While here we timidly ask for recounts, not just Ukraine, but ROMANIA too asked and got a re-vote. In both cases the challenger - who accused the fraud, won, will take office.
A little cosmic joke on me.
Monday, December 27, 2004
Chrismas at the Durstleys - and f*ed up DU story
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1098057&mesg_id=1098057&page=
quaoar (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-25-04 10:59 AM
Original message
Dad tries to sell Christmas gifts on eBay
http://newsobserver.com/24hour/weird/story/1953401p-993...
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
HOUSTON (AP) - The kids were naughty, Dad put the presents on eBay instead of under the tree - and Mom's been crying ever since. Now, even the tree's down.
Saturday morning was sure not to be very jolly for three brothers - 9, 11 and 15 - who didn't straighten up when their father told them Santa wasn't too pleased with their fighting, cuss words and obscene gestures.
Dad and Mom had warned their sons that the Nintendo DS video system - and the three games that go with it - were headed for the auction block if they didn't get their act together.
"No kidding. Three undeserving boys have crossed the line. Tonight we sat down and showed them what they WILL NOT get for Christmas this year. I'll be taking the tree down tomorrow," the man announced in his eBay posting.
Sat Dec-25-04 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. According to the father, the boys wereEdited on Sat Dec-25-04 11:13 AM by Rowdyboy
"flipping the bird", yelling, kicking, and using improper grammar. Thats really not outrageous behavior for boys ranging in age from 9-15. Actually, it seems pretty normal to me and a bit of an overreaction on the part of the father. JMO.
Instead, he's going to give the money he makes to his church for a new heater.
on edit: the information I gives comes not from the article, but from the list site on ebay which has since been withdrawn...
Sample responses
MichiganVote (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-25-04 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. Harsh but good for him. Too many kids are starved for limits nowadays.
InvisibleBallots (798 posts) Sat Dec-25-04 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. That is bad how?
Sounds like the kids learned a valuable lesson. They say you become an adult the first Christmas where the presents you buy cost more than the presents you receive. Next Christmas perhaps the kids will give the gift of peace and quiet to their parents.
"Problem is not whether or not to give it. It was already given, shown, then taken away, then the tree taken down, and now the proceeds go to the church heater!"
I bet if this family was not Christian, we'd all be cheering this creative disclipline. Since he's a Christian, we must hate him. GOP Culture War is working quite well - with the badly needed aid of so called "liberal" anti-Christian bigots.
"Actually, kids do have a right to expect their parents to not sell their stuff. "
What utter bullshit - it wasn't "their stuff" - it was Christmas gift the parents were going to give them.
"Why not just stuff an electrode up their asses? That'll surely make them better people."
Wow - how did you get from a parent returning the gifts they were going to give their children, to stuffing electrodes up kids' asses? You need help?
and the better ones:
48. No, I don't need help. I teach.
The first year I taught, I had a kid in class, 17 years old, who just talked a lot. According to school regs, after three warnings, I was to call his parents. I called his dad, who assured me that he would take care of it.
The boy missed three days of school and came back with his arm in a cast and his jaw wired with several teeth missing. His dad had taken care of it all right.
I've never called another parent since, but have had many call me. Like the one whose daughter "only" made a 97 in my class instead of all 100s and so lost her car for a semester and the right to go to the prom. Like the one who withdrew his child from school because I wouldn't agree to skip the Holocaust.
The truth is, parents have no training in most cases, and like most complex tasks, fuck it up. Their kids then do the same.
I teach 300 adolescents a year from ages 15-19, and in my tenth year now. I've had serious problems with 2 in all that time. Truth is, if you tell people (kids included) what you want and why you want it, they respond about 99% of the time.
But destroying a holiday, making a public spectacle of folks, ridicule and mental cruelty, while all-American, just doesn't work. Next year, these boys will be wholly justified in raising all kinds of hell because they know that some excuse will found for canceling anyway.
This whole behaviorism and reward-punishment binge we're on is outdated, ineffective, harmful, and just quite mean. Hasn't got a damn thing to do with religion, cause you can't find a verse one that will recommend the activity herein described to parents.
Mean assholes are just mean assholes. he brought the church into it, not me"
The crap was sold for $5300 on eBay.
My closing post:
robbedvoter (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-26-04 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
167. A story fit for our times: Daddy dearest triumphs, gets applause from
scarred children, frustrated parents...
Few notice that presents should NEVER be used as either incentives or punishment. The entire scene is reminiscent of Dudley Durstley and his tantrum that he got less than 37 presents this birthday, only this time Vernon is applying the Harry treatment: locking in the cupboard & public humiliation.
And what about the a*hole paying 5,000+ for the "educational" gesture?
Well, the entire story, reaction to it is si sordid, it somehow makes sense people here don't give a damn about democracy. With lives as empty as those, why bother?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1098057&mesg_id=1098057&page=
quaoar (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-25-04 10:59 AM
Original message
Dad tries to sell Christmas gifts on eBay
http://newsobserver.com/24hour/weird/story/1953401p-993...
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
HOUSTON (AP) - The kids were naughty, Dad put the presents on eBay instead of under the tree - and Mom's been crying ever since. Now, even the tree's down.
Saturday morning was sure not to be very jolly for three brothers - 9, 11 and 15 - who didn't straighten up when their father told them Santa wasn't too pleased with their fighting, cuss words and obscene gestures.
Dad and Mom had warned their sons that the Nintendo DS video system - and the three games that go with it - were headed for the auction block if they didn't get their act together.
"No kidding. Three undeserving boys have crossed the line. Tonight we sat down and showed them what they WILL NOT get for Christmas this year. I'll be taking the tree down tomorrow," the man announced in his eBay posting.
Sat Dec-25-04 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. According to the father, the boys wereEdited on Sat Dec-25-04 11:13 AM by Rowdyboy
"flipping the bird", yelling, kicking, and using improper grammar. Thats really not outrageous behavior for boys ranging in age from 9-15. Actually, it seems pretty normal to me and a bit of an overreaction on the part of the father. JMO.
Instead, he's going to give the money he makes to his church for a new heater.
on edit: the information I gives comes not from the article, but from the list site on ebay which has since been withdrawn...
Sample responses
MichiganVote (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-25-04 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. Harsh but good for him. Too many kids are starved for limits nowadays.
InvisibleBallots (798 posts) Sat Dec-25-04 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. That is bad how?
Sounds like the kids learned a valuable lesson. They say you become an adult the first Christmas where the presents you buy cost more than the presents you receive. Next Christmas perhaps the kids will give the gift of peace and quiet to their parents.
"Problem is not whether or not to give it. It was already given, shown, then taken away, then the tree taken down, and now the proceeds go to the church heater!"
I bet if this family was not Christian, we'd all be cheering this creative disclipline. Since he's a Christian, we must hate him. GOP Culture War is working quite well - with the badly needed aid of so called "liberal" anti-Christian bigots.
"Actually, kids do have a right to expect their parents to not sell their stuff. "
What utter bullshit - it wasn't "their stuff" - it was Christmas gift the parents were going to give them.
"Why not just stuff an electrode up their asses? That'll surely make them better people."
Wow - how did you get from a parent returning the gifts they were going to give their children, to stuffing electrodes up kids' asses? You need help?
and the better ones:
48. No, I don't need help. I teach.
The first year I taught, I had a kid in class, 17 years old, who just talked a lot. According to school regs, after three warnings, I was to call his parents. I called his dad, who assured me that he would take care of it.
The boy missed three days of school and came back with his arm in a cast and his jaw wired with several teeth missing. His dad had taken care of it all right.
I've never called another parent since, but have had many call me. Like the one whose daughter "only" made a 97 in my class instead of all 100s and so lost her car for a semester and the right to go to the prom. Like the one who withdrew his child from school because I wouldn't agree to skip the Holocaust.
The truth is, parents have no training in most cases, and like most complex tasks, fuck it up. Their kids then do the same.
I teach 300 adolescents a year from ages 15-19, and in my tenth year now. I've had serious problems with 2 in all that time. Truth is, if you tell people (kids included) what you want and why you want it, they respond about 99% of the time.
But destroying a holiday, making a public spectacle of folks, ridicule and mental cruelty, while all-American, just doesn't work. Next year, these boys will be wholly justified in raising all kinds of hell because they know that some excuse will found for canceling anyway.
This whole behaviorism and reward-punishment binge we're on is outdated, ineffective, harmful, and just quite mean. Hasn't got a damn thing to do with religion, cause you can't find a verse one that will recommend the activity herein described to parents.
Mean assholes are just mean assholes. he brought the church into it, not me"
The crap was sold for $5300 on eBay.
My closing post:
robbedvoter (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-26-04 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
167. A story fit for our times: Daddy dearest triumphs, gets applause from
scarred children, frustrated parents...
