BS: Obit: the Democratic Party

Subject: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:27 AM

First of all, to all my Dem friends here, I "feel your pain" BUT now is a good time for you folks to think seriuosly about joining your local Green Party.

The Dems have shown here that they have no new ideas and not much different than the other guys and that is why the lost and will continue to loose in the future. They no longer satnd up for a working class who themselves were the biggest loosers in yesterday's election.

The biggest winners: Big Oil, Defense Contractors, Pharacudicals, Mega Corporations.

And one other thing to think about: those statehouses that the Dems won are like mine fields. With shrinking revenues, these Dems will be demonized over the next couple of years as they cut service or raise taxes. That will be the final blow to your party.

Think Green.

Bobert

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Peter T.
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:33 AM

From a foreign perspective, it is hard to figure out why the Democrats went so spineless. Spooked by a wartime president, I guess. But you think they might have gone after estate taxes, a surplus wiped out (always seems to be "big spending" Democrats who get the surpluses, and Republicans who go into deficits), AND THE ENVIRONMENT. Go Green.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:35 AM

Greens lost their major party status in Minnesota in this election Bobert. Despite my voting for them in nearly every race where they had a candidate, I don't think that voting Green will save us from the fascists who are now in control of business and government.

It truly is more complicated than that. Profoundly more complicated than that.

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: kendall
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:39 AM

We made a little progress here in Maine. We now have a democrat governor. The other offices stayed as they were, two republican senators, and, unless things changed drastically after I went to bed ;last night, two reps to the house.
Bobert, you are right. I am very disappointed in my party. Gephart and Daschle have to go. One is a whinner, the other stands for nothing in particular.
We had a Green running for governor, he got over 10% ran on public funds and lost. It wasn't because he didn't get his message out, it was his personality, and I hope he doesn't run again.

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:48 AM

Seventy per cent of Americans entitled to vote did not vote, I gather. That's a pretty overwhelming rejection of the politicians.

In many countries a turn out like that that'd mean the elections would be null and void and they'd have to run another one.

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:50 AM

And again:

"No one ever went broke underestimating

the intelligence or taste of the American people."

H. L. Mencken

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:51 AM

The biggest problem with the Greens is their inexperience with electoral politics, and their stridency over things people already agree with them about.

If we could change the world by showing up to vote every couple years, I think we'd have done it by now. Like I said, the place the murderous US finds itself in today is profoundly complex. It has become such an entrenched global empire that nothing short of the government being overthrown in a revolution can change it, and I don't foresee that happening any time soon. Despite the remote possiblity (statistically nil actually) of our overthrowing the government at the ballot box, no one will ever succeed at doing it.

There are extreme limits on what can be accomplished through electoral politics, because of the ability of politicians to set up a corrupt system, such as the one we have now, that greases the wheel of bribery of the government by the wealthy. The expectation that this can be changed by the beneficiaries of graft, bribery, and corruption voluntarily giving up their wealth and power to help "the little fella" is ludicrous in the extreme, and where I draw the line with liberals like Wellstone.

Change will never come from within the electoral political system. Never. It will only come from the pressures put upon that system from outside of it. And we are a long way from that happening.

Nonetheless, it is the only way to fight the good fight, and what we should be concentrating upon, rather than piecemeal petty "reforms" which get instantly subverted, such as the campaign finance reform bill that takes effect today. John McCain admitted last night that the intent of the law has already been subverted by the two party interests that be.

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST,Paula Punditstone
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:02 AM

Hey Bobert, you articulate Republican.

What the hell are "Pharacudicals"?

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:11 AM

BTW, in Minnesota the Republicans swept every major office up for election--the US senate seat, the governor, secretary of state and state auditor, gained in the Minnesota House (which they already control) and cut deeply into the Democratic majority in Minnesota Senate. Greens lost major party status, and though Ventura's third party will retain it's major party status, will likely disappear into the third party graveyard by 2004.

And here, the issue wasn't that nobody voted. A majority of registered voters went to the polls.

While that is a pretty damning indictment of the Democratic party here in a largely Democratic state, what it doesn't show is how polarized the vote was. Coleman won with 50%. The country is more polarized than it has ever been in my lifetime, possibly more polarized than it has been since certain eras in the 19th century. I'm sure someone will be telling us soon what we already know--we are a nation at war with ourselves.

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:17 AM

(quote)
The party itself ain't over, but it's clueless ,and yes "spineless" ,
Demo leaders are the subjetc of the Obit. Dashcle is irrelevent as is Dem front man Terry MacCauliffe. He was almost as much of a flaming self-serving jerk as Republican leader Haley Barbour.

Gephardt is winged ,but is still a toady to his state's Big Military Contractor ( General dynamics I believe) which will want a bigger piece of the Bush war action or Gephardt's gone. Hell they'll propbably have him shot by some lone sniper and be done with it. They'll want a Republican representing them at the Warhog-trough and the hell with the voters. Either way next election Gephardt's toast. General Dynamics will have its Republican-toady all prepped and ready by New Year.

Paul Sarbanes is still the lead member on the all important BankingCmte and is known to have been the prime creator of the new Accounting Review Board that will see both Harvey the Whale Pitt and Judge Webster absent for the botch job.

The list of *effective* loyal opposaition members is there and they will be vocal , but it will still be a Republican Congress.

Mind you I'd be as cocenred over an all Democrat Congress.
The one that Clinton got was a joke in wanting to baloon all kinds of Peace Dividend spending with nary a care about the Republican-fueled deficit at the higher interest rates as a direct result. Oh, BTW; get ready for the inflation-triggering higher interest rates that the now Republican Big Gubment spending will cause.

I just believe in balance of power and without any control of any branch of Gov't the ruling party has *no* retraints.
what was that warning about "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"?
Wait for it.

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST,George W. Quayle
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:30 AM

You'd have to check with Bobert, but I think that a pharacudical is a newclear potatoe.

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: curmudgeon
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:32 AM

Here in New Hampshire, a half-billionaire has just bought the governor's race with over $10,000,000 of his own money, and by so doing dragged the rest of the Republican misfits in with him.

Of course it didn't help that the Democrats were completely dis-united with each of them going her own separate ways.

While it is all well and good to support the Greens in theory, the liklihood of their winning a major race is somewhat less then that of a Socialist victory.

Now, rather than write an obit for the Democratic party, I intend to get more involved. If all of us here on Mudcat will dig in, we have the potential to turn some things around, to rejuvenat this party of FDR, and in so doing take back the government for the people.

For tthe next two years though the "Live Free or Die" state will be better known as the "Live Well or Die: state -- Tom

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Blues=Life
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:50 AM

I hate to say it, but for me, the Democratic Party died the moment the leadership of the party supported Clinton after he lied to the American people. I never had much problem with his having sex with some young groupie, as long as his wife didn't seem to mind. But I was deeply disturbed when he stated "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" which was an out and out lie. I don't require my politicians to be sexually moral, but don't break your trust with ME. And then, the leadership acted like this was a fine thing, and no big deal. From what I understand, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) Wellstone was one of the few who gave Clinton a hard time about the lies. The rest missed the fact that if I can't trust you to tell me the truth, THEN I CAN'T TRUST YOU. This is a lesson I teach my kids, why is it that my party leadership doesn't know this?
Also, I think that the Republican candidates (at least where I live) came out with a vision of what they were going to do, and the Dems just used attack ads to say how awful the Repubs are. Comments like the above guest's "save us from the fascists who are now in control of business and government" turn people off. This whole demonization of anyone who dares to "disagree with ME" makes the demonizer look petty, foolish, and inconsequential. Let's throw the rascals out (current leadership) and start fresh with candidates who have a vision of their own. Vilsack for President, 2004!

Blues

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:53 AM

Tom and Linn-

Maybe I'll just paste in Si Kahn's thoughtful song from the "Vote!" thread:

Here's an appropriate Si Kahn song while we're waiting (copy and paste into WORD/TIMES/12 for chord placement):

TALKIN' POLITICIAN

(Words & Music by Si Kahn © 1974
As recorded by JuneAppal on New Wood
Key: C (G/5))

G------------F
Just as long as I can remember,
C--------------D7
Every four years about November,
G-----------------------F
Folks that wouldn't talk to me on the street,
---C----------------------D7
Are coming in my house and wiping their feet;
G--------------C
Kissing my wife, kissing my babies,
------D
Well, I guess they'd even kiss my old mule
--------------------G
If she hadn't voted for Roosevelt.


Now they shake my hand, they smile and say,
"I'd like your vote come election day;
Now you don't need to know where I stand,
Just vote for me as many times as you can;
That'll be ten dollars now and ten dollars more,
Every time that you vote."

"Now I promise you, if I'm elected,
I'll raise the dead, have 'em resurrected;
I'll pave your road, put a bridge on your creek,
I'll sweep out your cow barn twice a week;"
Now there just might be something to that
'Cause I ain't never seen anyone who could shovel that stuff
As fast as a politician.

The election's come and the road's still muddy,
You try to find your old good buddy;
He's up at the capitol grinding his axes,
Only thing won't get cut will be your taxes;
I've been sliced this way so many times before,
I'm starting to look like coleslaw.

