|
01 Nov 06 - 01:09 PM (#1873972) Subject: BS: Democrats move to Right From: GUEST http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/nov2006/dems-n01.shtml With the US midterm elections just a week away, Democratic Party leaders and candidates are waging the most right-wing campaign in the party's history. The essential content of this campaign is a pledge to continue the Bush administration's policies of militarism abroad and social reaction at home. The Democrats are at pains to reassure America's financial elite that an end to Republican control over one or both houses of Congress will in no way impinge on their wealth or political influence. According to the latest estimates, the two major parties are expected to spend some $2.6 billion, making this year's election the most expensive congressional contest ever. Vast sums of corporate money are flowing into the campaign coffers of leading figures in both parties, as US corporate and financial interests hedge their bets, making sure to buy influence on both sides of the aisle. While seeking to profit from the popular hostility to the Bush administration over the war in Iraq, attacks on democratic rights and the accelerating transfer of social wealth from working people to the rich and the super-rich, the Democratic leadership is sending signals to the ruling elite that it has no intention of seriously challenging any of these policies. Rather, the party is being shifted even further to the right, in terms of both its platform and its candidates. There is little to distinguish Democratic candidates from their Republican opponents. Thirty three of the Democratic challengers have won endorsements from either the Blue Dogs, a caucus of predominantly southern right-wing Democrats that frequently votes with the Republicans, or from the New Democrat Coalition, the congressional arm of the the pro-war, pro-corporate Democratic Leadership Council, which emerged a decade ago as an opposition within the Democratic Party to what it derided as outmoded "liberalism..." |
|
01 Nov 06 - 01:15 PM (#1873977) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Ebbie Source? |
|
01 Nov 06 - 01:30 PM (#1873988) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Joe Offer I'd prefer to say it's a move to the center, and I welcome that move. One way or another, elected officials have to work to serve ALL the people, not just those who subscribe to a particular ideology. That means they have to fashion compromises that will serve the common good. They must abandon the "winner take all" philosophy of government that gives everything to the party in power and nothing to the opposition, a philosophy that completely forgets those of us who are in the middle. -Joe Offer, Radical Moderate- |
|
01 Nov 06 - 01:31 PM (#1873989) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Barry Finn While I don't mind replying to guest in the music section. I've deceided down here in the BS section that No Source & No Name get NO Comments Good-bye Barry |
|
01 Nov 06 - 01:51 PM (#1874002) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: pdq The statement comes from the World Socialist Web Site and ends with: "A victory for the Democrats in either or both houses of Congress would bespeak the immense popular hostility towards the policies pursued by the Bush administration. But these policies have been implemented by both parties and are an indictment of the two-party system as a whole. Such a "victory," should it occur, will not be the result of a challenge to the Bush administration's policies of global militarism and social reaction, nor of any genuine appeal to the seething opposition to the Iraq war and the worsening conditions facing masses of working people in the US. Rather, it will register the fact that America's ruling oligarchy has determined that a partial shift in tactics and personnel is required to better pursue essentially the same agenda. Whatever the outcome on November 7, the right-wing stance of the Democratic Party in this election campaign has laid bare the unavoidable necessity for a new political alternative: a mass independent party of the American working people, who comprise the vast majority of the population. The Socialist Equality Party is intervening in the 2006 elections to lay the political foundation for such a party and to fight for the socialist and internationalist program that it requires." Wonder if Little Hawk had anything to do with writing the article? |
|
01 Nov 06 - 02:04 PM (#1874019) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: McGrath of Harlow Centre, left, right. It's all relative. What counts as centrist in US terms would be seen, in England, as pretty far out to the right - to the right of our Conservative Party in fact. |
|
01 Nov 06 - 02:55 PM (#1874073) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: GUEST,Arkie The Democratic Party has been painted "liberal" by the faction supporting Bush as a part of its campaign appealing to fright and prejudice. In reality it is nowhere as "liberal" as pictured. Still it does offer some alternative to Bush policies. Big money has certainly bought into both parties. |