Few notice that presents should NEVER be used as either incentives or punishment. The entire scene is reminiscent of Dudley Durstley and his tantrum that he got less than 37 presents this birthday, only this time Vernon is applying the Harry treatment: locking in the cupboard & public humiliation.
And what about the a*hole paying 5,000+ for the "educational" gesture?
Well, the entire story, reaction to it is si sordid, it somehow makes sense people here don't give a damn about democracy. With lives as empty as those, why bother?
Sunday, December 26, 2004
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2868666
Is the fundies' God like Tinkerbell?
I raise the question because it seems to me that the fundies are extraordinarily defensive about how and to what extent God and Jesus are acknowledged and worshipped publicly. DildO'Reilly got his panties in a bunch about people saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," as if this practice somehow would actually do harm to God. So -- is their God so weak that he can't handle any reduction in public adulation? I think of an analogy to "Peter Pan," in which a fairy would die every time a child said she didn't believe in fairies, and Tinker Bell was brought back to life when the children clapped. If God is real, I should think he exists regardless of whether we believe in him or not. If Jesus is divine, he will remain so even if nobody says "Merry Christmas" and nobody puts nativity scenes on courthouse lawns. Do the fundies have such a feeble God that he will die if all the children don't clap?
gmoney (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-26-04 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. Without faith I am nothing
The argument goes something like this: ‘I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, ‘for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’ 'But,’ says Man, ‘the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance, it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t QED.’ 'Oh dear,’ says God, ‘I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic, “’Oh, that was easy,” says Man...
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Is the fundies' God like Tinkerbell?
I raise the question because it seems to me that the fundies are extraordinarily defensive about how and to what extent God and Jesus are acknowledged and worshipped publicly. DildO'Reilly got his panties in a bunch about people saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," as if this practice somehow would actually do harm to God. So -- is their God so weak that he can't handle any reduction in public adulation? I think of an analogy to "Peter Pan," in which a fairy would die every time a child said she didn't believe in fairies, and Tinker Bell was brought back to life when the children clapped. If God is real, I should think he exists regardless of whether we believe in him or not. If Jesus is divine, he will remain so even if nobody says "Merry Christmas" and nobody puts nativity scenes on courthouse lawns. Do the fundies have such a feeble God that he will die if all the children don't clap?
gmoney (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-26-04 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. Without faith I am nothing
The argument goes something like this: ‘I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, ‘for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’ 'But,’ says Man, ‘the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance, it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t QED.’ 'Oh dear,’ says God, ‘I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic, “’Oh, that was easy,” says Man...
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Saturday, December 18, 2004
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=171696&mesg_id=174463&page=
m berst (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-17-04 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
109. perpetrator or victim? a different view
Is Bev Harris a perpetrator or a victim? I think that she is both, and I want to tie this into my earlier posts about the haves and have-nots as well as the damage that the Reagan administration did to our society.
One side says she is out there on her lonesome fighting heroically for us and we should cut her some slack. She is under pressure and attacks and we need to stand by her.
The other side says that she is a grandstanding fraud only interested in herself and has taken advantage of her supporters. There is no excuse for her irresponsible behavior.
I think that there is truth in both positions, and that both miss the important truth. There is a very powerful lesson that we can take from this situation, one that will allow everyone to win - or at least not take a hideous loss -including Bev.
Bev is grandstanding and taking advantage of her supporters, but not maliciously necessarily, and before we cast aspersions on her it might be wise to see the context within which she is operating. Is she a have or a have-not in my outline of the two world views in the other post, and how does that shed light on the arguments about her.
Bev has bought into the great Reagan myth of self-actualization - as so many of us have - and she is striving to be one of the "haves" and so make a difference in life. Not financially rich necessarily, but one with status and influence. Much of her failure recently may have more to do with her using a bad model for her activities than it does with any evil intent on her part. In the Reagan model, each individual can become all that they can be and so gain status, wealth and success. This ethic led many people down a path of greed and money, while others went down a path of applying this model to various political and social causes, and the thinking has also permeated the Democratic party. The problem arises when the inevitable clash comes between an approach to life that is self-centered and attempting to use that approach to advance causes that are community oriented and supported.
Bev is a have-not striving to be a have, and so gets a lot of sympathy from others who are have-nots. She is Cinderella at the ball, a lone fighter against tremendous odds, the mouse that roared. She didn't so much manipulate people into thinking this, because it is probably how she sees herself, there is some truth in it, and plenty of people are desperate for it to be true and will foster and promote the myth for her.
Bev's rumored sloppy bookkeeping and poor financial accountability leads me to believe that money is not her goal, so the charges of her being a con artist are probably false. If she were interested primarily in feathering her own nest, she would have made sure that no hint of impropriety skipped into public view.
Bev seems to be interested in being the "star" - the celebrity of the election fraud issue - yes, but that doesn't mean that this is her prime motivation, either, or she wouldn't make so many sloppy mistakes with her image.
Bev is trapped in the Reagan mythology and in that way a victim. Reagan changed people's thinking from community to individual, from team to cog, and this was somewhat under the radar. "If you believe you can achieve" self-realization and individual initiative were translated in left wing circles as "personal beliefs" and "life style alternatives" and "making the right choices" and "being the change you want to see." While the supposed goals are different then those who took Reagan's green light on selfishness as an invitation to pursue greed, the underlying premises are the same.
I can well imagine Bev justifying how she has gone about things, and before we throw her to the wolves we might want to consider all of the ways in which we are making the same mistakes. One can take a look at how to approach the election fraud situation and come to the conclusion that fame - celebrity hood - and status and finances are needed before anyone can have any impact on society or even get attention. So flamboyance and the cultivation of an image are tools to help get the job done. Then she might think in the very Reagan era terms of "what you believe you can achieve" and other semi-mystical beliefs and formulas for succeeding in any endeavor.
Yet we watch her seemingly working against herself. Why is this? I would say that she is making the same understandable mistake that so many of us make. The Reagan formula for how to live your life and achieve things will not work for social causes because the goal and the means contradict each other.
Let's compare the career of the current President of the United States with the career of Bev Harris. These two extreme examples illustrate the point very well. How is it that no matter how badly George Bush screws up he wins and no matter how hard Bev tries she loses? I think it is because the Reagan approach to life only works when it is used in the interests of greed and selfishness. When someone with a self-actualization background such as Bev tries to apply these "winning strategies" to a community cause it sets up a dissonance that eventually will either turn the movement into a co-opted hand maiden to the powers-that-be - as some say the entire Democratic party has become - or will shake and rattle the organization to pieces.
Now this is not to defend Bev's lapses and errors in judgment, nor to say that there may not be some personality flaws involved. It also not to dismiss those who have been hurt by her behavior.
Many on the left are not pursuing wealth, but yet they have embraced the Reagan philosophy. They are pursuing status or security and congratulate themselves on their cleverness or superiority as measured by what they do for themselves, not what they are doing for others or for the society. Even doing "good things" is primarily so that they can tell themselves that they have rounded out their personalities and is entirely disconnected from any actual results their do-gooding may be having on the root causes of the problems. Sooner or later the beneficiaries of the do-gooding are resented, and we have Democrats talking about people as "stupid" or defective or doing arm chair analysis of people's mental health.
Or, some on the left take Bev's approach and use the same tactics that the Religious Right, and multi-level marketing businesses, and other types of hucksterism have used - building a cult of personality, creating a "buzz," encouraging hero-worshiping loyal "true believers," and playing into people's fantasies of being the underdog or being persecuted.
The great lesson here is that the Reagan philosophy of self-centeredness in its many permutations has expanded into all areas of our society and into our thinking, and it does not workfor achieving community goals. It can only lead to selfishness, greed and destruction.
As Democrats, we once started with the notion that we as a society can rise no higher than the least among us. Now, the have-nots don't count for most Democrats.
All of the failures, all of the problems, the arguments, the divisions in the Democratic party can be solved by one simple thing. Reject the entire package of celebrity, wealth and status as the model for everything. Focus on the needs of the least among us first, and always, and build from that solid foundation. Then watch all of the problems start being resolved as if by a miracle.
m berst (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-17-04 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
109. perpetrator or victim? a different view
Is Bev Harris a perpetrator or a victim? I think that she is both, and I want to tie this into my earlier posts about the haves and have-nots as well as the damage that the Reagan administration did to our society.
One side says she is out there on her lonesome fighting heroically for us and we should cut her some slack. She is under pressure and attacks and we need to stand by her.
The other side says that she is a grandstanding fraud only interested in herself and has taken advantage of her supporters. There is no excuse for her irresponsible behavior.