That hand that shook yours behind the plow,
That hand is in your pocket now;
You look for your mule, find her missing,
Better start hunting that politician;
But there's one good thing, weren't for politicians,
The rest of us wouldn't have anything to laugh at,
'Cept for tourists.

Regardless,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: alanabit
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:01 AM

I think that if I ask most blokes about their personal business, they are quite entitled to tell me to mind my own bloody business - or I expect to duck the punch that's coming my way. That's the reaction I would have expected from most Americans I have known - and I have no problem with it. Why your standards of personal courtesy for dealing with your president are lower than the ones you use in dealing with each other baffles me as a foreigner. It's a demanding job, isn't it?

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: curmudgeon
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:04 AM

Mark Fernald, the Democratic candidate for governor in NH, ran a campaign to reign in the confiscatory property taxes and replace them with a modest income tax. His program would have been of great benifit to the poor, the woking poor, and the lower middle classes; only the wealthy would have ended up paying more.

Now we are to be "led" by a "successful" businessman whose own corporation went down the tube along with hundreds of jobs; he did just fine though. His solution is to spend less. This is an absurdity. We have the only towns in the nation without kindergartens;we have the highest state college tuition in the country. We are sixth in per-capita wealth, but 45th in charitable giving. And this greedy egotist wants to spend less!

Perhaps he'll at least let us eat some cake -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:16 AM

I hope the result does something good for Mudcat: that we never more read for the umpteenth time (and not only from Americans) that the election in 2000 was stolen, undemocratic, handed over by the Supreme Court or Florida's governor ad nauseam.

Not that it is not true (or could seen to be true in parts), but it gets boring to read it ever and ever again.

The preoccupation of the Democrats and other opposition parties with 2000 (as can be seen by many postings in Mudcat) was one factor contributing to their loss. 'Gore in four' in its simple emotionality may be fine for the own clientele but doesn't appeal to the general voter. What is the offer for 2002 (or, 2004) is what the voter wants to know. Nobody really cares if the last election was a cheat if the political offer in this election is unconvincing from one side.

Forget 2000 and think what you may offer in 2004 as a program. The Democratic Party was seen over here as looking back and not looking forward.

BTW, I'd have voted for Gore in 2000 (hypothetically).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:17 AM

Tom, they already did that in Minnesota, and our schools were largely funded through property taxes. Every major metro school district had levies on the ballot in 2000 and 2002. Every single one. I was a victim of the recession layoffs (not in education though) last June. I'm still out of work. And the prospect of being unemployed under this Republican force is pretty damn frightening.

This week is my last unemployment check too. I'm sure being unemployed is all my fault, after working my entire adult life, right there DougR?

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:18 AM

Greens might as well be Green Men from Mars. They're that out of touch with reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:25 AM

Maybe the Democrats and Kendall will finally realize that Dubya isn't stupid.

Only Bill Clinton, of all people, has known from the beginning that Dubya was a brilliant politician. Disagree with his policies, but he is one badass campaigner. And has always been smarter than Al Gore, intellectually, and politically. Don't forget, that considering the economy in 2000, and a sitting V.P. Bush SHOULD have lost that election by 8 points given history. So, even Democrats will tell you in private, that just to statistically tie the popular vote was a herculean accomplishment. You can claim the popular vote but a
couple hundred thousand votes amongst 100 million is statistically irrelevant, and any number of irregularities either way could account for that. AND its not even an officially kept record.

Add to that that the sitting party virtually never does this well in a Non-Presidential year AND the GOP had to DEFEND more Senate seats.

Subject: RE: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:27 AM

Pharmaceuticals, dang it, GUEST Paula. Geeeeeze. Man, do I gotta break in another GUEST that don't talk Wes Ginny?!?...

And whatz with the Repub. remark, anyway. That one kind went over my head. Republican? Hmmmmmmmm?

Now, back to Greens fir just a couple of thoughts. I know that it ain't easy changing a system that seems to be owned lock, stock and barrel by the "ruling class" but it's not impossible either. After all, it does come down to ideas and solutions, and the Dems ain't got any. So if enough folks who really do care about the direction of the country bolt and join forces with the Greens, and bring their talents, their ideas and their passion with them, then slowly the Green Party will get some respect.

I agree that at present, becuase many, many factors the Green Party is back on it's heels but that is a reality that we accept. Success isn't entirely baout winning elections but in putting forth alternative ideas. At some point in time, the working class will be fed up and when that happens we need a party ready and willing to stand up to Boss Hog. And after what we've seen over the last decade, that ain't the Democratic party, which has now been demoted to *sparring partner*.

So if you Dems want to just work harder as Dems, fine. It's your choice. As fir me, it seems like giving a transfusion to a dead man.

It is my *opinion* that the Green Party just became the 2nd party in a two party system so... come on over. Or if ya' can't get there yet, think about it.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:28 AM

Reporting in from the State of Texas, where Molly Ivins, when asked to say one good thing about our then unelected (but in the right place when Dubya moved to Washington) governor--He has great hair.

People down actually believed the big corporations and the negative ads. I'll be here to say "I told you so" when they start complaining about drug prices, bank failures (remember Reagan "deregulating" the Savings and Loans?), and, I shudder to think about it--the shooting war that Bush is going to start just to proove he can do it. And be on your toes: don't even THINK of growing OLD in this country now and needing Medicare or any government assistance.

Do we really think soft money has gone away after this election? No way. Not now.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Peg
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:29 AM

Mr. Clinton did lie..about something extremely personal that was NO ONE's BUSINESS BUT HIS OWN AND HIS WIFE's. Where he wants to put his dick is hardly a matter of national security. He did more to keep this country safe and prosperous in his eight years than the Bush family would even be capable of in a quarter century. He was flawed, but he was also kept from doing his job for a good long time by a wrong-headed investigation and attempt at impeachment...over sex, for crissakes. Please, just cut this crap about how he "lied to the American people." It's just uninformed self-righteous rhetoric.

I for one am far more concerned about lies told to "the American people" concerning arms sales to the Contras, planes shot down over New York and Pennsylvania by our own government, elections illegally hijacked by powerful political families, insider trading by high-powered elected officials whose investments in big oil companies are endangering our national security far worse than one man's predilection for blow-jobs, and special-interest corporate lobbying that pays off politicians and results in the poisoning, weakening and exploitation of people everywhere.

This is a dark day.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:32 AM

The only offers I've heard rumblings of for a Dem candidate in 2004 are Gary Hart, Lieberman, and Al Gore, NONE of whom should be allowed to run! The Dems will get nothing with that offering has-beens.

My 25yr old daughter has always said there would be a revolution in her adulthood and it would be her generation which leads it...I am beginning to think it might be just what we need. What we have right now is truly fucked up.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:32 AM

I can't type today. That should read "people down HERE actually. . ."

Bobert, I've always felt that the Democrats need to decide that if they can't beat the greens, they'd better join them. And vice-versa. It isn't going to get the Bush dynasty out of office to have three parties, one always taking the vote that would have put the other over the top. They need to come to an understanding and merge the ideas. It's about time.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:37 AM

I voted in the guv'nor race for each party
didnt' really care much for the guy that won
but his party aides paid me $10 more
think they tricked me into voting twice for him
and didnt pay me for the second time

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:43 AM

I forgot to say I hope all those who voted Republican and those who did NOT vote enjoy seeing their kids come back in body bags. Me, bitter? No!

Bobert, I agree with SRS, this is not the time. United we stand; divided we fall has certainly been proven in 2000 and today.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:45 AM

Memo

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: curmudgeon
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 11:01 AM

I could not agree more with SRS. Like it or not, we are stuck with a two party system; third parties have only served to fragment the electorate on one side or the other.

Once, many years back, in a momentary fit of idealism, I voted for John Anderson, thereby helping to bring the curse down on all of us.

While I do think the Greens have some good ideas, my own personal political color is still RED.

Fan the flames -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 11:31 AM

Well, folks, then grab the tiller and guide the Dem. back from the right. Let the Dems stand up for the working class. Let the Dems stand up to the corporations. Yeah, while ya' got the tiller, get em' to fillibuster until to cows come home for campaigne finance reform as a first step toward getting Jefferson's experiement back on track. Heck, get them to stand up to *anything*. They used to. They stood up in the 60's and created so many programs for the working class and then they just gave up. They have stumbled over one another going further to right. They lost because they won't lead. They have become poll followers saying whatever they think will get them votes.

Yeah, it would be real nice if we didn't have to have the Green Party but we'll have it as long as the Dems are doing their Repub impersonations...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: SharonA
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 11:50 AM

I agree with Stilly too. It's "strange bedfellows" time, and they don't come much stranger than Clinton nd Gore! But if the Republican stranglehold on the US is to be weakened, the parties in opposition to the Republican agenda are going to have to band together, at least for the time being.