|
01 Nov 06 - 03:10 PM (#1874083) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Peace Under the Republicans, humans exploit humans. Under Democrats it is the reverse. |
|
01 Nov 06 - 03:16 PM (#1874087) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: kendall All of the polls predict a democrat victory, but remember this, "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who COUNT the votes decide everything." (Josef Stalin) Can you say Diebold? I fear those damned machines more than I fear any republican.Thank God they are not allowed in Maine. |
|
01 Nov 06 - 03:36 PM (#1874099) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Jim Dixon As I have explained elsewhere, if the words "liberal" and "conservative" are to keep their traditional meanings, we shouldn't call our two major parties liberal and conservative. We should call them conservative (Democrats) and reactionary (Republicans). |
|
01 Nov 06 - 03:58 PM (#1874119) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: pdq "TRUST US Their styles, demographics and charisma couldn't be starker, but the politics of Harold Ford Jr. and Bob Corker aren't that different by William Dean Hinton Nobody expected Bob Corker to win the battle of the shout-downs before the first debate of the U.S. Senate race, which was held at a television station in Memphis, home turf to Democratic Congressman Harold Ford Jr. With few Corker volunteers to jeer and rally against, Ford supporters bunched together on a dead-end street, next to his enormous tour bus, mingling among themselves and waiting for something to happen. But it was a different story in Chattanooga, Corker's home turf, three days later. Several hundred Corker supporters turned out, holding banners and placards, singing fight songs and trying to outdo the surprisingly large number of Ford supporters, who were in an equally pugnacious mood. Minutes before Corker arrived, at the height of the caterwauling, Ford's side yelled in unison "Harold Ford" while Corker's people shouted "Bob Corker" so that, if you were standing down the street from the ruckus, all you could hear was a great, big "Harold Corker." Inside an auditorium on the UT Chattanooga campus, where the second debate was held, Harold Corker turned out to be an apt description of the two candidates' ideologies. They spent a lot of time pointing out how different they were with little net effect. After all, for years both have plumbed the same side of the conservative political spectrum: they're both anti-abortion, anti-taxes, anti-immigrant, anti-gay marriage, pro-school prayer, pro-military spending, pro-education, pro-alternative fuels. About the only difference between the two is that Corker is opposed to embryonic stem cell research, as opposed to adult stem cell research, which does not require the destruction of embryos (and potential human life). Ford, on the other hand, supports federal funding of both kinds of medical inquiry, calling a stem cell bill vetoed by President Bush last year a "pro-life" bill." {first part only} |
|
01 Nov 06 - 04:25 PM (#1874145) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Don Firth If you're way to the Left, even Trotsky looks like a Right-Winger. If you're a heavy-duty Right-Winger, Mussolini was a flaming liberal. Politics is that art of compromise. If both sides feel they didn't get everything they wanted, that usually means the system is working. Don Firth |
|
01 Nov 06 - 06:59 PM (#1874258) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: GUEST One of the posts above is quite appropriate because it mentions Trotsky. The Bush junta is made up of Trotskyites. Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol...hell, William Kristol's father took over some of Trotsky's duties when Trotsky was whacked in Mexico. Hardcore communists. They studied under Leo Strauss of Chicago University. All public record. All out in the open. Bush's primary advisors are communist. And that's why Bush has TRIPLED the size of the U.S. govt. |
|
01 Nov 06 - 07:30 PM (#1874278) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Don Firth Thanks, GUEST! That explains it! They're so far to the Right, they've come full circle!! Don Firth |
|
01 Nov 06 - 07:44 PM (#1874298) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: GUEST So you make a joke of it? Both parties are moving to tyrannical govt and you're going to continue playing with the fake left/right political view? Strauss was a believer in the Uberman, like Hitler was. They both subscribed to Friedrich Nietzsche's view that some people are born to rule. It is their 'destiny' to rule, and if they can't rule, then they need to destroy what they can of the species in order to make it stronger. "All three of them were convinced that liberal economics would turn life into entertainment and destroy politics; all three understood politics as a conflict between mutually hostile groups willing to fight each other to the death. In short, they all thought that man's humanity depended on his willingness to rush naked into battle and headlong to his death. Only perpetual war can overturn the modern project, with