right now though....


nader really can win!

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 08:23 AM

I'm always amused when Republicans claim to be "The Party of Lincoln". No one alive in 1860 would recognize either Democrat or Republican party today. Of course, no one could reasonably expect they would after 140 years of evolution & change, and such "heirs of Lincoln" claims are nonsense.

But what REALLY hands me a laugh is when Republicans- particularly the Conservative wing- try to embrace Lincoln as an example of what they stand for. They have obviously never read the man, e.g.:

      "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only
      the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not
      first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves
      much the higher consideration."
      First Annual Message to Congress, 3 Dec 1861

      "But you say you are conservative-eminently conservative-
      while we [the Republican Party] are revolutionary, destructive,
      or something of the sort.
      What is conservatism? is it not adherence to the old and tried,
      against the new and untried?"
      Address at Cooper Union, 27 Feb 1860

doesn't sound much like Dubya, does it?

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 08:33 AM

There are two big reasons that people refer to a Democratic/Republican flip-flop since Lincoln's time. One, in Lincoln's time it was the Republicans who championed civil rights (abolition of slavery), and the Democrats who fought it. Two, in Lincoln's time it was the republicans who championed a strong central government, and the Democrats who advocated "states rights". The positions of the parties on both of these issues were reversed in the 20th century (primarily during and after FDR's administration), and it is still generally true that Democrats lead the charge on civil rights and a strong central government, and Republicans oppose them.

I'm not inviting a debate on the nuances of these questions, because we'd go on forever, and I have other things to do. I think the above statements are generally recognized to be true, although I have no doubt that those of a different political persuasion than mine might express them differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST,Luther
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 09:27 AM

Thomas, I'm not sure I'd equate the Republican party of Lincoln to the current Democratic party, even roughly. It was a third party, formed by a coalition of disaffected radical Democrats and Whigs in 1854. Eight years later the country elected Lincoln.

yes, Nader can win, in this sense -- the goal is to take %5 of the popular vote, qualifying the Greens for federal matching funds in 2004 and solidifying the party. To win an election will take a coalition larger than any "third party" can muster this time around -- what the shape of that coalition will be, we'll find out when we get there.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST,The Yank
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 07:57 PM

Geo. W. Smirk's reposte is that Gore is advocating class warfare?!?? Jaysus, sounds like old Joe McCarthy!! Back to the future....

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 08:01 PM

Well, Kendall, I did part of my assignment but ran out time. From the shopping list you gave me to research, I did Social Security and Women's Suffrage. Here is what I found out: Social Security: My informatiion comes from a government publication which teachers use to teach classes about the program.

Obviously without research we know it came into being in 1935 When Franklin Roosevelt was president and the Democrats controlled the congress. The publication listed seven major highlights of the program since it was established. 1935, enacted and covered workers in Commerce and Industry;1939, Survivors and Dependents befefits were added; 1940, first monthly benefits paid. All of these were passed while Roosevelt was president and the Democrats controlled both houses of the congress. 1956, Disability benefits were added and provision providing protection against loss of income due to involuntary retirement. These were the Eisenhower years and I believe the Republicans controlled both houses of the congress. 1965, Medicare was added to the program, and Lyndon Johnson was President with a Democratic controlled congress; 1972, the program was extended to cover people with permanent kidney failure. Richard Nixon was President and the congress, I believe, was controlled by the Democrats. The last major highlight listed in the book was in 1983 when changes were made to assure sufficient income into the program for the foreseeable future. Ronald Reagan was President, and I believe the Democrats controlled the congress. In 1999, the earnings cap was lifted for people over the age of 65 and of course Bill Clinton is president and the congress is controlled by the Republicans.

So Kendall my friend, since three out of the five highlights were initiated on the watch of Republican presidents, I don't think it would be fair to say the Republicans never did anything for the common people.

Women's Suffrage: The book I used for research is titled, A History of the American Suffragist Movement, by Doris Weatherford with a Forward by Geraldine Ferraro.

I don't think either party can boast very much about this one. If there was a Democrat hero, it would be Woodrow Wilson, who supported the women's movement primarily because he was afraid of them. The tended to gang up on politicians in both parties who didn't support the effort to give women the vote. If there were villans, I would say it was neither party. The villans were men. The men of America did not want to give women the vote. As I'm sure you are aware, prior to passing the 19th Amendment to the Constitiution, states decided whether women in any particular state could vote. Leaders of the movement fought fifty years before the succeeded. However at both party conventions in 1916, both the Republican and Democratic parties included in their party platforms "unequivocal declarations in favor of Suffrage."