Hey, Kendall, we here in Pennsylvania just got a Democratic governor, too! Ed Rendell, the first governor from Philadelphia in some 90 years! I'm not at all surprised, though: (a) Pennsylvania tends to ping-pong back and forth between the two parties for their governors every 8 years or so; (b) Mark Schweiker, Tom Ridge's second-in-command and replacement when Bush named him Homeland Security Chief, did not choose to run for the office this time (if Schweiker had, I think he would have been a shoo-in after his appearances at the PA mine disaster last summer); (c) Bob Casey Jr. lost the Republican nomination to Mike Fisher, who was simply not as electable as Casey, the son of a very popular former governor (now deceased), would have been. For all of Rendell's faults, I think he'll do great things for PA, and he's not the sort to take any guff from Bush. I rather wish that Rendell would run for President in '04 (but I'd hate to lose him as PA's governor)!

Another blow to the Republicans came in southeastern Pennsylvania, where they had done a very underhanded bit of redistricting to combine a section of Philadelphia with part of suburban Montgomery County to create a district which they'd hoped would weaken the Democratic vote in the area. No such luck! Joe Hoeffel still won the election for the 13th PA Congressional District over Republican Melissa Brown. Ha!

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 11:55 AM

One good note: in the one party state of Wyoming, VP Cheney's home state, where the GOP reigns free with oil and cattle industry moguls at the head, a Democratic governor has just been elected. I didn't think the folks of Wyoming had it in them and am pleased as punch!

Bobert, I would ask you to do the same, help us take back the Democratic Party.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:09 PM

Interesting to hear about the gerrymandering in PA SharonA, especially since it didn't work!

I am hoping that the progressive left Democratic party can be revived and radically reformed, but I'm not holding my breath for 2004. The progressive left in the US is simply too fractured ideologically, grossly outfunded, and politically unorganized.

That said, I'm hoping that the Greens will come home, the war will galvanize opinion, and the death of Wellstone will silence the centrist cowards who sold their souls to the highest bidders.

As to running Bush out of office--only if the war goes badly AND the economy tanks despite the infusion of massive defense spending. Just because there is no one on the horizon for Dems in the presidential race for 2004 doesn't mean someone won't surface. Feingold, the senator from Wisconsin who voted against the Patriot Act, is one possibility. He voted almost identically to Wellstone, but without the fiery rhetoric, so IMO is an excellent candidate for possibly uniting the party with a progressive left takeover. But he'll need grooming for 2008.

And progressives will have to get off their sorry, comfortable, whining fat asses and into the streets to make the country ungovernable under the Republicrats.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: mg
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:09 PM

I am nominally a democrat, because I believe in a very strong safety net. I am for a very strong national defense and a very strong police force. Where the democrats lose me is their tolerance for almost any sort of social pathology..and the more it is tolerated the more it is enabled and just integrated into the culture. I think everyone should behave themselves and not cause trouble for others or expenses to the taxpayers. Those on the safety net really really need to behave themselves. That means don't get pregnant if you aren't married, don't destroy public housing if you live in it, don't deal drugs, don't exchange food stamps for alchohol and drugs, don't drop out of school, don't commit crimes etc. if all the expenses that we have, jail, a certain percentage of welfare, diseases associated with drug abuse and that life style..were to disappear, we would have more money for a much better safety net and for a vigorous defense.

And it is a matter of national security what a president does and with whom. All sorts of bad scenarios. And it wasn't just about his sex life and about lying. It was about what sounds like a series of sexual harassments and assaults. I could care less what the sleazeball did with totally voluntary companions. I care when state employees are brought into the act to procure and cover for him and I care about the nonvoluntary situations that are claimed to have existed. And I wouldn't wish enjoyment of seeing kids coming home in body bags to anyone, regardless of their politics.

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:16 PM

Well, kat, the best thing the dems can do now, if they wish to survive, is to take campaign finance reform and run with it. Spend their energy and money on leading with a big PR campaign. Filibuster, if they have to. Win *something*, dang it, that tells America that it ain't dead yet. Take on the corporation. Fight for the working class. Teach democracy through actions. This single issue is the only one that they can win now. The others are just going to get steam rolled by the Repubs.

Write your dem. reps and tell them to get on the ball. Tell them to get their collective heads out of the sand and fight for democracy.

The Dems need to win something.

Forgetmn those governorships. They are traps. Why didn't you see George Bush fighting for many of them (except Florida)? Because he knew that governors are gonna have a hard time over the next few years and the Dems are gonna take a lot of blame. Look at Mark Warner in Virginia as a prime example. The guy who has to clean up the mess after the party ain't as popular as the guy who threw the party...

Nothin' would make me happier than to return to the Dems but no0t these Dems. They haven't shown me anything in 30 years, thank you.

But if you can get 'em riled up, kat, then that's a first step. Tney should, at least, be a tad more receptive today than they were yesterday.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:25 PM

mary, when I hear people who are so complacent they claim to NOT vote is their "right/civic duty," I feel it will take that kind of shock to wake them up and get them motivated. Of course, I don't want them to enjoy such a tragedy as losing a child to war, BUT it will happen and in large part because of the apathy of people who don't vote and participate thorugh making their vooices heard in other ways. Seventy percent are being railroaded by thirty. It's going to take something of great magnitude to change that around.

I agree with you, to a point, about people in the saftey net behaving, BUT that safety net has to be liveable, with much more in the way of positive education and motivation. When someone tries to live off of $2-300 per month and has no hope of a job without losing all benefits of the net for minimum wage, some of them will turn to illegal means.

One of the things Michael Moore asks in his documentary Bowling for Columbine is why are we, as a society, so angry at poor people. Other countries are much kinder in their attitudes about those living in poverty. We need more emptahy and compassion, as well as better programs for the safety net to really be such and offer a shred of hope. In this macho pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps country, we hold those in poverty in great disdain, looking upon them with great contempt and demanding exemplary behaviour from them that we do not demand of any others.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:29 PM

Mary Garvey, you are no Marcus, to be sure. I'm gonna guess you aren't really even a Democrat. Youu just wanted to vent your bigoted, racist views under the safe cover of calling yourself a Democrat. Anyone with the views you are professing to hold here isn't even REMOTELY close to the current soft money center of the Democratic party.

BTW, many of us know that phrases like "social pathology" and "unwed mothers" and "poor people in public housing" and "drug dealers" and "welfare frauds" (that would be that group you identified as those who "receive food stamps and exchange them for drugs and alcohol" are all coded to appeal to racists afraid of looking un-PC, thereby leaving their arguments open to attack.

Sussed you out, girl.

Nice try, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: mg
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:32 PM

oh poo.

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: kendall
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:33 PM

Peg, I'm with you. It is a measure of the mis placed morality of those like Blues, who are more upset by a president getting a blow job than the Actor, lying through his teeth about Iran-Contre and Arms for hostages. Talk about head up your ass!

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:41 PM

And, siblings who get away with millions in bank fraud ala Silverado, Kendall. I agree!

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:44 PM

No kendall, they don't mind when their boy lies about killing poor people in foreign countries. They mind when "the enemy" lies about getting a blow job.

Frankly, I've got to hand to the fundamentalist Republicans. They now have The Big Lie out there that a phony sexual double standard is a moral code of principalled politicians--that is the Newt Standard of Integrity.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:44 PM

Neither the Democratic nor the Republican Parties will succeed in properly addressing reality in America or in the World, because they believe their own past mythology (which is seriously out of touch with reality), and their main concern is staying in power.

The Greens will probably not succeed in properly addressing reality either. If elected (highly unlikely), they will soon become engrossed in the usual concern of political parties...staying in power. In order to stay in power they will cozy up to the same power structures that keep other parties in power...the big business community, the banks, the military-industrial complex, the lobbyists, and the media. If they don't those powers will destroy them by the time of the next election.

Your problem is not a choice between political parties, your problem is that you believe in an entire social system which is so flawed in its basic understanding of Life that it is nearly incapable of ever rendering good government. Tinkering with the details of your system will not change much.

Your social system believes that it is the BEST system there is. That is a typical illusion held by all social systems since the dawn of time, and it's a silly one to say the least.

There comes a time when conditions have changed so much that an old system is simply past its time...and needs to change absolutely radically...or fall.

That's the point we are at now in the whole world.

We can't work much longer within the parameters of a society that believed certain things, like:

1. Us and Them (it's actually just "us", period)

2. Rich and Poor (not a wise way to stratify a free people)

3. Rule by money and the gun (instead of by brotherhood to the mutual benefit of all concerned)

4. Politics by dividing up into hostile camps and fighting with each other (in elections)...(instead of politics by consensus and inclusion of everyone's input)

5. Competition (instead of cooperation in a mutual effort toward a mutual goal)

6. Exploitation of nature as if nature were merely raw material put there for profit (instead of recognizing that we are a small PART OF nature, and obliged to cooperate with it to survive)

7. Justice by fear and vengeance (instead of by setting a good example in the first place and seeking equality for all)

8. Rule by fear (instead of by love)

And so on.

Your political parties are an anachronism. This system is collapsing, because our tremendous advances in technology, our expanding population, and our shrinking natural resources have rendered this system obsolete and it is DYING. Fast.