its emphasis on self-preservation and "creature comforts." Life can be politicised once more, and man's humanity can be restored. This terrifying vision fits perfectly well with the desire for honour and glory that the neo-conservative gentlemen covet. It also fits very well with the religious sensibilities of gentlemen. The combination of religion and nationalism is the elixir that Strauss advocates as the way to turn natural, relaxed, hedonistic men into devout nationalists willing to fight and die for their God and country. I never imagined when I wrote my first book on Strauss that the unscrupulous elite that he elevates would ever come so close to political power, nor that the ominous tyranny of the wise would ever come so close to being realised in the political life of a great nation like the United States. But fear is the greatest ally of tyranny." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm At least Republicans are waking up to the horror of what they've done. But you democrats... |
|
01 Nov 06 - 10:42 PM (#1874388) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Don Firth GUEST, you really are a bomb-thrower. And like all bomb-throwers, you're convinced that you're absolutely right, everybody else is just plain stupid, and bloody revolution is the only answer. Sorry! I've seen your type before. Not really happy unless blood is running in the streets. No! I don't I don't buy that! Don Firth |
|
01 Nov 06 - 11:18 PM (#1874403) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: GUEST You already have bought it. Your fear and silence guarantees you will be slaughtered. The only way to stop the slaughter is to admit we've been duped and then set out to remedy the situation. The first obstacle to get past is the phony left/right paradigm we've been conditioned to believe in. Bush initiated war, Hillary Clinton vows to continue it. Pelosi says she'll block impeachment of Bush. That's team playing. |
|
02 Nov 06 - 12:15 AM (#1874424) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: GUEST,Ron Davies That's right--moving to the Right--of the Socialists. Brilliant deduction. Go to the head of the class. |
|
02 Nov 06 - 12:49 AM (#1874442) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Little Hawk Sorry, Don (and Ron?), I essentially agree with Guest on most of what he says. Both the Democrats and Republicans represent the same vast corporate ruling structure that funds them, and they both intend to pursue essentially the same foreign and domestic policy, with minor differences in outer style, that's all. The Republicans deserve to lose this election badly, but it won't make a very substantial difference in what happens whether they do or not. It will just rearrange the outer show a little. The two party system as it now exists is a PR exercise meant to keep the deluded public under the impression that they still have a "voice" and a choice under the ruling $ySStem. They don't. It's a facade, a sham, a game, a ruse, a fraud, and a common delusion of people who were brought up taking it all for granted and imagining that it was real democracy. It's not. And, yes, leftists and rightists CAN come full circle when they move toward heightened authoritarianism, and they do. They centralize power more and more, they greatly enlarge the state, the military, and the police, they extend the grip of the law on ordinary people's lives, they suspend civil rights, they work to create conformity and suppress dissent in any form, they concentrate power and money in the hands of a small elite, and they do it all in the name of freedom, security, nationalism, defence, and anything else whatsoever that will bamboozle ordinary people into lining up like good little sheep and serving the greater $ySStem. I don't expect to see any solution to it, because I know the power of the forces behind what's happening, and there's very little that ordinary people can do about it unless they all united as one...and they won't. I just expect to get old and die before things get simply absolutely horrible where you live and where I live. Whether I'll be that fortunate, I don't know. We'll see. |
|
02 Nov 06 - 06:32 AM (#1874537) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Wolfgang Right/left relativism: We have a man in Germany by the name of Horst Mahler. He once was lawyer for the left terrorist Red Army faction and has been sentenced for taking part in RAF actions (bank robbery, aiding escape of a prisoner). After having served most of his sentence, he very shortly was a member of the liberal party (fairly right, in G.) and then of the National Democrats (far right, like BNP in Britain). He recently has left this party for being too left and democratically oriented and now with some like minded acts in the name of the coming Fourth Reich. They deal out death sentences for treason (to politicians) the execution of which is postponed until the constitution of the Fourth Reich. In a recent interview he said he had not changed at all his political opinions. As for the US elections to come: The differences between Democrats and (Bush type) Republicans are smaller than one could wish for (both too right for a European taste as McGrath says) but large enough for me to wish for a big defeat for Bush. Wolfgang |