Also, in 1916, the great state of Montana was wise enough to send the first woman EVER to the United States Congress and she was a Republican. Jeanette Rankin became the ranking Republican on the House Committee dealing with Suffrage. She led the fight for Suffrage in the House of Representatives.

The 19th Amendment passed in the House of Representatives on May 21, 1919. The Senate did not pass it until June 4, 1919 and both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate was controlled by the Republicans.

Woodrow Wilson was out of office by this time and Warren G. Harding, a Republican, was President.

I will concede, of course, that the Democratic Party is the champion of Labor. That party likely has carried the battle for the minimum wage too. They should. The labor unions donate millions of dollars to the Democratic Party and to it's candidates.

So, that's the results of my research today. I don't feel the GOP came out that bad at all, all things considered.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 08:19 PM

Your "research" gets a "D+" or maybe a "C" at best. Now go back and do your assignment over, Dougie, and check the womens suffrage movement before 1916, and the battles over the idea of 'social security' before 1935- and you may reach a different conclusion. While you're at it, check the history of the Labor Movement from 1830 to 1930 or so, before spouting platitudes about the evil labor unions.

I take it the Wife wasn't, and daughter isn't a history teacher, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 08:45 PM

Nope, guest without a name, I've done all the research I'm gonna do.

Thanks for your reply though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST,Luther
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 08:57 PM

ah, ok, my first glimmer of what the fuss is about concerning nameless guests.

DougR, you and I are very, very far apart in our political sympathies, but I also have to say that I respect, very much, the way you've pursued this discussion in good faith. nuff said, eh?

If you're still curious about the relationship between labor and the Democratic Party, you might want to read more about the Wilson administration, which gave us, among other things, the Espionage Act, the Palmer raids, the ascendance of J. Edgar Hoover, and the imprisonment of Eugene Debs. It's a pretty interesting story, and the aftermath is still with us.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 08:58 PM

Yup! Should the facts begin to intrude upon your preconceived notions, shut your eyes. There are none so blind as those that WILL not see. Great American tradition...

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST,Luther
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 09:02 PM

meant to add, anyone interested in Nader ought to have a look at this month's Harper's (no blue clicky, it's one of those retro magazines actually made out of paper).

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST, Banjo Johnny
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 09:02 PM

The history is fascinating, but the important thing is what each party proposes to DO in 2001. == Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 09:31 PM

Thanks, Guest Luther, I'll do that!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST,Roland Hedley
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 10:01 PM

Thomas The Rhymer thinks Nader can win.

Ralphie Boy will be president of the United States the same week that Rick Fielding's latest CD rockets to the top of the Billboard Rap Chart.

But if you really want to see Bush in the White House, then cast your vote for Nader. He just may draw enough away from Gore to insure Bush's election.

Then Ralph can accept any blame for the repeal of consumer protection laws that will come from Bush. Or for the repeal of enviornmental protection that will come from Bush. Or the appointment of Supreme Court Justices who will repeal Roe v. Wade.

Nader used to to good things for the country. Now he's just an egocentric spoiler who'd turn back decades of progress by helping Bush get elected.

Yeah Thomas, you vote for Nader.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: JamesJim
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 09:11 PM

Guest Roland has given us good advice - vote Nader and see Bush elected! Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 03:37 PM

Kendall: You still out there somewhere?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: Alice
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 03:51 PM

Nader doesn't stand a snowball's chance in LA. I've been reading on the internet and listening on the radio and tv to people who claim to be Nader voters, and the vast majority seem to reside in California. I think he must have a loud bandwagon in that state, but in the other 49 states, he has neither a band nor a wagon. You have to be realistic about this. Even if you hold your nose while you vote, your choice should be a candidate that has a realistic chance to be elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 05:59 PM

I think you're right, Alice. Those that vote for Nader or anyone else will be voting their principles, but it will come down to Bush/Gore.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 07:06 PM

A friend of mine and i were talking about that this weekend and wondered, at what point do enough us say "enough" to the two party tired old system and vote for the Green Party, to really get the point across that we are not going to stand for politics as usual, anymore? No more of the scare tactics of a "vote for Ralph is a vote for Bush" etc.?