We have to change radically soon or die with it in great numbers. It's as simple as that.

Even to have political parties of the kind we do now will be seen as archaic one day...just as we now see rule by kings and the once taken-for-granted concept of the "divine right" of those kings to rule over the "common people".

You're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, folks. Sorry to say it.

If you think the Greens can still save you, by all means vote Green. I agree that they are a better choice at the moment than the traditional parties. But I simply don't BELIEVE in political parties, any more than I believe in securing a "Papal Bull" to cure my problems...or waiting for a White Knight to come and slay my dragons for me.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:48 PM

Safety nets, while important, are not the real issue that we need to concern ourselves with. Many of those relying on welfare have never had any other options. The absolutely important issue is to ensure that opportunity exists in the first place. This is why education is vital. If quality education, health care, and employment are available to the working classes, they will no longer be disadvantaged.

Furthermore, a party does not die because it loses an election. It dies if it loses voter appeal. What is important now is that Greens and Reds try to steer the Democrats to the left, to appeal to those voters who demand change. If we can do this, not only will the Democrats continue to have power, but this power will do us some good.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:59 PM

I do wish more of our "Guests" would at least designate themselves something, as has "Forum Lurker." At least come that far out of the closet so we stand a chance of sorting you out.;~)

Charley Noble, who once was a "guest"

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:11 PM

The phrase "Fundamentalist Republican" is getting thrown around here. I think that we need to clarify that term.

We have Republicans, which have a political philosophy. These are not bad guys, they just have a different but valid opinions, and occassionally, they even happen to get something right :) Opposing opinions are the lifeblood of democracy. Many of these republicans, no doubt, happen to be Christian, but they separate their personal idealogy from the running of the country.

Then we have Fundamentalist Christians masquerading as a political party. They don't have political opinions, they have religious ones. In a country whose foundations of government are built on the separation of religious idealogy from political, this is very dangerous, because they would attempt to legislate a code of religious behavior and force it upon those who don't agree. The big red herring here is abortion rights, but in reality we are looking at a religious idealogy which views women as reproductive vessels whose only purpose is to create more Fundamentalist Christian males.

Then we have people like my grandfather. He's a devout Methodist deacon, who, politically speaking, is really a Democrat. But his Republican candidates get up there and wave a Bible, and so he votes Republican -- even though he disagrees with almost everything they stand for. Now, he was astonished when I told him he was a idealogically a moderate Democrat, because it never occured to him that many Democrats read the Bible, too.

In other words, I don't think it's fair to condemn "Republicans" for the idealogy of some.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:14 PM

Things are going to be interesting now that the Republicans have control of both houses of prostitu --- OOPS! SORRY! --- Congres.

Stephen Lee

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: curmudgeon
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:20 PM

Good point Nicole, but if the decent Republicans allow the "Fundaments" to dominate them, that's who they are representing.

Here in NH, a state rep just announced that he would challenge fellow Republican Congressman Charlie Bass in 2004. He thinks Bass is too liberal because he happenss to be a rare pro-choice Republican.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:43 PM

NicoleC, I am the one who introduced the term Republican fundamentalist, and while I was alluding to the dictionary definition of fundamentalism as movement of Protestants with a literal belief in the Bible as unquestionable fact and truth, I was really using the term fundamentalist as a metaphor for the secular Republican ideologues who are in now way "decent Christians" and who are, as you pointed out, exploiting Christian conservatives, both Catholic and Protestant, like your grandfather.

At the end of the day, it is the very effective secular exploitation of Christian religious fundamentalism I am alluding to metaphorically, by using the term Republican fundamentalist, rather Republican ideologue. There is something about Republicans like Tom De Lay, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, et al that is so absolute in it's hatred for and fear of Democrats being in power, that they can no longer see the forest for the trees. They don't allow for differences of opinion. They are the litmus test Republicans. They are the "sign the Republican oath" Republicans, who put party before ANYTHING, but mostly before what is truly best for the nation.

These Republican fundamentalists have become emboldened by their ability to control the public debate through the 24/7 media channels. It is THEIR MEN who rule on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They have not only driven public debate far to the right from where the decent but naive, moderate Republican center might have been in the John Anderson for President pre-cable network days. They also have a stranglehold on the public debate with their idealogues controlling the talk radio airwaves which appeal to the extremist, racist, gun toting, militarist, secular right.

Make no mistake--these Republican fundamentalist extremists ARE Bush/Cheney. They are the manipulators of emotionally frail people who mistakenly take what these charlatans speak as literal truth, in the same way that Protestant fundamentalists take the Bible as literal truth. These extremists like the Pat Buchanans, Rush Limbaughs, Wolf Blitzers, Robert Novaks, Imus, Abrams, etc etc create the climate where irrational, disturbed, isolated white men with mental problems murder the women who leave them out fear for their lives, by the thousands every year, year after year. Or in drunken argument with another emotionally frail and mentally disturbed male, pull out a gun and shoot their best friend. These Republican fundamentalists prey upon and incite the passions of the emotionally frail and mentally disturbed white men like Timothy McVeigh, and others like him suffering from the delusions nurtured by militarist machismo.

They are the Republican fundamentalists who have hijacked the public debate, and driven it further and further down the hole into this self-centered, egomaniacal, machismo, nationalist, consumerist culture.

Just as the progressive left needs to take back control of the Democratic party, so too does the moderate, progressive Republican need to take back control of the Republican party. You can't blame Democrats for Republican demagoguery. They aren't the ones at fault. Genuine, decent, progressive Republicans need to start speaking truth from their heart and soul to the Republicans, every bit as much as Democrats need to from theirs.

Our highest human values are being gutted by these demagogues. The Republicans fundamentalists are much, much worse than the Democrats in this regard. Their mean spiritedness takes the breath away. I can tell you this--I'd much rather fight spineless Democrats, than demagoguing Republican fundamentalists anyday. I can't even comprehend their viciousness. Just can't comprehend it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: DougR
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:45 PM

I wish folks would put to rest the fable that Clinton was impeached because he got a blow job from a girl half his age. He was impeached because he lied UNDER OATH! Geeze.

Bobert, I still think you should run for president! The Green Party could use a good candidate, and I can't think of a better more consistently good green candidate than you would be.

Naturally, I think this is a beautiful, wonderful day for America. Even better than yesterday was!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: SharonA
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:55 PM

Oops, I misspoke myself earlier. In PA, Bob Casey Jr. lost the Republican primary to Mike Fisher! Sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:05 PM

Much as I may dislike the results, this is what's called "democracy in action", folks. Something like 30% of those eligible voted, and most of the races were very close; the result is that 16-17% of the electorate has decided the course of the country for the next two years...yes, TWO years. That isn't a lifetime. I refuse to believe that all of the Republicans are interested in saying "yes, Your Highness" whenever Dubya makes some asenine statement or asks for authority for even greater handouts for those who need it the least. Maybe I'm naive, but I think that most of them are people of good will who will do their best to represent all of their constituents.

That being said, the mission of all of us who dislike (insert verb of your choice here) the results is to say, loudly and often: "You don't like what's happening in Washington/your state capitol? Did you vote? Why the hell not? I voted, and that gives ME a right to complain. What gives YOU that right?"

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST,possible future non-voter
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:32 PM

Not so hard on Garvey there. I'm a democrat who finds it increasingly hard to remain loyal, precisely because the party has become uncharacteristically fundamentalist in its response to internal dissent or even discussion -- for example, it's dogma that killing inconvenient people is a progressive position, and I have yet to make my peace with that. Maybe the party has destined itself to permanent minority status by aligning itself with anything oppositional, without any real discussion of consistency. It IS a legitimate question: if certain people are opting out of the mainstream and its upwardly mobile behaviors, why should they have their claim on the mainstream rewards system honored and even subsidized? Let's asknowledge that this is an illusion, that far and away the majority of people on assistance would like nothing better than to get productively off of it, but it's an illusion the republicans have had the full and enthusiastic cooperation of the democrats in constructing. Maybe it's just a matter of opposing clusters of pressure groups, and the Republicans' cluster happens to be better funded and better organized.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: kendall
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:52 PM

Doug, he lied. Ok, Reagan lied. Help me understand the REAL difference. And don't split hairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 03:20 PM

Guest,1:43p -ell put. Please choose a letter of the alphabet and use it? Be a lot easier that way to respond.

Cheney is from Wyoming; graduated from the same high school as my sister and brother. Having been in the thick of human rights campaigns in Wyoming politics, I can assure you that Bush/Cheney ARE the far right/fundamentalists of the GOP. Over twenty years ago the far right/wrong mapped out their strategy to start locally on school boards and such, then move up to the White House and Congress. They have managed to do just that.

Be vocal as often as possible; let people know where you stand, esp. your congresspeople, and let's do what we can to motivate MORE people to vote next time!

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 03:24 PM

Hmmm. Here in Maine over 58% of the eligible voters actually voted. Maybe that does account for the difference between our more reasonable results and those from most of the other states.