I think that there is truth in both positions, and that both miss the important truth. There is a very powerful lesson that we can take from this situation, one that will allow everyone to win - or at least not take a hideous loss -including Bev.
Bev is grandstanding and taking advantage of her supporters, but not maliciously necessarily, and before we cast aspersions on her it might be wise to see the context within which she is operating. Is she a have or a have-not in my outline of the two world views in the other post, and how does that shed light on the arguments about her.
Bev has bought into the great Reagan myth of self-actualization - as so many of us have - and she is striving to be one of the "haves" and so make a difference in life. Not financially rich necessarily, but one with status and influence. Much of her failure recently may have more to do with her using a bad model for her activities than it does with any evil intent on her part. In the Reagan model, each individual can become all that they can be and so gain status, wealth and success. This ethic led many people down a path of greed and money, while others went down a path of applying this model to various political and social causes, and the thinking has also permeated the Democratic party. The problem arises when the inevitable clash comes between an approach to life that is self-centered and attempting to use that approach to advance causes that are community oriented and supported.
Bev is a have-not striving to be a have, and so gets a lot of sympathy from others who are have-nots. She is Cinderella at the ball, a lone fighter against tremendous odds, the mouse that roared. She didn't so much manipulate people into thinking this, because it is probably how she sees herself, there is some truth in it, and plenty of people are desperate for it to be true and will foster and promote the myth for her.
Bev's rumored sloppy bookkeeping and poor financial accountability leads me to believe that money is not her goal, so the charges of her being a con artist are probably false. If she were interested primarily in feathering her own nest, she would have made sure that no hint of impropriety skipped into public view.
Bev seems to be interested in being the "star" - the celebrity of the election fraud issue - yes, but that doesn't mean that this is her prime motivation, either, or she wouldn't make so many sloppy mistakes with her image.
Bev is trapped in the Reagan mythology and in that way a victim. Reagan changed people's thinking from community to individual, from team to cog, and this was somewhat under the radar. "If you believe you can achieve" self-realization and individual initiative were translated in left wing circles as "personal beliefs" and "life style alternatives" and "making the right choices" and "being the change you want to see." While the supposed goals are different then those who took Reagan's green light on selfishness as an invitation to pursue greed, the underlying premises are the same.
I can well imagine Bev justifying how she has gone about things, and before we throw her to the wolves we might want to consider all of the ways in which we are making the same mistakes. One can take a look at how to approach the election fraud situation and come to the conclusion that fame - celebrity hood - and status and finances are needed before anyone can have any impact on society or even get attention. So flamboyance and the cultivation of an image are tools to help get the job done. Then she might think in the very Reagan era terms of "what you believe you can achieve" and other semi-mystical beliefs and formulas for succeeding in any endeavor.
Yet we watch her seemingly working against herself. Why is this? I would say that she is making the same understandable mistake that so many of us make. The Reagan formula for how to live your life and achieve things will not work for social causes because the goal and the means contradict each other.
Let's compare the career of the current President of the United States with the career of Bev Harris. These two extreme examples illustrate the point very well. How is it that no matter how badly George Bush screws up he wins and no matter how hard Bev tries she loses? I think it is because the Reagan approach to life only works when it is used in the interests of greed and selfishness. When someone with a self-actualization background such as Bev tries to apply these "winning strategies" to a community cause it sets up a dissonance that eventually will either turn the movement into a co-opted hand maiden to the powers-that-be - as some say the entire Democratic party has become - or will shake and rattle the organization to pieces.
Now this is not to defend Bev's lapses and errors in judgment, nor to say that there may not be some personality flaws involved. It also not to dismiss those who have been hurt by her behavior.
Many on the left are not pursuing wealth, but yet they have embraced the Reagan philosophy. They are pursuing status or security and congratulate themselves on their cleverness or superiority as measured by what they do for themselves, not what they are doing for others or for the society. Even doing "good things" is primarily so that they can tell themselves that they have rounded out their personalities and is entirely disconnected from any actual results their do-gooding may be having on the root causes of the problems. Sooner or later the beneficiaries of the do-gooding are resented, and we have Democrats talking about people as "stupid" or defective or doing arm chair analysis of people's mental health.
Or, some on the left take Bev's approach and use the same tactics that the Religious Right, and multi-level marketing businesses, and other types of hucksterism have used - building a cult of personality, creating a "buzz," encouraging hero-worshiping loyal "true believers," and playing into people's fantasies of being the underdog or being persecuted.
The great lesson here is that the Reagan philosophy of self-centeredness in its many permutations has expanded into all areas of our society and into our thinking, and it does not workfor achieving community goals. It can only lead to selfishness, greed and destruction.
As Democrats, we once started with the notion that we as a society can rise no higher than the least among us. Now, the have-nots don't count for most Democrats.
All of the failures, all of the problems, the arguments, the divisions in the Democratic party can be solved by one simple thing. Reject the entire package of celebrity, wealth and status as the model for everything. Focus on the needs of the least among us first, and always, and build from that solid foundation. Then watch all of the problems start being resolved as if by a miracle.
m berst (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-17-04 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #37
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=171696&mesg_id=174010&page=
98. great post Sydnie
I would mention something else that people invested - their hopes.
Hopes, dreams, and time are not seen as valuable by far too many people. For those who are already at risk and are willing to be aware of the fact that they are at risk, hopes, dreams and time are all that they have left to give, short of giving their lives.
I think that we can gain a better understanding of the Bev feuds here - as well as the Kerry feuds that have arisen here because of Bev's comments about him - and all of the feuds at DU if we consider that the battle may be between the haves and the have-nots. I offer this for consideration in the quest for understanding and better communication, not as an assertion to be violently argued over as is to often the case.
Haves and have-nots don't so much disagree on positions and ideology as they have different views of reality. When I say "have" I don't just mean that they have money - it also includes having a sense of security and having a sense that they have a place in the society.
I think that behind all of the Fundamentalist moral values rhetoric, all of the liberal bashing and all of the right wing ideology is a have versus have-not battle. Unfortunately, many people who by any rational measure are have-nots are voting for the Republican party because they can believe that they are haves. And, unfortunately, many haves are in the Democratic party and bring all of the prejudices and world view of the ruling class into the discussion here masquerading as something else.
Whether one is a have or a have-not, then, partly depends upon what one actually has and partly upon what one thinks they have or wants to have. Part mindset, part bank account, in other words.
Both parties have become parties that represent haves. The Republican party represents those who may have money, and who have their religion, their jingoism, and their membership in the all-white all-Jesus club. The Democratic party has become the party of those who may have money, and who have position, status, security and membership in the elite, academic, and intellectual club.
Haves in the Democratic party will argue in favor of caution, patience, moderation, compromise, realism, intellectualism, practicality, meritocracy, status, qualifications and individual responsibility and blame.
All of that is anathema for the have-nots.
Have-nots in the Democratic party argue for solidarity, compassion, alertness to danger, creativity, suspicion of those with wealth, power and status, fairness, and collective action, responsibility and blame.
I think these two world views are what animates the two sides of almost every discussion at DU, and among liberals and Democrats in general as well. I saw a thread yesterday that highlighted this for me, and I may not have the facts exactly right about the particular debate, but it will serve as an example.
A poster said he had a problem with his driver's license and asked for help and advice. Now, you wouldn't think that this would be controversial, but sure enough two antagonistic camps started to form.
The one camp berated the poster for his irresponsibility, and chided him for wanting something for nothing by asking for advice at DU.
Now, a have-not might say hey, wait a minute, the guy made a minor error in forgetting about a traffic ticket, and got into a little jam here. The result is a draconian and arbitrary decision by the state to suspend his driving privileges (ironically the original offense was unknowingly driving on a suspended license as a result of a neglected or forgotten ticket for a minor traffic infraction). A have not would say that the fines and punishments are excessive - they are for most people. A have-not would say that this has more to do with whom the police pull over than it does anything else. A have-not would say that you are more likely to be pulled over if you are a certain race or a certain economic status or in certain neighborhoods.
Yet, a have would argue that it is all the poster's own fault. Some said that he was stupid for not doing the obvious and enlightened thing - hiring an attorney. Think about that one. The poster said that had the court and the DMV informed him of all of the facts, he would have opted for the alternative - 5 days in jail - rather than agreeing to a huge fine that also included (unknown to him when he made the decision)losing his license for 6 months. This was met with more ridicule - what kind of idiot would agree to spend 5 days in jail seemed to be the unspoken implication.
There are people in this country for whom the situation is already a dire emergency. They are already falling behind, they are already fighting off the wolves, living in fear and poverty, suffering from diminished opportunity and hostility from those around them. They were promised by various haves to put their faith and trust and hopes and dreams - and for many of them dollars and hours they could ill afford - into various people and ideas, from the Democratic party, to Kerry to Bev. They don't have the luxury of sitting back and giving Bev, or Kerry, or the Democratic party chance after chance after chance.