|
02 Nov 06 - 08:52 AM (#1874617) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: GUEST Don Firth, your continuing, desperate attempts to demonize people agitating for a change in the US two party political system as "bomb throwers" is deeply disingenuous, and has resulted in many people losing respect for you and your opinions. It is fine to be a true blue Democrat marching in lock step with the Democratic Leadership Council, as you seem to be. Just be honest about it. We get the fact that you are a true blue Dem, and despise political independents, especially political independents who dare to criticize your team. What isn't OK is to try and demonize those who have a different opinion than your, by trying to equate political agitating with murder, as you keep trying to do everytime this subject comes up. The Democratic party also is guilty of political agitation, and is engaging in it on a widespread basis this election year, to capitalize on the anti-Republican mood. So are they "bomb throwers" too? |
|
02 Nov 06 - 10:06 AM (#1874688) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Arkie That last speech by guest is a perfect example of the kind of doublespeak we get from the current force in power in the US; accusing others of what they themselves are doing. While I certainly would like to see some enlightened leadership from Democrats, (it would also be a pleasant surprise to find it among Republicans too) the citizenry of the country has fared better under Democratic control. Social Services, education, environment, foreign affairs, national debt, and the economy and attempts to develop renewable fuel supplies have all been healthier with Democratic leadership. I do not really think of the present leadership faction as Republican, as it does not embody the best of Republican ideals, but Republicans have bought into it. The public debt inflicted on the country while looting the government treasury for the benefit of the wealthiest citizens is obscene. That has happened less with Democratic control. While I think there is a lot of room for improvement within the Democratic party and Democratic candidates there is a major difference in the two parties. When Kerry and Dean put their feet in their mouth, Democrats as well as Republicans are appalled. When Bush and the Republican congressional leadership stick their feet in their mouth the rest of the piglot circle the wagons. |
|
02 Nov 06 - 02:14 PM (#1874882) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: GUEST Arkie, you just said "the citizenry of the country has fared better under Democratic control" as if it were a fact. It is not. It is your opinion/belief. Reasonable and intelligent people can easily disagree with that statement. When I express my opinion, it isn't "doublespeak" as you claim, just because you don't agree with my opinion. But what Don Firth is doing, is disingenuous name calling, nothing more, nothing less. It is clear you are of the opinion that the nation's best interests are served by sticking with the two party status quo, but voting Democratic instead of Republican. If you believe that is the best course, that's fine. But many voters now describe themselves as political independents, and are not interested in maintaining the two party status quo. That does not make us "bomb throwers" or guilty of "doublespeak" for stating our opinions here in a true blue Democratic party majority forum. Not everyone in the US votes along party lines. More and more politically independent voters cast their vote for the candidate, not one particular party over another. Many Mudcat Democrats have a real problem with political independents, and regularly mock them, just like they do anyone with Republican leanings. Which explains why they "don't get it" any better than John Kerry apparently does. |
|
02 Nov 06 - 02:14 PM (#1874883) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Don Firth No fear on my part. And I don't argue with nameless, faceless agitators who advocated violence. True, I haven't heard you actually advocate violence, but you contemptuously dismiss all other alternatives. As I said, I know your type. Don Firth |
|
02 Nov 06 - 03:20 PM (#1874933) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Don Firth "Don Firth, your continuing, desperate attempts to demonize people agitating for a change in the US two party political system as 'bomb throwers' is deeply disingenuous, and has resulted in many people losing respect for you and your opinions." GUEST, you are misrepresenting my position. I am opposed to the two-party system. I don't think a democracy should have parties at all, and I have said so on several occasions on these threads. I have also advocated proportional government and/or preferential voting (and if you missed it, it's because you're just scanning a few words and jumping to conclusions). But I am not so naïve that I believe voting for the Green Party or for Ralph Nader is going to have any effect other than wasting votes. Recent history more that amply demonstrates that. Yes. We need a complete overhaul of the political system in this country. But in the meantime, top priority demands that we get the Bush League out of there, even if their replacements are far from ideal. That, at least, will give a somewhat better chance for progressives to have a bit of a voice in the government—which they don't have now! In any case, when a house is on fire, you need to put the fire out first. Then you can talk about remodeling it. Beyond bitterly complaining about the status quo, would you care to set forth a practical detailed plan? Without attacking me personally? If so, I'm willing to listen. Don Firth |