Maine voters in large part reacted negatively to the Republican funded "BIG LIE" campaign that we viewed daily on TV, received in the mail in all their glossy glory, and then heard on our telephones spewed out as taped sound bites.

Unfortunately, we are not totally immune from this process, and the friction generated in the electoral process is going to make the governence of this state during this period of recession excruiatingly difficult.

Charley Noble, who just downloaded the results of some 186 legislative races

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 03:31 PM

Future non-voter, first I haven't been suggesting that Democratic demagoguery and dogma aren't as much a problem as Republican demagoguery and dogma.

On the one hand, you say that welfare recipients want to get productively off welfare. Well, that isn't exactly a contested point.

We seem to agree that to suggest the answers to holding the social fabric together is as simple as making a lifestyle choice, is demagoguery. Garvey's choice of those well worn catchphrases are those used by demagogues of both parties, used to evoke a predictable and emotionally powerful racist response from whites. The racist images they are used to conjure are of the drug addled, black male criminal, and his sexually promiscuous, black welfare whore/single mother. Considering it was that language of demagoguery I was challenging, what may I ask is it that you are protesting from my response exactly? That Democrats aren't capable of using it, I'm guessing.

So let me ask you--when is the last time you heard a Democrat ideologue utter such phrases? Certainly nowhere in the public arena in well over two decades. Privately, I believe that the Reagan Democrats have long since gone to the Republican side, where they feel much more comfortable socially--that is to say "with their own kind."

Are you suggesting, by your remarks, that the Gen Xers are reviving this sort of thing among the Democratic party? Since I am not a party loyalist, you could well be right, and I wrong. Is there someone here who can speak to this issue as a Democratic party loyalist?

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 03:34 PM

GUEST, Forum Lurker: Good points but this administration ain't into learnin' any new material when it come to the "w" word. Repubs have beat the "welfare" horse since FDR. They just don't like sharing. Hey, doesn't matter that the infastructure of America was build by poor folks, in their minds they *own* it. Period. Discussion over.

In Little Hawk's world it won't be like that but we're gonna have to wait a tad for that world to evolve, but evolve it must or this little experiement called Earth will just burn itself out.

And I gotta agree with ya, LH, in your assessment of parties but until mankind gets to a higher level of cooperation, inclusion and caring, Iz gonna have to stick with my Green folk.

Speaking of which, Dougie, thanks fir the endorsement. Actually I have given thought to running for the House of Representatives after I get retired in 2 or 3 more years. I'm not a stranger to system and am currently involved in a number of community projects working, I hate to say it, predominantly with Repubs.

And GUEST: 4th request! You know the drill, my friend... A name? Is that too much to ask? Or even a number would be a step in the right direction.....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Genie
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 03:40 PM

I heard one radio commentator today note that many of the Democrats who narrowly lost election or re-election to Congress were those who had "wrapped themselves in the mantle of Bush." He went on to remind us that Harry Truman once said "Given a choice between a Republican and a Republican, the voters will always choose a Republican."

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 03:58 PM

Clinton is the president that pushed through reform Bobert. Republicans couldn't get it passed. Former voter is right in that sense. However, I disagreed with Former voter that any Democrats would use the racist coded language of Mary Garvey's, as I think that blatant language use by Democrats went the way of the Reagan Democrats, which is to say, over to the Republican party.

But I am opened to be corrected on that point. If there are Democratic party activists among us who are hearing that language being used by the under 30 Democrats, and can vouch for that right turn in the Democratic party, I will gladly stand to be corrected.

I know you won't hear that language on the progressive left. But does that mean that the non-partisan but Democrat aligned progressive left is guilty of demagoguery over the race issue? I think it is fertile ground for discussion, to be honest. Anyone who knows of the debacle of the US senate nomination by the Green Party of Minnesota convention last spring can vouch for that!

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Blues=Life
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:01 PM

I said,"I hate to say it, but for me, the Democratic Party died the moment the leadership of the party supported Clinton after he lied to the American people. I never had much problem with his having sex with some young groupie, as long as his wife didn't seem to mind. But I was deeply disturbed when he stated "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" which was an out and out lie. I don't require my politicians to be sexually moral, but don't break your trust with ME. And then, the leadership acted like this was a fine thing, and no big deal."

Peg says "Mr. Clinton did lie..about something extremely personal that was NO ONE's BUSINESS BUT HIS OWN AND HIS WIFE's. Where he wants to put his dick is hardly a matter of national security. ...Please, just cut this crap about how he "lied to the American people." It's just uninformed self-righteous rhetoric."

Kendall says: "Peg, I'm with you. It is a measure of the mis placed morality of those like Blues, who are more upset by a president getting a blow job than the Actor, lying through his teeth about Iran-Contre and Arms for hostages. Talk about head up your ass!"

DougR says"I wish folks would put to rest the fable that Clinton was impeached because he got a blow job from a girl half his age. He was impeached because he lied UNDER OATH! Geeze."

Kendall says, "Doug, he lied. Ok, Reagan lied. Help me understand the REAL difference. And don't split hairs."

So let's try it again without the ad hominum attacks, the red herrings, and the straw men. The question was, when did the Party die? My position is that it came when the President broke trust with the American people, and the party leadership. Kendall, if you'll actually read what I said, I never said I was upset with Billy getting a blow job. I still think he would have been better off with one of two other responses:

a) "That's right, buddy, and she was GOOD too!" He would have been in trouble with Hilary, but not with most 50 year old men who can't get a 20 year old to drop to her knees in their office.

b) "I'm sorry, but that's none of your DAMN BUSINESS!" This is probably what he should have said right from the start.

As far as Reagan lying... That pissed me off too. I never trusted the hack before, and I sure didn't trust him later. The point is, WHEN DID MY PARTY DIE, AND HOW DO WE REBUILD IT? And again, my response, which you all chose to ignore, was to bring in fresh leadership with a vision of where we should be going. We didn't get it this time, and until we do, the only guy in town showing leadership is going to lead.

Blues
Gov. Vilsack for President, 2004

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: harpgirl
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:07 PM

...all I can figure is that with this election we have proven that we haven't evolved beyond when we were lemmings...we are following them over the cliff...

...my health insurance premiums for my small group are going up from the $375.69 per month they had been last year, to $564+ a month. If Republicans can help me stay in business as an entrepreneur, they had better do something about health care premiums. I can't guarantee that I can make that much more next year so I have to adjust my coverage down. It would help if my son's father would carry him on his insurance, but he won't...even though he is a stockbroker and must be making good money! That's my biggest worry at the moment. I'll kiss DougR's ass if the Republicans do something about my health insurance premiums!

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:22 PM

Yo, GUEST, yeah, I know that "Welfare Reform" was passed under Clinton's watch. Heck, that boy woke up every morning hopin' he could win one more Repub over with his capitulation. Actually, Bill Clinton was the best Repub President perhaps of thge 20th century. He goosestepped quite nicely, don't cha think. Yep, for the life of me I can't figure out why the Repubs were so mad at him? I mean, long before Monika Lewinski they were on him about all that other trumped up stuff and if it hadn't been for him lieing about the sex then they wouldn't have anything on him. Danged, imagine that? It should have never come down to something so personal and so much non of their business.

But back to welfare reform. It wasn't reform at all. It was an anti-human, mean spirited package that said to poor folks: "Screw you, we're giving you 'til sundown to get out of town." Real imaginative. All it has and will do is perpetuate poverty. If they wanted to reform the sysytem, there should have been a greater emphasis on training, education, child care and on meaningful employemnt that goes beyond, "Ya want fries with your burger?"

Yeah, I wish Clinton had really taken on "Welfare Reform" but started at the top where the bulk of it goes. But he didn't. Like the good Repubocrat that he was, he went after the poor. Hey, they ain't got no clout, no lobbiests, no PAC's. Easy win! Right?

Typical. Always blame the working class and the poor for the ills whilst the Enrons of the world *enron* over you poor butt.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:37 PM

Right Bobert, during Clinton's very first campaign, he made no bones about announcing who his constituency was: the middle class. He said he was going after the welfare mothers, and the African American community supported him in huge numbers. It still does. In fact, if you listen to the talk shows on BET, you'll see they are sounding more Republican all the time, many of them saying the WASP establishment isn't the cause of all the problems in the African American community. They are also right about that.

The thing is, the entrenched African American Democratic leadership is also middle class. They are voting their class interests before their race interests, pure and simple. They feel no more need to address the problems of chronic poverty, or the face the fact that the homicide rate among African Americans by African Americans is actually an African American issue. No, no--they won't let you pry their guns out of their cold, dead hands any sooner than Charlton Heston will.

Kind of a disconnect there, I'd say.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Tinker
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 06:55 PM

Dear Guest,

Politicians are people regardless of color. Many of the black leadership are Republicans. Many are the 4th or 5th generation of college graduates in their families and feel no indentification at all to the constituents to whom you refer. The black community like the white has its intellegensia and its have nots; its swordsmen and its saints. Until we figure out how to connect across those class lines the rest is really all just academic.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 06:59 PM

Doug - Let me add to what kendall said. Not only did Clinton and Reagan lie. ALL politicians lie...sometimes. Their job requires them to. They all know things that they can't speak openly about, because it would cause utter havoc if they did...so they lie.