It is shocking to me to see every day Democrats speak with no compassion whatsoever for the people who are going under and going under fast as they are told what is wrong with them, how they are too emotional, too alarmist, how they should get over it and move on, or what famous or wealthy person they should pledge their undying loyalty to.
I would argue that their is a great unseen army of have=nots out there, and that army is growing every day. There are many who are have-nots but are vigorously resisting facing the truth and clinging to nay shred of evidence that things will be ok, and those are the ones who most vociferously argue the point of view of the haves. Soon, I predict that the majority of people in the country will be have-nots and will realize that they are.
Yet so many Democrats see the forgotten people as losers, defectives, stupid, emotionally disturbed, irresponsible, and as an irritant and an annoyance.
Look at every argument you see at DU again and tell me if you see an underlying dynamic at work - the haves versus the have-nots.
Response to Reply #37
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=171696&mesg_id=174010&page=
98. great post Sydnie
I would mention something else that people invested - their hopes.
Hopes, dreams, and time are not seen as valuable by far too many people. For those who are already at risk and are willing to be aware of the fact that they are at risk, hopes, dreams and time are all that they have left to give, short of giving their lives.
I think that we can gain a better understanding of the Bev feuds here - as well as the Kerry feuds that have arisen here because of Bev's comments about him - and all of the feuds at DU if we consider that the battle may be between the haves and the have-nots. I offer this for consideration in the quest for understanding and better communication, not as an assertion to be violently argued over as is to often the case.
Haves and have-nots don't so much disagree on positions and ideology as they have different views of reality. When I say "have" I don't just mean that they have money - it also includes having a sense of security and having a sense that they have a place in the society.
I think that behind all of the Fundamentalist moral values rhetoric, all of the liberal bashing and all of the right wing ideology is a have versus have-not battle. Unfortunately, many people who by any rational measure are have-nots are voting for the Republican party because they can believe that they are haves. And, unfortunately, many haves are in the Democratic party and bring all of the prejudices and world view of the ruling class into the discussion here masquerading as something else.
Whether one is a have or a have-not, then, partly depends upon what one actually has and partly upon what one thinks they have or wants to have. Part mindset, part bank account, in other words.
Both parties have become parties that represent haves. The Republican party represents those who may have money, and who have their religion, their jingoism, and their membership in the all-white all-Jesus club. The Democratic party has become the party of those who may have money, and who have position, status, security and membership in the elite, academic, and intellectual club.
Haves in the Democratic party will argue in favor of caution, patience, moderation, compromise, realism, intellectualism, practicality, meritocracy, status, qualifications and individual responsibility and blame.
All of that is anathema for the have-nots.
Have-nots in the Democratic party argue for solidarity, compassion, alertness to danger, creativity, suspicion of those with wealth, power and status, fairness, and collective action, responsibility and blame.
I think these two world views are what animates the two sides of almost every discussion at DU, and among liberals and Democrats in general as well. I saw a thread yesterday that highlighted this for me, and I may not have the facts exactly right about the particular debate, but it will serve as an example.
A poster said he had a problem with his driver's license and asked for help and advice. Now, you wouldn't think that this would be controversial, but sure enough two antagonistic camps started to form.
The one camp berated the poster for his irresponsibility, and chided him for wanting something for nothing by asking for advice at DU.
Now, a have-not might say hey, wait a minute, the guy made a minor error in forgetting about a traffic ticket, and got into a little jam here. The result is a draconian and arbitrary decision by the state to suspend his driving privileges (ironically the original offense was unknowingly driving on a suspended license as a result of a neglected or forgotten ticket for a minor traffic infraction). A have not would say that the fines and punishments are excessive - they are for most people. A have-not would say that this has more to do with whom the police pull over than it does anything else. A have-not would say that you are more likely to be pulled over if you are a certain race or a certain economic status or in certain neighborhoods.
Yet, a have would argue that it is all the poster's own fault. Some said that he was stupid for not doing the obvious and enlightened thing - hiring an attorney. Think about that one. The poster said that had the court and the DMV informed him of all of the facts, he would have opted for the alternative - 5 days in jail - rather than agreeing to a huge fine that also included (unknown to him when he made the decision)losing his license for 6 months. This was met with more ridicule - what kind of idiot would agree to spend 5 days in jail seemed to be the unspoken implication.
There are people in this country for whom the situation is already a dire emergency. They are already falling behind, they are already fighting off the wolves, living in fear and poverty, suffering from diminished opportunity and hostility from those around them. They were promised by various haves to put their faith and trust and hopes and dreams - and for many of them dollars and hours they could ill afford - into various people and ideas, from the Democratic party, to Kerry to Bev. They don't have the luxury of sitting back and giving Bev, or Kerry, or the Democratic party chance after chance after chance.
It is shocking to me to see every day Democrats speak with no compassion whatsoever for the people who are going under and going under fast as they are told what is wrong with them, how they are too emotional, too alarmist, how they should get over it and move on, or what famous or wealthy person they should pledge their undying loyalty to.
I would argue that their is a great unseen army of have=nots out there, and that army is growing every day. There are many who are have-nots but are vigorously resisting facing the truth and clinging to nay shred of evidence that things will be ok, and those are the ones who most vociferously argue the point of view of the haves. Soon, I predict that the majority of people in the country will be have-nots and will realize that they are.
Yet so many Democrats see the forgotten people as losers, defectives, stupid, emotionally disturbed, irresponsible, and as an irritant and an annoyance.
Look at every argument you see at DU again and tell me if you see an underlying dynamic at work - the haves versus the have-nots.
Friday, December 17, 2004
I started this on DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1436519
Fri Dec-17-04 08:53 AM
Original message
Discrimination against the poor by the Dems - how acceptable to you?
While I wasn't looking the Democratic party dec;ared itself "the middle class party. I suppose this would be like an income Goldilocks litmus test: we represent people who don't have too much or too little - but juuuust right.
I used to consider the "lomousine liberals" and "liberal elite" total BS, but now I realize that there is a grain of truth in it: if you don't reach a certain tax bracket, you ain't in our club.
GOP may work for the richest at the expense of everyone else and may discriminate against anything in sight, but they are clever enough to not exclude the poor from their target demographic. Very clever indeed, as they intend to increase this demographic with their policies.
Think of it: if you are unemployed, or too poor to pay taxes, DNC is not paying any attention to you (most of their economic incentives are in the form of tax credits). But the GOP which chennels your tax money in faith based crap, will reach these people in the soup line and bamboozle them.
When Wes Clark proposed a tax program that eliminated taxes for families up to 50,000, Kerry said: "but how are they going to share their part of the burden?" "By sending their sons and daughters in wars" Clark answered Faux bimbo who, interestingly enough asked the same question. Kerry promissed with a straight face that in 3 years the minimum wage will go up all the way to...$7...Oh, glory!
I am not asking for acceptance in the middle class party - I left voluntarily as soon as I saw the income litmus test.
But as an outsider , I have a bit of advice: you may want to rethink your platform/base - because by the time BFEE is done with this country, there won't be any Goldilocks economic base left for ya. That's the one area in which I suspect they'll be competent enough to accomplish their goal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1436519
Fri Dec-17-04 08:53 AM
Original message
Discrimination against the poor by the Dems - how acceptable to you?
While I wasn't looking the Democratic party dec;ared itself "the middle class party. I suppose this would be like an income Goldilocks litmus test: we represent people who don't have too much or too little - but juuuust right.
I used to consider the "lomousine liberals" and "liberal elite" total BS, but now I realize that there is a grain of truth in it: if you don't reach a certain tax bracket, you ain't in our club.
GOP may work for the richest at the expense of everyone else and may discriminate against anything in sight, but they are clever enough to not exclude the poor from their target demographic. Very clever indeed, as they intend to increase this demographic with their policies.
Think of it: if you are unemployed, or too poor to pay taxes, DNC is not paying any attention to you (most of their economic incentives are in the form of tax credits). But the GOP which chennels your tax money in faith based crap, will reach these people in the soup line and bamboozle them.
When Wes Clark proposed a tax program that eliminated taxes for families up to 50,000, Kerry said: "but how are they going to share their part of the burden?" "By sending their sons and daughters in wars" Clark answered Faux bimbo who, interestingly enough asked the same question. Kerry promissed with a straight face that in 3 years the minimum wage will go up all the way to...$7...Oh, glory!
I am not asking for acceptance in the middle class party - I left voluntarily as soon as I saw the income litmus test.
But as an outsider , I have a bit of advice: you may want to rethink your platform/base - because by the time BFEE is done with this country, there won't be any Goldilocks economic base left for ya. That's the one area in which I suspect they'll be competent enough to accomplish their goal.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
"Not one cable "News" show breaks the top 40....."