It just seemed to us that is we ever want to get out of the quagmire of "business as usual", everyone who is truly unhappy and wants changes in the political system may need to make a sacrifice, by voting with their conscience, not a political party. I know it may be a HUGE sacrifice, but that is usual what happens when such fundamental changes may be needed.

It seems scary and I don't know if that is what I am going to do or not, but something has to change; there has to be real reforms and I don't know if the "usual gang of idiots" to quote Alfred E. Neuman, understand that unless we, the people, figuratively hit them over the head by voting quite opposite of what they predict.

Just some thoughts. And, Doug, my grandma would luvya! You are a true gentleman, but I already knew that! Now, if YOU were the GOP nominee for Prez....well, look out! Mudcats in the White House, yeah!!!!

luvyakat

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: kendall
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 07:45 PM

I'm here. Just got back from a trip to Canada, and before that a week in Florida. I didnt mean to complicate your life Doug. My point is simply that it has been the liberals who have initiated laws for the common man. Sure the conservatives have improved things, but out of love for the welfare mother? not on your life! it was for their own good knowing that it was politically ecpedient. They never initated such laws. And, I'm as sick of the 2 party system as anyone, but, it is plain to anyone who sees that a vote for Nader IS a vote for Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 08:53 PM

I think there is little doubt about the voting issue, Kendall. Reform candidate and Libertarian votes will take votes away from Bush too.

Kat, I think those of you who are not satisfied with the two party system have to get very involved in the grass roots movements of third and fourth parties. I doubt it will be accomplished with one or two elections.

Wouldn't that be something, kat? DougR as president? I'd certainly have a lot of good candiates for the job of Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts right here at the Mudcat.

Now before somebody starts a draft DougR movement let me assure one and all, I'm not interested in the job. So no groundswell of support, please!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: kendall
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 09:27 PM

ok I for one, will honor your wishes!!

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 12:14 AM

Jeeze, Kendall, you were on top of my list for the job! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 12:33 AM

We can risk a vote for the third party of our choice when the Supreme Court is not apt to have and vacancies for the following four years. If that were the case this year, I, too, might vote for Nader and the Greens. But it most definitely is NOT the case this year.

Shucks, I worked for Henry Wallace and the Progressive Party in 1948, although I wasn't quite old enough to vote for him. If the Republican candidate hadn't been so unappealing, the votes for the Progressive Party and the Dixiecrats might have taken the election away from Harry Truman and given us Dewey. Heaven Forbid!

As for this year's threat to the Supreme Court, I suppose you all heard that George Bush thought Roe versus Wade was a decision Washington had to make when he planned to cross the Delaware and attack Trenton.

Sandy

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 12:50 AM

Funny, Sandy. :>) DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 01:02 AM

LMAO, Sandydarlin'! Good one and good point, noted, believe me. Now, DougeR, since even my dog knows what a bush is for, why dont' we just start a little write-in campaign for you,luv?

katlaughing

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: Sandy Paton
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 01:11 AM

Regained my missing cookie. Thanks, Max. Felt like one of those unpleasant types without it. I happily agree with everyone that DougR seems to be a remarkably reasonable and humane type of Republican. Can we swap him for Cheney?

Sandy

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: DougR
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 12:45 PM

I doubt it, Sandy. There's not much of a market for old farts like me. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: GUEST,Luther
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 01:02 PM

ah! Good for you, Kat, good for you. The situation is not quite as bleak as you might imagine, it looks like we can take the %5, and that's the very real point of the Nader campaign. Sorry if I remember this incorrectly, but aren't you in Wyoming? There's no risk at all in voting Nader in a hard-core Republican state. Wyoming's electoral votes are going to Bush, and a less-than-majority popular vote within Wyoming is useless to Gore. The situation is reversed for third parties: we're extremely unlikely to take any electoral votes at all, but popular vote is absolutely critical. I know you're also nervous about Roe, but once again a vote for Gore in Wyoming is not going to change anything. And a vote for Nader is not just an empty gesture, it's one step. If we take the %5, it will be a pretty big step.

Now's the time, Kat. Do what you know is right.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Demo Convention
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 05:09 PM

Luther, if I lived anywhere at all, besides Wyoming, where voting against the GOP is like pissing in the wind, which we have plenty of, I would not vote for Nader, but I have to say, if I can help with the 5%, I will probably do just that. I have already signed a petition to get him on the ballot here; don't know if he will make it, but I guess I can write him in.

Sorry, Sandy....

luvyakat