|
02 Nov 06 - 03:31 PM (#1874938) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Arkie I do not doubt for one minute that there are Democrats as well as Republicans prostituting themselves to well healed lobbiests. To say there is no difference in Democrats and Republicans sounds like another Karl Rove ploy to confuse and divide voters. The best thing that can happen for the Bush faction in the coming elections as it has in past elections is to have an independent candidate in the race. I would really like to see a legitimate party representing the average citizenry rather than special interest groups. If average citizens prosper, everyone prospers, even the monied interests that now crave absolute control of everything. In the coming election the Democrats are the only line of defense against the Bush Faction. The greedy Republicans are filling their wallets and the idealistic Republicans cannot or will not take their party back. I can understand that there are those who are not satisfied with the platforms of either of the two major parties. I do not think that my best interests are represented by either party the way I would like for them to be. That would probably not happen with a third independent party either. If I voted for my ideals I would most likely be satisfied with a Green Party candidate. If I vote for my children's future, I will vote Democrat. |
|
02 Nov 06 - 03:36 PM (#1874940) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Don Firth I am 100% with Arkie on this. Don Firth |
|
02 Nov 06 - 04:21 PM (#1874963) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: pdq Dr. Bill Frist (R- TN) is retiring from publiuc servece. He is one of the most honest and accomplished men in the history of the US Senate: "He is currently licensed as a physician, and is certified in general surgery and heart surgery. He has performed over 150 heart transplants and lung transplants, including pediatric heart transplants and combined heart and lung transplants." The Democrats want to replace Frist with Harold Ford Jr., now a member of the US House. Here is what a constituant had to say about Ford: "For our non-Tennessee readers, a little more about the Ford family's checkered past: His (Junior's) own father, Harold Ford, then a respected congressman, fought for years against charges of involvement in a bank-fraud scheme with banker Jake Butcher. Butcher and his brother were convicted and went to jail. Ford was acquitted. Junior's uncle Emmitt Ford was convicted of insurance fraud while he was a state representative and served time in prison. And then there's his other uncle, State Senator John Ford. Whew! His numerous foibles are too many to list." Other say the the Fords are nothing but family of crooks and petty crimnals. Harold Ford Jr. can be seen on YouTube in a film clip. He claims to be a lawyer but flunked the bar exam. This is waht the Dems put up to replace Dr. Frist? Shame on them. |
|
02 Nov 06 - 04:31 PM (#1874974) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Don Firth Okay. Right now I'm listening to an interview on my local NPR affiliate with the Washington State Congressional Representative from the Seventh District (in which I live), Jim McDermott, and the two candidates, Republican and Independent, who are running against him. There are undoubtedly some Democrats who have sold out to the system. But not all! Anyone who thinks that there is no real difference between Republicans and Democrats doesn't know what they're talking about! Don Firth |
|
02 Nov 06 - 04:40 PM (#1874980) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: pdq Vote for the person, not the party. Quality counts. The best people working together will eventually make the right decisions. The Democrats have put-up some real stinkers this time. Phew! Again, vote for your congressman/woman based on that person's character and let the final tally in the House and Senate be whatever it turns out to be. |
|
02 Nov 06 - 06:02 PM (#1875033) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: GUEST There is only way to break out of two party rule, and that is to vote for third party candidates. Just ask Jesse Ventura. We may see yet another third party candidate upset in the MN governor's race this year. If it can happen in MN, it can happen anywhere in the US. People just have to vote their conscience, instead of for a party. |
|