That's one reason they lie, at any rate. Another reason they lie on various occasions is because they figure that it is genuinely the BEST thing to do under the circumstances!

In that respect they are exactly like ALL the rest of us. Is there a single one of us who can claim that he has NEVER lied? Never???

I don't think so. We all lie under certain circumstances, for a huge variety of reasons, and we do it because, essentially, we are convinced that it is the wisest and the best thing to do, all things considered, at that time . We may even believe that it is in other people's interest that we lie TO THEM, for some very good reasons!

So, lying, like killing, is supposedly wrong...or is it? All depends on the circumstances.

The fact is, we don't believe a single one of our supposedly infallible moral notions....when specific conditions don't seem to justify them.

Prosecuting a man for lying about his sex life under oath is silly, when his sex life has little or nothing to do with affecting the world in general. Prosecuting him for lying about arms sales is not silly, since that DOES have a serious effect on the world in general.

Now, in case you doubt my assertion that everybody lies when they think it's a good idea too...when they think it's JUSTIFIABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES...here are some examples.

1. If you were ever once stopped at the US-Canada border and turned back (because you had long hair, for example)...and 20 years later a customs official asks you "Were you ever refused entry to the USA?" WHAT DO YOU TELL HIM? You tell him, "No sir." I submit that you would be an idiot to tell him the contrary, Doug, and that the only sensible thing on Earth to do in such a case is lie...if you want to get across that stupid border and avoid a very nasty and pointless incident which will be of no use to anyone.

2. How many people lie (in small ways) about their taxes? Are they bad people for doing so?

3. How many people lie to their children about various matters...in order to protect them or in order to bring some excitement and happiness into their lives?

4. How about when people lie to save the lives of innocent people? Wallenberg lied to the Nazis and saved many Jews.

And so it goes.

Now here's the deal. I'm sure that on an individual basis both Bill Clinton AND Ronald Reagan were sure, dead sure, that lying was the RIGHT thing to do under the circumstances when they lied.

In other words, they were behaving the same way other people do. We just have differences of opinion about how we evaluate the "right" circumstances.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 07:15 PM

I think there are some interesting comments here about class lines in America. While racism certainly still exists, much of what we blame on racism is really classism. The fact that many black people are poor helps hide this fact.

Anyone who has every walked into a backwoods restaurant wearing a nice suit and driving a BMW experiences the same feeling that a black man in jeans and a sweatshirt might experience on a high-priced golf course.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Gareth
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 07:23 PM

And as a Limey election agent -
Don't weep - Organize for 2004

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 07:29 PM

Right on, Nicole! Classism it is. The fact is, a lot of people are just naturally suspicious of, and prejudiced toward people who are clearly from a "different class" of society. As a young, long-haired man, I experienced a great deal of classism in the 70's from cops and older people who were clearly unaware of my real nature (I'm utterly law-abiding and harmless). People in downtown Toronto are generally afraid of groups of young black men...not particularly because of their race...but because of a general impression about class and the incidence of violent crime and street gangs.

To call it racism is to miss the point...there's somethin' goin on here. People are scared. Why? And how much does that interfere with relaxing and accepting other people for who they really are?

An emotionally healthy person is less inclined to be scared of people who look different than to be interested in them, I would think.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: kendall
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 07:36 PM

It's interesting how we take a politician (lower than used car salesman) put him/her in the catbird seat, and then expect him/her to be a paragon of virtue. Had I been in Bill's place, there is no way I would have admitted what happened, and I would not have lied. I would have said, "None of your business."

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 07:47 PM

That's right, Kendall, and that's what he should have said. Jack Kennedy would have told them to go to hell. Of course, the media were not quite so shameless yet, in Kennedy's time as they have become since.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Blues=Life
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 07:50 PM

Good for you kendall. That's what I would have said if I had been in that position. The truth is, the Dems came out this election trying to play Prevent Defense. They needed to be on Offense. You need to say "Here is what I stand for!", not "The other guy is no good." We need leaders, and whatever else happens, I get the feeling that the Democratic Party leadership is a-changing fast. Best thing they could possibly do, is free up space for fresh blood, to figure out what they stand for, and then to stand up and deliver it to the people.
But will they?
Oh, and by the way, kendall, since you just agreed with my basic premise, does this mean that you have your "head up your ass!" too? LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: harpgirl
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 07:53 PM

the real problem with power differentials in the world is not between democrats and republicans but between men and women. All this other talk is a smokescreen...

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 07:54 PM

Tinker said:

"Many of the black leadership are Republicans"

Ahem.

The first black Republican elected to Congress was a fill in. In 1870 Hiram R. Revels was elected to fill U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Jefferson Davis. In the same year, Joseph H. Rainey, South Carolina, became the first African-American Congressman. In 1875, Blanche K. Bruce of Mississippi became the first African-American elected to a full term in US Senate.

So, aside from those historic landmark elections, where is the "many" in that claim from Tinker?

Well...

You have to wait a VEEEERRRY long time before any Republican African American senators or congressional representatives come along. Not until 1966 is there another African American on the US Congressional radar, and Edward R. Brooke, a Republican from Massachusetts, becomes the first African American to be elected to the US Senate by popular vote. The first African American (Republican or Democrat) to receive a judicial appointment in a US Judicial Court, was in 1975, when James Parsons is appointed to the bench. Then in 1998, U.S. House of Representatives elects J.C. Watts (R-OK) to be Chairman of the House Republican Conference, the first time a Republican African American ever held a Republican leadership position in the US Congress.

And of course, J.C. Watts resigned in July 2001, when he was routinely ignored and dissed by the Bush White House and the current Republican House leadership.

So much for "many" Republican African American elected officials being involved in the Republican leadership.











The ONLY black Republican in the US House of Representatives resigned because he was being dissed by the Republican leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Tinker
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 07:58 PM

So, sorry you referred to BET, not to elected officals. The Black leadership and money do not line up by party lines. The dollars follow the flow of business just like the white world.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Tweed
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:01 PM

Gahhhhhh......!!!
What's all this beef about Bill Clinton? The guy turned deficits into surpluses, interest rates finally began to drop down, and cut unemployment figures dramatically. What the fuck else do you all want from a president? AND he's been outta office only two years, most nations of the world hate our guts now, people are jobless, and suddenly all the surplus is gone. Lay offa him. He did a good job and you all turned your backs on him when they cornered him with bullshit accusations. I don't give a sh*t if he lied under oath about sex with that gal and if you dig deep you guys would've done the same thing....okay...I'm done...gets me pissed when people insist on dragging Clinton's blow job out to poke around on. Lay the good things he did for us and the world on one side of a scale and the head job/lie under oath on the other. He was a good one and we sure haven't had much of a surplus of good presidents in the last twenty years or more. He gave a damn about the regular working human being.
Rant over,
Tweed (frustrated with the world today, gimme a couple weeks to settle down)

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:15 PM

harpgirl - Here's one male who will agree heartily with you on that! Until men and women have equal authority at all levels we will continue repeating a very sorry social tradition founded on a primitive past.

Tweed - Agreed. Bill Clinton was personally immature in his conduct, but he was a good president. The Republicans just were on a vendetta, and were determined to press it forward upon any excuse whatsoever. What they really hated about Clinton was that he was successful, and was beating them at their own game. Clinton should have simply refused to discuss his sex life, which was nobody's business except his wife's, I should think. He made a poor judgement call in not doing so.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:34 PM

Tinker, they sure as shit line up that way in the US Congress.

Republicans have never been the party that gave jobs to African Americans. Following the Compromise of 1876, in which Republican Rutherford B. Hayes won a contested presidential election by agreeing to no longer protect the former slaves, African-American participation in the Republican Party decreased.

But the real shift of African Americans from the Republican party that freed them under Lincoln, to the Dems, was the Great Depression. Only 23% of African Americans voted for FDR, but by 1948, 70% of the African American vote went to Truman, who worked for several major civil rights initiatives by supporting fair employment practices to combat job discrimination and issuing an executive order to desegregate the military.

African Americans were again squarely in the Democratic camp in 1964, after Johnson got the Civil Rights Act passed, and was rewarded with 94% of the African American vote. It was then that Democratic party which slowly began to open up the ranks to African Americans. The Democratic party championed Affirmative Action, not the Republicans. Black poverty and unemployment was at an historic low under Clinton.

Despite those facts, there is plenty of polling data to show that African Americans are becoming more conservative, even if they are remaining in the Democratic party. African American voters are quite capable of holding both liberal and conservative attitudes, depending on the issue. The fact that one-third of African Americans identify themselves as conservative does not mean they are conservative on all issues. In fact, a breakdown of the data indicates that, on most issues, even African Americans who identify themselves as conservatives are, in fact, still mostly liberal. attitudes don't automatically "translate into voting behavior.   An individual may identify himself as conservative, but vote for a liberal candidate. Obviously, one-third of blacks are not voting conservative, even though they say they are conservative to pollsters.