Author WC Green
http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=2&topic_id=343058&mesg_id=343058&page=
For the first time since the election, not a single Fox, CNN or MSNBC show has garnered enough viewers to qualify as a top forty basic cable show....
BO, Fox networks "biggest" star, was the last "personality" to drop out of the top 40 ratings list as he slipped into oblivion after hitting 38 in last weeks Nielsen compilation.
What does this mean? Even with all the hoopla surrounding the Scott Peterson case, the continued bad news from Iraq, the mounting threats against Iran and the still disputed election, no one much cares what BO or SH or and of the rest of the Fox loudmouths have to say...
Remember, more people listen to NPR than watch Fox. More people watch PBS newscasts than watch any Fox show, More people read the NYT than watch any show on Fox........
http://www.top5s.com/tvcable.htm
"I was trying to forget and you reminded me"
Author WC Green
http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=2&topic_id=343058&mesg_id=343058&page=
For the first time since the election, not a single Fox, CNN or MSNBC show has garnered enough viewers to qualify as a top forty basic cable show....
BO, Fox networks "biggest" star, was the last "personality" to drop out of the top 40 ratings list as he slipped into oblivion after hitting 38 in last weeks Nielsen compilation.
What does this mean? Even with all the hoopla surrounding the Scott Peterson case, the continued bad news from Iraq, the mounting threats against Iran and the still disputed election, no one much cares what BO or SH or and of the rest of the Fox loudmouths have to say...
Remember, more people listen to NPR than watch Fox. More people watch PBS newscasts than watch any Fox show, More people read the NYT than watch any show on Fox........
http://www.top5s.com/tvcable.htm
"I was trying to forget and you reminded me"
Monday, November 29, 2004
Cheswick - the Clenis/Clark hater
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1395863&mesg_id=1396854&page=
Cheswick2.0 (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-29-04 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #69
75. you aren't making any sense
how is talking about whether or not Clark should be the nominee in 08 hijacking a thread about whether or not Clark should be the nominee in 2008?
This makes about as much sense as your insistence four years ago that Clinton and Lewinski were the great love affair of the century and that he would leave Hillary and marry her when he left office. For some unknown reason you had the hardest time admitting a sleazy affair was a sleazy affair. Maybe you are not the best judge of character?
This is my last post in this petty pissing match. Knock yourself out if it gives you satisfaction to conintue.
This is the DU member formerly known as Cheswick.
and my answer
robbedvoter (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-29-04 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #75
87. here's an idea: post on your pet issue and I promise I won't go thereEdited on Mon Nov-29-04 01:22 PM by robbedvoter
to scream: "everyone out of this thread, is a stupid idea and we need urgent 24/7 posting on the Clak08 thread. To do anything else is selfish and evil"If you really believe in something (other than sticking it to Clakies), try going about it in ways that actually rally people close to your beliefs rather than antagonoze them.
As for love affairs, I dunno" whacha talking about, Willis?". I am hardly the Harlequin novel type. I see however that you are as preachy towards Clinton's sexual life as you are towards Clarkies. You know the forum for that - and it ain't DU. It must be a deep seated sexual disturbance for you to stil fixate on my postings on the matter , years after. I am flatered, but get some help. A healthy, non-hypocritical sexual life could do wonders for your disposition.
It also unclogs the brain and helps with that multitasking you have so much trouble with. One can have sex, work to expose the stolen election, AND for a candidate for next time. The first one usually keeps the energy for the others positive and vibrant, rather than whiny and preachy.
Comeon, try! let go of Monica and live a normal life!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1395863&mesg_id=1396854&page=
Cheswick2.0 (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-29-04 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #69
75. you aren't making any sense
how is talking about whether or not Clark should be the nominee in 08 hijacking a thread about whether or not Clark should be the nominee in 2008?
This makes about as much sense as your insistence four years ago that Clinton and Lewinski were the great love affair of the century and that he would leave Hillary and marry her when he left office. For some unknown reason you had the hardest time admitting a sleazy affair was a sleazy affair. Maybe you are not the best judge of character?
This is my last post in this petty pissing match. Knock yourself out if it gives you satisfaction to conintue.
This is the DU member formerly known as Cheswick.
and my answer
robbedvoter (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-29-04 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #75
87. here's an idea: post on your pet issue and I promise I won't go thereEdited on Mon Nov-29-04 01:22 PM by robbedvoter
to scream: "everyone out of this thread, is a stupid idea and we need urgent 24/7 posting on the Clak08 thread. To do anything else is selfish and evil"If you really believe in something (other than sticking it to Clakies), try going about it in ways that actually rally people close to your beliefs rather than antagonoze them.
As for love affairs, I dunno" whacha talking about, Willis?". I am hardly the Harlequin novel type. I see however that you are as preachy towards Clinton's sexual life as you are towards Clarkies. You know the forum for that - and it ain't DU. It must be a deep seated sexual disturbance for you to stil fixate on my postings on the matter , years after. I am flatered, but get some help. A healthy, non-hypocritical sexual life could do wonders for your disposition.
It also unclogs the brain and helps with that multitasking you have so much trouble with. One can have sex, work to expose the stolen election, AND for a candidate for next time. The first one usually keeps the energy for the others positive and vibrant, rather than whiny and preachy.
Comeon, try! let go of Monica and live a normal life!
Saturday, November 27, 2004
To those asking for proof of theft
Sat Nov-27-04 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #84
88. "proof" is a red herring
No crime could ever be solved if investigators had to have proof before an investigation could be considered or intitiated. Of course there is no proof up to the standard you are asking for at this point. There could not be.
Even should a Republican operative go to the press tomorrow and say that he had been paid to steal votes for Bush it is likely that the right wingers would be able to spin that out of existence as they did the proof from Edmonds, Clarke, O'Neil and Wilson. In each case, and with this case of potential election theft, there is more than sufficient evidence to call for a full scale investigation for the purpose of discovering the proof that would hold up in court - if such proof does in fact exist.
If the police were constrained from questioning suspects until and unless they had "proof" how would they ever solve a crime?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1393491&mesg_id=1393881&page=
Sat Nov-27-04 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #84
88. "proof" is a red herring
No crime could ever be solved if investigators had to have proof before an investigation could be considered or intitiated. Of course there is no proof up to the standard you are asking for at this point. There could not be.
Even should a Republican operative go to the press tomorrow and say that he had been paid to steal votes for Bush it is likely that the right wingers would be able to spin that out of existence as they did the proof from Edmonds, Clarke, O'Neil and Wilson. In each case, and with this case of potential election theft, there is more than sufficient evidence to call for a full scale investigation for the purpose of discovering the proof that would hold up in court - if such proof does in fact exist.
If the police were constrained from questioning suspects until and unless they had "proof" how would they ever solve a crime?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1393491&mesg_id=1393881&page=
Friday, November 26, 2004
"I consider the Ukraine coverage another thug tactic"
Author concerned citizen
http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=2&topic_id=340673&mesg_id=340680&page=
to rub our noses in their lawlessness. This is part of their play-book. It was the same with 2000 election. No humility from Bush, in fact the opposite. He kept saying "I was elected because..." "People elected me becasue..." It was an open taunt.
Same goes with Valerie Plame.
They keep Novak in plain site, comfortable, ostentatious, contentious, as though he hasn't a care in the world.
It's the same with the Ukraine election. They're covering it, and making statements all the way to the top, because it's provoking, taunting, humiliating. It's how these people work.
Author concerned citizen
http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=2&topic_id=340673&mesg_id=340680&page=
to rub our noses in their lawlessness. This is part of their play-book. It was the same with 2000 election. No humility from Bush, in fact the opposite. He kept saying "I was elected because..." "People elected me becasue..." It was an open taunt.
Same goes with Valerie Plame.
They keep Novak in plain site, comfortable, ostentatious, contentious, as though he hasn't a care in the world.
It's the same with the Ukraine election. They're covering it, and making statements all the way to the top, because it's provoking, taunting, humiliating. It's how these people work.
and the follow up
m berst (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-04 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
54. and then after Clark dropped out I wrote...
It has been sad watching the Dean and Edwards campaigns collapse. Talking to their supporters, I hear the same despair from them that so many Clark supporters have been feeling.
I have been hanging with the Kucinich people, but hope is starting to die there, too. I can't find a political organization to be involved with, and our attempts to keep the old LFA people together has not been very successful. The Kucinich people are facing the same challenges now, and are asking each other "what now?"
I am feeling like 3 strikes and you're out. The stampede to the official Clark campaign - strike one. The crushing of the grass roots people - strike two. The stampede to Kerry - strike three.