02 Nov 06 - 09:29 PM (#1875108) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Arkie I've seen several ads Mr. Ford's opponent has been running so it looks like a draw on character. The Tennessee voters will get to choose whether to support the horrible mess the administration has made in Iraq, the Administration's successful war on the environment and the middle class and the increasing debt to China or alternatives that could provide a glimmer of hope for the future. |
|
02 Nov 06 - 10:39 PM (#1875133) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Don Firth I am voting my conscience, GUEST. Having thoroughly checked out all the candidates from all the parties, read their web sites, and listened to them being interviewed, it turns out that the best candidates by far happen to be members of the Democratic Party. They are the ones I'll be voting for this coming Tuesday. Some of the third party candidates have some fairly progressive ideas, but they haven't a clue as to how to implement them. Either that, or if they were to actually win, their admirable but naïve idealism along with their lack of any real experience either in politics or in the business world would inevitably get them shunted off into a far corner in the rough-and-tumble of the political world. The Green Party candidate running against Maria Cantwell (D) and Mike McGavick (R) is downright pathetic. He was a 60s bomb-thrower. McDermott (D), the incumbent Congressional Representative from my district is very progressive, very anti-war, very pro a national health care system (he's an MD, incidentally), and is steaming mad about the way veterans are being treated. He's also pro-choice, sees nothing wrong with gay marriage ("It's a non-issue they're using to pander to prejudice"). He is very outspoken. He wants voters to know what he stands for. His Republican opponent's mind is merely a collection of Bush bumper-stickers, and the Independent candidate is a very nice young lady who really needs to go back to school. So there it is. To me, the choices are clear. In 2008, I'll see what's on offer. Don Firth |
|
02 Nov 06 - 10:53 PM (#1875138) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: GUEST You're either 9 or 90, Firth. Hard to tell. The Bush/Clinton junta just set up a dictatorial presidency and you're drivelling on about men butt-plugging each other. That's your right though, for a while longer. Keep your eye on the genitals while the storm troopers suit up. |
|
03 Nov 06 - 12:15 AM (#1875156) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Ron Davies Guest (Ghost)--get a name or a handle or you're not worth debating with. And I hope everybody else realizes this. And I hope you get some sleep, despite your Storm Trooper nightmares. You need some medical assistance to deal with this--I hope you get the care you need. |
|
03 Nov 06 - 12:26 AM (#1875160) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: pdq Of all the people being hammered this election cycle, the case I fail to understand is that of Rick Santorum. He is as nice, honest and decent a person as you could find. His main 'mistake' seems to be his Roman Catholic faith, which he takes seriously. His policies on moral issues are precisely the same as the official beliefs of his church. I know the Democrats will destroy any one who gets in the way of their re-aquisition of power, but surely there is room in a legislative body of 100 people for 1 true man of faith. If he were non-practicing or worse (see Ted Kennedy) he might go unchallenged. |
|
03 Nov 06 - 12:39 AM (#1875165) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Ron Davies The problem, pdq, is that Santorum may be in your eyes the most "moral" person in the Senate at this point--but others disagree-- "morality" is in the eye of the beholder. Also, he presumes to dictate to others that their "morality" should match his behavior. This he has no right to do--and he may learn this soon. |
|
03 Nov 06 - 12:57 AM (#1875173) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Don Firth I'm neither 9 nor 90, GUEST. And trying to discuss things with you is about like trying to discuss things with Old Guy, just a different flavor. He's careless, dumb, and happy, but a bit scared of us "crybaby liberals." You sound like you're scared of everybody. Look out for the black helicopters. Maybe it's time to break out your tinfoil hat. Don Firth |
|
03 Nov 06 - 09:58 AM (#1875362) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: pdq Ron...I did not say "Rick Santorum is the most moral man in the Senate". I suggested that he is the most overtly Roman Catholic and that his stand on "moral issuses" matches that of his church. The "most moral" award would probably go to Orrin Hatch. A few other come to mind. My point is that we must have room for diverse opinions in the House and Senate. If there is room for Barnie Franks and Bernie Sanders, there is room for Rick Santorum. |
|
03 Nov 06 - 03:04 PM (#1875545) Subject: RE: BS: Democrats move to Right From: Ron Davies His constituents will decide that. And I'm sorry to say that you will have to live with the outcome--as, you might recall, liberals have had to live with outcomes not to their liking recently. My sympathy for you (and him) is limited. |