In recent times, in 1976, 83 percent of African Americans voted for Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford; in 1980, 83 percent voted for Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan; in 1984, 91 percent voted for Walter Mondale over Ronald Reagan; in 1988, 89 percent voted for Michael Dukakis over George Bush; in 1992, 83 percent voted for Bill Clinton over George Bush, despite a concerted Republican Party campaign, led by then-Republican National Chairman Lee Atwater, to attract more African American voters; and, in 1996, 84 percent of African Americans voted for Clinton.

So much for African Americans going Republican, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:35 PM

Yo Tweezer! I just left a cold six of Iron City in the beer box in the shack. Chill, bro. Man, I hate to see ya get worked up like this. Danged...

Well, I think I mighta started this mess with my comments about "welfare reform" which I stand behind. The point I was trying to make is that Clinton bent over backwards trying get stuff done and was an artist at compromise. Unfortunately, like "welfare reform" some of, but not all, the things he did hurt the folks at the bottom end of the economic ladder, yet these folks seemed the most forgiving since Clinton understood how to talk with folks. Clinton was also wise enough to listen to Greenspan and soak up a lot of stuff that allowed thre economy to recover from Bush, Sr. and expand. Bush choose to bully Greenspan into tax cuts, which Greenspan originally was against but under relentless pressure from Bush, capitulated.

But anyway, Tweezer, sorry pal to get my ol' (well not old) blues buddy all worked up...

Hey, wanta toll free number to join the Green Party? Jus' funnin' with ya.

Go play your guitar for an hour and you'll be just fine.

Bobertz

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Tweed
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:44 PM

Boberdz, Do you know why the folks at the bottom of the ladder love him? It's because he got the minimum wage raised above absolute starvation figures, and he helped people to get the hell off their asses and be proud to go out and make some money for themselves. That's what that was about, not to dump on them but to give them some f*cking self respect, and they did, and they respect him as a man for doin' it. That is the mark of a real President of these United States.
Dammit, I can't shake this rant....sorry it's just pourin' outta me.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Tinker
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:49 PM

We may move in different worlds, but the folks I've met at Alvin Ally galas,who end their summer on the Vineyard, and go to Jack and Jill meetings write checks to pave thier way with both parties, and are no easier to catagorise than the power broker whites of the same social class. Increasingly their mouths may belong to one party and their checks to another. These are not middle class folks. They are power brokers, who happen to be African American.

Class and race are separate issues which the parties, as well as the country will eventually have to come to grips.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:57 PM

There was also always this attitude (back to classism) that Clinton was just a stupid white southerner and didn't belong in a position of authority. The vast majority of elected officials that make it to the top ranks come from wealthy or political families.

Not that Clinton particularly came from a disadvantaged or underprivileged background, but he's the closest thing in decades to the idea that any, normal, everyday citizen can rise to power in a democracy. After all, even plumbers can dream of being the leader of the free world.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Tinker
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:12 PM

Tweed and Nichole, I've got to agree with you both. Clinton's ability to emote with the average man is probably what set him up to be a search and destroy target. Nothing is scarier to the status quo than empowered change. And although Clinton played the system he did make people feel things could change. That is always dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:48 AM

Harp Girl: this is the second thread where you have volunteered to kiss my ass. Now I find nothing wrong with that, but for goodness sake, couldn't you handle that in a PM or something? Why publicize your secret desires? :>)

Now, my good friends so happy to forgive Bill Clinton for his transgressions based on the fact that other politicians, including RR, or any other politician for that matter lied. Did they lie in court? Were they under oath when they lied? So what you are saying is: Bill Clinton lied, so it's okay? Is that what you tell you kids?

Nobody has invited me to comment on the needs of the Democratic party if they want to become revelant again but what the hey. In this past election only a day old, the Democrats did not offer voters an ALTERNATIVE! They spent millions of dollars trashing their Republican opponents, but offered no programs that people could grab on to. Get some new leadership, identify goals that people can identify with, and you will again become competitive. Othewise, get use to saying "President Bush" for four more years.

Personally I think Bobert had the right idea when he urged everybody to vote Green though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 01:08 AM

Doug, you are SO right. The Dems failed miserably in 2000 when they should have won that election in a cakewalk, and they failed again in 2002 for lack of ideas. The tired argument, "but we're the Democrats" doesn't work when an electorate is totally disillusioned by both parties.

Die hard Dems voted, die hard Repubs voted, but the fence sitters stayed home, and elections don't get won unless you give them a reason to vote.

This country is ripe -- overripe -- for strong Democratic leadership. If it appears, I predict a trouncing in 2004. If it doesn't -- yep, 4 more years of Bush. Darned if I know where it might come from, but I'd be happy to see it.

I'd be happier yet with two or three great candidates with great skills and great ideas that could stir up some political interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 01:20 AM

I think Bobert has been listening to one of the Presidential speeches. I think he probably picked up the Bush word for "Pharmaceuticals".
The Global concern re. the U.S. elections was evident in the wide coverage found in the press worldwide. The concern is justified; we havejust been witness to a Global calamity. To an outsider observing the recent politics in the USA, the Democratic Party was its own executioner. What difference does it make which party an American votes for if they both appear to support proposed global mayhem? Or is Georgie just clever enough to know that the public eyes are so easily "glamoured" by a circus?

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 01:52 AM

A pharacudical is a drug that's manufactured by a barracuda. We learned all about that in med school. Back in the days of President [we needed a Lincoln but they gave us a] Ford.

Look, in good times people are going to vote for whoever is in power; in bad times people are going to vote for whoever makes them feel good. Republicans were selling war and patriotism and "strength", Democrats were selling fear. No surprise.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 08:16 AM

Tinker, may I politely ask what it is you seem to be disagreeing about in my posts? Or are we going round with one of those "I think I'll argue for the sake of arguing" situations here?

I'm just asking because in the first post of mine you responded to, I was saying that African Americans who supported Clinton were largely (not solely, as you seem to be trying to suggest) middle class, increasingly self-identifying as conservatives, and often opposed to gun control.

Your response seemed to suggest I was stereotyping blacks, because "many" were Republican leaders (not true, as I have pointed out) and college educated. Well, duh! Then, once I countered showing that there were not many African American Republican leaders at all, you come back with "you said BET". Again--well, duh!

What is up with you anyway? Got an ax to grind, or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: harpgirl
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 08:48 AM

Here in Leon County, host to the Governor's mansion and Florida state government, McBride 60,749 to Bush 32,540. Votes at the FAMU grandballroom precinct (flagship black school in Tally) were Bush 7 McBride 284 and Bush 10 McBride 705. Other black precincts reported include Jake Gaither: Bush 18 McBride 789, Bethel AME Church Bush 13 McBride 383, and so on in every predominantly black precinct. Only the richest white precincts had votes in favor of Bush over McBride. The African American leaders in this southern county are still voting democratic. They've seen Bush's handiwork in State Government employment and they know exactly what he stands for.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Peg
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 08:50 AM

I am still waiting to hear why it was okay for Reagan to lie to the American people about something highly illegal and immoral...but somehow lying about his sex life makes Clinton responsible for the disintegration of the Democratic Partty.
Doug? This has been asked of you directly (explain why it was different for Reagan to lie the way he did) more than once and you keep ignoring it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:06 PM

That's because Doug liked Reagan, Peg. :-)

One can always forgive little flaws and errors in those one likes...

People should stop pretending to be so righteous, and just admit that they are blatantly prejudiced and that they change their moral positions as often as they change their socks!

If we could all admit it, then decide what we would like to be, have, and do in Life...maybe we could get somewhere. I think we would all like to be safe, prosperous, and happy...and do things that are interesting, exciting, and fulfilling. Am I right?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:30 PM

Well, danged, LH! You won't find no blatant prejudgin' comin' out of me! No, sir. Blatant biases? Well, sure. And, I hope, you were speakin' tongue-in-cheek about folks changing their morals about as often as their socks 'cause I don't think that describes you, me, Nicole, Peg, Larry, et al here in the Catbox who are purdy danged consistent in and comfortable with our pro-human, pro-earth values. But I'm sure you're were jus funnin'.

As fir safe, prosperous and happy? Where do I sign up?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST,Commy
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:59 PM

The real problem in USA is you don't think further than the next MacMuffin. Democracy is almost a foreign concept. It would require a degree of thought, some knowledge of history, and the realisation that your current system hangs by a chad before things improve. God may bless America but I would bet serious folding money that he has his doubts about Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: kendall
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 01:10 PM

Doug, did you hear Peg? Do you really think that Clinton's blowjob, and his lying about it, is more serious than Reagan being involved in an immoral and ILLEGAL coverup? Which did the country more damage? Come on now, fess up. That "under oath" is splitting hairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: bob schwarer
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 01:24 PM

Someone early in this thread quoted H.L.Mencken. He also said "Some politicians, if their constituents were cannibals, would promise them missionaries for dinner."