There is some talk among Kucinich supporters of third party efforts. While I do think that there is a good possibility that the two parties will break up and reform into new parties, I don't think it will happen before November. The usual arguments are going on about working within the party, the danger of splitting the progressive vote and thereby giving Bush the election, the importance of staying true to your convictions, etc.
I am amazed at how quickly and thoroughly the national debate has collapsed. It seems that people want to close their eyes, and open them again in November to discover that it was all just a bad dream. Kerry will be elected, and Kerry will turn the country around and save us and we won't have to worry anymore. I certainly hope they are right, but in any case the real loss will be that if they are not, there will be nothing to fall back on.
I have no problem in principle rallying behind opposition to Bush, but why did that have to also mean the breaking up of the grass roots organizations, the end of the national discussion, and the crushing of people's hope and enthusiasm? That makes me suspicious of the DNC and the Kerry campaign. They haven't really been telling us to pull the lever for Kerry - which is all we are good for to them - rather, we had to stop talking and organizing, as well. Be quiet now, or you are helping Bush!
We were privileged to be part of a moment in history when many people had great hope and were reaching out to each other. My only hope now is that things don't get too rough for everyone in the coming years.
I think we will now see a bitter partisan campaign and an even split in the electorate, as we did in the last national election. It will play out in the mass media, and we will be reduced to spectators. We will be hearing a lot about gay marriage, I am afraid.
I was politically active in 1968. That year Eugene McCarthy ran an insurgent campaign in the Democratic primaries, and then Robert Kennedy jumped into the race and was close to having the nomination won when he was murdered. The party met in Chicago for the convention, and in defiance of the people's will nominated the party's choice, Hubert Humphrey. The city was like a war zone throughout the convention with thousands of demonstrators in the streets. George Wallace then entered the race as a third party candidate and siphoned off a critical number of Democratic voters, and Nixon won the election by a tiny margin.
I tell this story for purposes of comparison. There was quite a bit of discouragement, sadness, and hopelessness over the events in 1968, and that created a pall that hung over the country for decades. Yet I am seeing more discouragement, sadness, and hopelessness now then I did then. That is stunning to me.
I believe we are, figuratively speaking, living in the eye of a hurricane. I hope I am wrong, but the signs are there. For decades, right wing xenophobes have been peddling the line that "they hate us" in other countries. The irony is that "they" - overwhelmingly - didn't hate us until the xenophobes grabbed control of the government. Now, more and more people around the world do fear and hate us, and I am not just talking about people in the Middle East. Thank God for the European press as a "reality check" for us here, or we might succumb to the comforting illusion that things are just fine and that we are a bunch of chicken littles.
I stumbled onto the Sean Hannity radio program accidentally the other day, and was preoccupied with something else and let it run for a few minutes. I heard that "liberals are traitors" that "liberals want the terrorists to win" that the teacher's union is a "terrorist organization" that "liberals hate America and American values" and on and on in that vein. This is a national radio show with a huge following, and the host was demonizing half of the people in the country. This is pure hate, and it won't just go away, it will continue to poison people's minds. Substitute the word "Jews" for the word "liberals" and it could have come right out of Joseph Goebbel's ministry. The Nazi analogies are way overused, but not in this case.
But there I go again - shooting my mouth off instead of rallying behind Kerry.
Reason, critical thinking, and discussion having failed, we will now be forced to live the truth rather than to talk about it. We are about to find out the hard way whether we have been right or not.
Perhaps things will be just fine. Perhaps we were all worried about nothing. Perhaps life will go on without any major disasters. Perhaps the lessons from history don't apply this time.
It is an enormous gamble.
m berst (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-04 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
54. and then after Clark dropped out I wrote...
It has been sad watching the Dean and Edwards campaigns collapse. Talking to their supporters, I hear the same despair from them that so many Clark supporters have been feeling.
I have been hanging with the Kucinich people, but hope is starting to die there, too. I can't find a political organization to be involved with, and our attempts to keep the old LFA people together has not been very successful. The Kucinich people are facing the same challenges now, and are asking each other "what now?"
I am feeling like 3 strikes and you're out. The stampede to the official Clark campaign - strike one. The crushing of the grass roots people - strike two. The stampede to Kerry - strike three.
There is some talk among Kucinich supporters of third party efforts. While I do think that there is a good possibility that the two parties will break up and reform into new parties, I don't think it will happen before November. The usual arguments are going on about working within the party, the danger of splitting the progressive vote and thereby giving Bush the election, the importance of staying true to your convictions, etc.
I am amazed at how quickly and thoroughly the national debate has collapsed. It seems that people want to close their eyes, and open them again in November to discover that it was all just a bad dream. Kerry will be elected, and Kerry will turn the country around and save us and we won't have to worry anymore. I certainly hope they are right, but in any case the real loss will be that if they are not, there will be nothing to fall back on.
I have no problem in principle rallying behind opposition to Bush, but why did that have to also mean the breaking up of the grass roots organizations, the end of the national discussion, and the crushing of people's hope and enthusiasm? That makes me suspicious of the DNC and the Kerry campaign. They haven't really been telling us to pull the lever for Kerry - which is all we are good for to them - rather, we had to stop talking and organizing, as well. Be quiet now, or you are helping Bush!
We were privileged to be part of a moment in history when many people had great hope and were reaching out to each other. My only hope now is that things don't get too rough for everyone in the coming years.
I think we will now see a bitter partisan campaign and an even split in the electorate, as we did in the last national election. It will play out in the mass media, and we will be reduced to spectators. We will be hearing a lot about gay marriage, I am afraid.
I was politically active in 1968. That year Eugene McCarthy ran an insurgent campaign in the Democratic primaries, and then Robert Kennedy jumped into the race and was close to having the nomination won when he was murdered. The party met in Chicago for the convention, and in defiance of the people's will nominated the party's choice, Hubert Humphrey. The city was like a war zone throughout the convention with thousands of demonstrators in the streets. George Wallace then entered the race as a third party candidate and siphoned off a critical number of Democratic voters, and Nixon won the election by a tiny margin.
I tell this story for purposes of comparison. There was quite a bit of discouragement, sadness, and hopelessness over the events in 1968, and that created a pall that hung over the country for decades. Yet I am seeing more discouragement, sadness, and hopelessness now then I did then. That is stunning to me.
I believe we are, figuratively speaking, living in the eye of a hurricane. I hope I am wrong, but the signs are there. For decades, right wing xenophobes have been peddling the line that "they hate us" in other countries. The irony is that "they" - overwhelmingly - didn't hate us until the xenophobes grabbed control of the government. Now, more and more people around the world do fear and hate us, and I am not just talking about people in the Middle East. Thank God for the European press as a "reality check" for us here, or we might succumb to the comforting illusion that things are just fine and that we are a bunch of chicken littles.
I stumbled onto the Sean Hannity radio program accidentally the other day, and was preoccupied with something else and let it run for a few minutes. I heard that "liberals are traitors" that "liberals want the terrorists to win" that the teacher's union is a "terrorist organization" that "liberals hate America and American values" and on and on in that vein. This is a national radio show with a huge following, and the host was demonizing half of the people in the country. This is pure hate, and it won't just go away, it will continue to poison people's minds. Substitute the word "Jews" for the word "liberals" and it could have come right out of Joseph Goebbel's ministry. The Nazi analogies are way overused, but not in this case.
But there I go again - shooting my mouth off instead of rallying behind Kerry.
Reason, critical thinking, and discussion having failed, we will now be forced to live the truth rather than to talk about it. We are about to find out the hard way whether we have been right or not.
Perhaps things will be just fine. Perhaps we were all worried about nothing. Perhaps life will go on without any major disasters. Perhaps the lessons from history don't apply this time.
It is an enormous gamble.
DU post - on Clark's campaign
m berst (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-04 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
53. dug back into the archives
My last post before Clark dropped out-
We may be in the final hours of the Clark campaign tonight, and I have been thinking about the future. I have been contemplating several seemingly unrelated ideas as I watched the campaign unfold, and they finally coalesced in my mind. What have we learned from the Clark campaign? What is the common thread?
At the Kucinich forum there is a Wesley Clark thread, and naturally I posted there. Charges were being made against Clark, but rather than defend him I posted a positive statement of support.
Whom do I want to win?
In the Clark campaign we saw the professional campaign people cut the legs out from under the grass roots groups. Then we saw the grass roots groups controlled by people who seemed determined to stomp out spontaneity, creativity and motivation. We saw Clark struggle, and fail to get his message across in the various media outlets. We saw the Democratic core voters rally around a tried and true Democrat. Whom do I want to win? The American people.
What is the common thread?
It is this: the people who seized control of the Clark campaign and the Democratic party are upper middle class white college educated liberals, with a distinct East and West coast bias. These are the same people who dominate the media that isn't controlled by the neo-cons. These are the same people rallying around Kerry.
I believe that there is a liberal elite, and that they are driving the Democratic party away from it's roots as a progressive working class party. Who is left out? Most of the potential Democratic voters. The minority communities, the working people, those who don't embrace the looking down their noses more organic and politically sophisticated than thou crowd.
The people aren't too stupid to get the message. The message is dumbed down by the professional liberals and by the media elites, because they are protecting their perks and privileges.
The future for me is to work with the forgotten, the ignored, the disenfranchised, the hurting, the marginalized... the majority. Those are the people who could have put Clark in the White House. The beautiful people didn't want them at the party.
It is hard for me to imagine a scenario that could so thoroughly destroy the possibilities that LFA and General Clark's vision promised than the events we have watched unfold over the last few months. That destruction, in my view, is the result of the failures of the organization, both official and unofficial.
The organization always seemed to me to be working against the General's vision. We warned of this here very early in the campaign, and the response was pretty unambiguous - "go away!"
Many have expressed
the unique qualities that Clark brought to the race, and why it is so difficult for so many to get on the DNC orchestrated Kerry bandwagon.
- Clark showed us that progressive ideas could be expressed in a way that did not threaten or offend the sensibilities of the more conservative people.
- His incredible record of service and achievement would have served to further legitimize those progressive ideas.
- Clark could have actually ended the "Republican Revolution" rather than just slow it down a little.
- Clark could have been a President for all of us, not just half of us.
- Clark gave people hope.
If someone can explain to me how Kerry could do those 5 things, or convince me that the times call for less, or explain to me why we need to give them up and settle for something less, then I will consider jumping on the bandwagon.
After 35 years of voting straight Democratic party ticket in every election, I will not be doing that automatically this time. I enrolled many, many conservatives in the Clark campaign, and they are saddened today about the future of the country. They did not sign on only to be told to support whomever the DNC annointed, and neither did I.
I don't agree that the campaign was ever solely about taking back the White House, nor do I recall it being about "Clark or whomever as long as it isn't Bush."
Whether this means working within the party to overturn the elitist leadership, or forming a third party, it is too soon to tell. It is bait and switch, however, for people to now say that removing Bush was the only or even the main objective all along. I cringed the first time I heard a Clark supporter say "eyes on the prize" because I feared it would lead to this.
Many Clark supporters are not Democrats, and to suggest that they should now embrace Kerry insults their intelligence and does a disservice to Wes Clark's original vision that called us to service. So many new people were brought into the process by the Clark campaign. They weren't enrolling in DNC politics as usual.
If our enthusiasm and hope is so easily and instantly transferrable to Kerry, then I have to question just what it was we were hopeful and enthusiastic about. Removing Bush? I think not. Many of us want to change the conditions that allowed the crisis we are in, not just swap out occupants of offices. The DNC has stood by and made compromise after compromise with the RNC. Leaders in the Democratic party have been up to their eyeballs in political corruption and "go along to get along" strategies. If not for that, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.
There was a revealing exchange between Clark supporters today. Many who are saying "ok I am ready to go to work for Kerry" are discovering that there IS no Kerry campaign that they can find. We have seen from many of the communications to us from staffers that our suspicions that Kerry is the hand-picked candidate of the DNC leadership, and that we were cheated out of having a voice in the process are true. But I guess I should keep my "eyes on the prize" and be quiet about this.
People are having difficulty connecting up with the Kerry campaign because there WAS no Kerry campaign. It was a DNC campaign. The emperor is wearing no clothes.
But..... it is ok to pull the shenanigans that the DNC pulled, because we need to stop the shenanigans of the Bush adminstration? I came aboard the Clark campaign to stop ALL of the anti-democratic shenanigans, not to swap one set for another. I, and many others, came on board the Clark campaign to save our constitution and to restore decency to the political arena, not to sign on for "getting rid of" Bush as the "prime mission." The problems are just a teensy bit bigger than that, wouldn't you say? Or if they aren't quite a bit bigger, why the scare tactics about Bush to get us into the Kerry camp as quickly as possible? I resent the bait-and-switch tactic that now tells us we signed up for a different mission then the one we thought we were signing on for. "Getting on the program" behind Kerry just means "shut up" in any case, it seems to me. I don't find that very persuasive. I will work for a campaign that allows me to retain my freedom of speech, thank you very much.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2701711
m berst (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-04 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
53. dug back into the archives
My last post before Clark dropped out-
We may be in the final hours of the Clark campaign tonight, and I have been thinking about the future. I have been contemplating several seemingly unrelated ideas as I watched the campaign unfold, and they finally coalesced in my mind. What have we learned from the Clark campaign? What is the common thread?
At the Kucinich forum there is a Wesley Clark thread, and naturally I posted there. Charges were being made against Clark, but rather than defend him I posted a positive statement of support.
Whom do I want to win?
In the Clark campaign we saw the professional campaign people cut the legs out from under the grass roots groups. Then we saw the grass roots groups controlled by people who seemed determined to stomp out spontaneity, creativity and motivation. We saw Clark struggle, and fail to get his message across in the various media outlets. We saw the Democratic core voters rally around a tried and true Democrat. Whom do I want to win? The American people.
What is the common thread?
It is this: the people who seized control of the Clark campaign and the Democratic party are upper middle class white college educated liberals, with a distinct East and West coast bias. These are the same people who dominate the media that isn't controlled by the neo-cons. These are the same people rallying around Kerry.
I believe that there is a liberal elite, and that they are driving the Democratic party away from it's roots as a progressive working class party. Who is left out? Most of the potential Democratic voters. The minority communities, the working people, those who don't embrace the looking down their noses more organic and politically sophisticated than thou crowd.
The people aren't too stupid to get the message. The message is dumbed down by the professional liberals and by the media elites, because they are protecting their perks and privileges.
The future for me is to work with the forgotten, the ignored, the disenfranchised, the hurting, the marginalized... the majority. Those are the people who could have put Clark in the White House. The beautiful people didn't want them at the party.
It is hard for me to imagine a scenario that could so thoroughly destroy the possibilities that LFA and General Clark's vision promised than the events we have watched unfold over the last few months. That destruction, in my view, is the result of the failures of the organization, both official and unofficial.
The organization always seemed to me to be working against the General's vision. We warned of this here very early in the campaign, and the response was pretty unambiguous - "go away!"
Many have expressed
the unique qualities that Clark brought to the race, and why it is so difficult for so many to get on the DNC orchestrated Kerry bandwagon.
- Clark showed us that progressive ideas could be expressed in a way that did not threaten or offend the sensibilities of the more conservative people.
- His incredible record of service and achievement would have served to further legitimize those progressive ideas.
- Clark could have actually ended the "Republican Revolution" rather than just slow it down a little.
- Clark could have been a President for all of us, not just half of us.
- Clark gave people hope.
If someone can explain to me how Kerry could do those 5 things, or convince me that the times call for less, or explain to me why we need to give them up and settle for something less, then I will consider jumping on the bandwagon.
After 35 years of voting straight Democratic party ticket in every election, I will not be doing that automatically this time. I enrolled many, many conservatives in the Clark campaign, and they are saddened today about the future of the country. They did not sign on only to be told to support whomever the DNC annointed, and neither did I.
I don't agree that the campaign was ever solely about taking back the White House, nor do I recall it being about "Clark or whomever as long as it isn't Bush."
Whether this means working within the party to overturn the elitist leadership, or forming a third party, it is too soon to tell. It is bait and switch, however, for people to now say that removing Bush was the only or even the main objective all along. I cringed the first time I heard a Clark supporter say "eyes on the prize" because I feared it would lead to this.
Many Clark supporters are not Democrats, and to suggest that they should now embrace Kerry insults their intelligence and does a disservice to Wes Clark's original vision that called us to service. So many new people were brought into the process by the Clark campaign. They weren't enrolling in DNC politics as usual.
If our enthusiasm and hope is so easily and instantly transferrable to Kerry, then I have to question just what it was we were hopeful and enthusiastic about. Removing Bush? I think not. Many of us want to change the conditions that allowed the crisis we are in, not just swap out occupants of offices. The DNC has stood by and made compromise after compromise with the RNC. Leaders in the Democratic party have been up to their eyeballs in political corruption and "go along to get along" strategies. If not for that, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.
There was a revealing exchange between Clark supporters today. Many who are saying "ok I am ready to go to work for Kerry" are discovering that there IS no Kerry campaign that they can find. We have seen from many of the communications to us from staffers that our suspicions that Kerry is the hand-picked candidate of the DNC leadership, and that we were cheated out of having a voice in the process are true. But I guess I should keep my "eyes on the prize" and be quiet about this.