Also for your amusement:

Political Quotes

Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a
virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs.
P.J. O'Rourke

~When I die, I want to be buried in Chicago so I can still be
active in politics.
~Representative Charlie Rangel

Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many
rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book
~Ronald Reagan

Politics ain't worrying this country one-tenth as much as where to
find a parking space.
~Will Rogers

I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have
looked like if Moses had run them through the US congress.
~Ronald Reagan

When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know
whether to answer "Present" or "Not guilty."
~Theodore Roosevelt

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 01:50 PM

I will not defend RR for lying about the Iran Contra situation. That was wrong. Why was it more wrong for Clinton? Because he lied UNDER OATH!

That might be a big deal to you, Kendall, and obviously it is not to others, but it is to me.

Had RR been under oath when he lied, he would have been just as guilty as Clinton. I note that RR was not impeached for lying, Clinton was. Anyway, as somebody said once, "two wrongs do not make a right."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:00 PM

"Prejudice not being founded on reason cannot be removed by argument. -- Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:15 PM

The fact that the country got into such a tizzy over Clinton's little peccadilloes is more of a commentary on those who brought the matter up in the first place, the news media that spread the gossip, and the electorate who gleefully gobbled it up than it is on Clinton as President. The whole thing reflected the mentality of the kind of people who watch The Jerry Springer Show. And the same holds for the people who keep bringing it up. Shame on you!!

There is no doubt that Clinton was very wrong when he lied under oath. What he should have said is, "I refuse to answer this question because first, it is a blatant attempt to undercut me personally as President; second, it appeals only to the prurient interest of small minds; third, it is completely irrelevant to matters of governing the country; and forth, the details of my private life are nobody's business but my own." That would have pointed out the real reason for bringing the matter up in the first place. And his response should have been essentially the same as Pete Seeger's when he was called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee during the Fifties: "You have no right to even ask this question."

As Doug says, "In this past election only a day old, the Democrats did not offer voters an ALTERNATIVE! They spent millions of dollars trashing their Republican opponents, but offered no programs that people could grab on to. Get some new leadership, identify goals that people can identify with, and you will again become competitive."

The programs and goals are there, but it appears that, for the most part, the Democratic Party has forgotten how to articulate them. There were some, such as Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Jim McDermott who were very outspoken, stating these programs and goals quite explicitly. A few other Democratic candidates did also, but one would have known nothing about it had not been for their political ads. The news media basically ignored them. For the most part, most Democrats, especially incumbents, talk out of both sides of their mouths and spend a great deal of time saying, "Me, too! Me, too!" Disgusting!

No, the Democratic Party is not dead. Yet. It is up to the likes of thee and me to contact the Democratic Party, both local and national, with phone calls, letters, and when possible in person and voice our displeasure at the ineptness with which they handled this campaign. Also contact candidates individually, both winners and losers. Express your appreciation for those who did speak out articulately and your disappointment with those who did not. Kick some butt!

Are we up to the task? Or are we going to just sit around and whine?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:25 PM

Doug: The "Under Oath" crap just don't cut it with me. Most of the best lies are told under oath. There's just something about oath's that bring out the worst in ordinarially honest folks. Don't believe me? Spend a morning in your local traffic court and listen to 'em. One after another, ordinary honest citizens step up, take the oath and lie thru their teeth.

Now, I know ya' gotta repeat the company line because you're a loyal and good hearted Repub. but when ya' strip away the PR facade, the idea that Clinton's lie under *oath* about sex, and RR's lie about guns which were used to... ahhh, you know...kill folks, is in itself another Repub lie in its own right...

But you have my permission, not that you need it, to keep telling it with as much righteous indignation as you can muster up. Might of fact the more you can muster up the funnier it is to some of us when we hear it being told.

Yeah, one day I hope we'll all be able to look back with humor on Bush's lies but right now they're not too funny 'cause it looks like they're gonna lead to gettin' a lot of folks killed.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Tinker
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:46 PM

To my fellow Mudcatters, I apologize. I rarely post to political threads, but I did let this guest push some personal buttons. I'm sorry.

As Big Mick eloquently said another thread," in politics perception is reality." As long as we can use statistics without questions……Is the universe complete? Only elected or inclusive of appointed officials? Have key figures been left out simply to provoke further debate or set traps??? Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics…… a dangerous game to play...

Many of our country's leaders now run the economic engine rather than the ship of state. Do they affect our lives? Absolutely.   If we look to effect change in everyday lives we must not let the differences defined by the media blind us to the similarities we share. This country shies away from discussions of class, but yet we "celebrate" diversity. My point and the only one I hope to make is that labeling by race or gender often divides potential political power rather than fueling growth.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:53 PM

It is not enough to simply contact the party and the candidates and tell them how you feel. Politics is not limited to career politicians. Any citizen over 25 can run for congress. Anyone at all can actively help in campaigns.
I was offered a chance to work in Wellstone's campaign, and I will always regret my refusal. Letting the party know how you feel is all well and good, but sometimes you need to do more.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 03:34 PM

Forum Lurker, I was not suggesting that contacting the party and the candidates is all one should do. Unless one already participated actively, the first butt one should kick is one's own. I thought that was obvious.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 03:43 PM

Thank you for clarifying that you were responding as if I had personally pushed your hot buttons. When we post, it is impossible to know the hot buttons of the many people who might read our words.

I understand your apology wasn't meant to include me, but I do appreciate the clarification nonetheless.

I once met Percy Sutton, who told a very interesting story about his early days of trying to find advertisers for his Inner City Broadcasting radio station, WLIB. One of the corporations he approached with his "big sell" campaign was Dannon yogurt. After several attempts to meet with their representatives, who consistently refused to meet with him, he was finally able to get in touch with someone who was willing to tell him why he was having such difficulty arranging a meeting with them. Their reason for not meeting with him was simple: black people didn't eat yogurt.

If you are more comfortable with anecdotes rather than facts (I don't do statistics), I hope this helps you understand that you and truly are saying the same thing. Perhaps the barrier to our understanding one another is simply a matter of style.

Best wishes to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Blues=Life
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 03:47 PM

You know, I might just feel like y'all ignoring me! LOL I'm the one that brought up Clinton, and now I'm sorry I did. But I'll type this real slow, so you can't possibly make a straw man out of it AGAIN!

The Question was, when did the party die?

My answer was, when the PARTY LEADERSHIP acted like lying to the American public was OK!

It was wrong when Reagan did it. It was wrong when Clinton did it.

You break trust with the American people, and they don't forget it that easily. Dick and Tom LOOKED bad when they said it was OK to act like Clinton. From that moment on, they embodied my party, and I didn't like it. Obviously, neither did the voters.


Little Hawk, I am not a person who "change their moral positions as often as they change their socks," and have given you no reason to think that. I am a lifelong, active, member of the Democratic Party.
I also taught ethics at the university level for a number of years, and have put a lot of thought into my personal code of ethics. I will repeat my original premise, and please argue it, and not your distorted version of it:

"The rest (party leadership) missed the fact that if I can't trust you to tell me the truth, THEN I CAN'T TRUST YOU. This is a lesson I teach my kids, why is it that my party leadership doesn't know this?"

I don't expect much from my politicians, but I do hold them to the same standard as coworkers, employers, customers, and others I deal with on a daily basis. Don't break my trust. It doesn't grow back.

Gov. Tom Vilsack, D-Iowa, for President, 2004
Blues

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:29 PM

Don: good post at 2:15.

Blues: I wouldn't mind seeing the Clinton lying issue fade away myself, (along with Bush stole the election, etc.)but the most interesting thing to me about that whole situation is how readily some people believe that lying is not a serious offence. "Everyone does it," so it's okay. To me, lying under oath is a serious offence. The courts must think so too, because if you are caught, you are punished for it.

Clinton's lie was especially heinous, in my opinion, because it could have denied a citizen one of their basic civil rights. The right to a fair trial in a lawsuit. For so many people here on the Mudcat that consider themselves the champion of civil rights, to look the other way when a fellow citizen's rights are trampled on by a witness in a law suit that lies about his behaviour seems ludicrous to me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: kendall
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 05:07 PM

The right to a fair trial? who? how?

Doug, if you could put your party loyalty aside for just a minute, you would have to admit that what they both lied ABOUT is what's important.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: the Democratic Party
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 07:47 PM

Bobert and Blues...

Actually, I was dead serious when I said that people "change their moral positions as often as they change their socks", but I cannot give you a 30-second sound bite that will explain what I mean. I would need to sit down with you in a cafe for a good half hour and talk about it calmly to explain it.

I was in no way indicting people or judging them when I said that. I include myself and virtually all other people in the statement.

The only possible exceptions to my statement are purblind fanatics who have memorized "Mein Kampf" or the Bible or the Quran or some other authoritative piece of writing like that...and don't make a move without following a specific instruction from THE BOOK. And you know what? Even those books themselves are full of unintended contradictions...as is the behaviour of the people who claim to follow them (specially when they're under stress).

I do not mean that people CONSCIOUSLY change their moral positions. Not at all. I mean that they rationalize, depending on the situation, and unconsciously change their moral positions...then explain it away afterward if anyone points it out to them.

These are normal, well-intentioned people who mean no harm. Count on it. People just like you and me.

- LH