People are having difficulty connecting up with the Kerry campaign because there WAS no Kerry campaign. It was a DNC campaign. The emperor is wearing no clothes.
But..... it is ok to pull the shenanigans that the DNC pulled, because we need to stop the shenanigans of the Bush adminstration? I came aboard the Clark campaign to stop ALL of the anti-democratic shenanigans, not to swap one set for another. I, and many others, came on board the Clark campaign to save our constitution and to restore decency to the political arena, not to sign on for "getting rid of" Bush as the "prime mission." The problems are just a teensy bit bigger than that, wouldn't you say? Or if they aren't quite a bit bigger, why the scare tactics about Bush to get us into the Kerry camp as quickly as possible? I resent the bait-and-switch tactic that now tells us we signed up for a different mission then the one we thought we were signing on for. "Getting on the program" behind Kerry just means "shut up" in any case, it seems to me. I don't find that very persuasive. I will work for a campaign that allows me to retain my freedom of speech, thank you very much.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2701711
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
W"S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2741571&mesg_id=2741615&page=
MrBenchley (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-23-04 10:30 AM
12. The perfect end to a perfect trip...
He insulted his hosts and demonstrated public cowardice...
"SANTIAGO, Chile (CNN) -- Plans for a state dinner for President Bush at Chile's presidential palace were scratched Sunday after the United States insisted on security measures that Chile called unacceptable.
The change came a day after Chilean security guards temporarily blocked one of Bush's Secret Service agents from entering an official dinner.
For the Sunday event, the Secret Service insisted all guests -- totaling more than 230 -- pass through a metal detector, a top level Chilean Foreign Ministry official told CNN. U.S. officials did not dispute this account.
President Ricardo Lagos believed the measure was humiliating for guests, the Chilean official said."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/11/21/bush.dinne...
....babbled in public like an idiot....
"In a joint public appearance with Lagos, Bush meant to take note of plans for January 30 elections in Iraq, but said instead: "I noticed today that the elections are on schedule for June the 30th."
And Bush said he and Lagos were determined "to bring drug trafficking to bear," presumably a mix-up with his frequently stated eagerness to crush that global scourge.
Referring to the relative innocence of the days before the September 11, 2001 strikes, Bush told executives on Saturday: "We thought we were protected forever from trade policy or terrorist attacks because oceans protected us."
In that same speech, Bush meant to praise the Asia-Pacific Economic Forum (APEC) meeting here, but instead declared: "Our nation is a Pacific country, as well. And that's why the OPEC conferences are so important." "
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041122/t...
...and finished up by sashaying around in public with his pants open.
By the way, the look on Putin's face is priceless.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2741571&mesg_id=2741615&page=
MrBenchley (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-23-04 10:30 AM
12. The perfect end to a perfect trip...
He insulted his hosts and demonstrated public cowardice...
"SANTIAGO, Chile (CNN) -- Plans for a state dinner for President Bush at Chile's presidential palace were scratched Sunday after the United States insisted on security measures that Chile called unacceptable.
The change came a day after Chilean security guards temporarily blocked one of Bush's Secret Service agents from entering an official dinner.
For the Sunday event, the Secret Service insisted all guests -- totaling more than 230 -- pass through a metal detector, a top level Chilean Foreign Ministry official told CNN. U.S. officials did not dispute this account.
President Ricardo Lagos believed the measure was humiliating for guests, the Chilean official said."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/11/21/bush.dinne...
....babbled in public like an idiot....
"In a joint public appearance with Lagos, Bush meant to take note of plans for January 30 elections in Iraq, but said instead: "I noticed today that the elections are on schedule for June the 30th."
And Bush said he and Lagos were determined "to bring drug trafficking to bear," presumably a mix-up with his frequently stated eagerness to crush that global scourge.
Referring to the relative innocence of the days before the September 11, 2001 strikes, Bush told executives on Saturday: "We thought we were protected forever from trade policy or terrorist attacks because oceans protected us."
In that same speech, Bush meant to praise the Asia-Pacific Economic Forum (APEC) meeting here, but instead declared: "Our nation is a Pacific country, as well. And that's why the OPEC conferences are so important." "
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041122/t...
...and finished up by sashaying around in public with his pants open.
By the way, the look on Putin's face is priceless.
Mesg #340305 "My favorite analogy: Bush = Leopoldo Galtieri"
Author tech98
http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=2&topic_id=340295
Dictator of Argentina. A dim-witted tool who launched the invasion of the Falkland Islands as a distraction from economic malaise, cronyism and incompetence.
Excerpts from The Economist's obituary:
Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri, a failed dictator, died on January 12th, 2003 aged 76
He might have been forgiven by at least some of his fellow Argentines for his ruthlessness, but not for his stupidity.
Incompetence in civilian life, in commerce or in the professions, can have serious consequences. In government it can be disastrous, as it was for Argentina in 1982, when General Galtieri was the unelected military president. Argentina was going through one of its regular periods of high inflation and poor growth...Day after day crowds gathered outside the presidential palace to jeer at the general. The protests were largely forgotten when he announced that Argentina was to seize the Falklands, a small group of islands in the south Atlantic that had been a British possession since 1833.
Such a patriotic gesture is an old remedy, and has had a degree of success. Hitler reinforced his popularity by sending troops into the Rhineland in 1936 against French wishes. These days Pakistan's self-appointed president, General Musharraf, is routinely bellicose towards India.
Britain, under Margaret Thatcher, buckled on its rusty armour and dispatched every warship, troopship and rowing boat available to the Falklands, 13,000km away....On June 14th the Argentines surrendered.
There seems to be no dispute that high office fazed him. “Only Johnny Walker is crying”, was the headline in a Buenos Aires newspaper in a reference to the general's dependence on Scotch whisky.
When he joined the army as a young man he was interested in military engineering, and probably his ambitions should have stopped there. While a lieutenant he was noticed by American advisers attached to the Argentine army and in 1949 attended the School of the Americas...He is believed to be the only student in the history of the school to have failed the course.
“What most puzzles me”, says Oscar Raul Cardoso, an Argentine political analyst, “is how someone so mediocre in all senses reached the top.” Could it happen again? The answer is probably yes, again and again.
Author tech98
http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=2&topic_id=340295
Dictator of Argentina. A dim-witted tool who launched the invasion of the Falkland Islands as a distraction from economic malaise, cronyism and incompetence.
Excerpts from The Economist's obituary:
Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri, a failed dictator, died on January 12th, 2003 aged 76
He might have been forgiven by at least some of his fellow Argentines for his ruthlessness, but not for his stupidity.
Incompetence in civilian life, in commerce or in the professions, can have serious consequences. In government it can be disastrous, as it was for Argentina in 1982, when General Galtieri was the unelected military president. Argentina was going through one of its regular periods of high inflation and poor growth...Day after day crowds gathered outside the presidential palace to jeer at the general. The protests were largely forgotten when he announced that Argentina was to seize the Falklands, a small group of islands in the south Atlantic that had been a British possession since 1833.
Such a patriotic gesture is an old remedy, and has had a degree of success. Hitler reinforced his popularity by sending troops into the Rhineland in 1936 against French wishes. These days Pakistan's self-appointed president, General Musharraf, is routinely bellicose towards India.
Britain, under Margaret Thatcher, buckled on its rusty armour and dispatched every warship, troopship and rowing boat available to the Falklands, 13,000km away....On June 14th the Argentines surrendered.
There seems to be no dispute that high office fazed him. “Only Johnny Walker is crying”, was the headline in a Buenos Aires newspaper in a reference to the general's dependence on Scotch whisky.
When he joined the army as a young man he was interested in military engineering, and probably his ambitions should have stopped there. While a lieutenant he was noticed by American advisers attached to the Argentine army and in 1949 attended the School of the Americas...He is believed to be the only student in the history of the school to have failed the course.
“What most puzzles me”, says Oscar Raul Cardoso, an Argentine political analyst, “is how someone so mediocre in all senses reached the top.” Could it happen again? The answer is probably yes, again and again.
Monday, November 22, 2004
TailWgnDog
Mon Nov-22-04 05:46 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1381141#1381156
Response to Original message
6. The rightwing political element in this country has . . .
an agenda. Much of it turns around legalities. Their agenda is to turn back the legal clock of time to Lochner, (1905).
This was a time before President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Big Deal" expansion of the federal government that gave our congress great power to over-ride state laws.
So in effect, the rightwingnuts want to erase about 100 years of congressional and U.S. Supreme Court laws. Seriously. It would call back the time when corporations were untouchable, ran rampant over the country and allowed what at that time was called "the gilded age" and "baron robbers."
Envision the movie "Titanic" and the split between the classes of the ship's passengers being only two: upper class and "steerage" of the low class. No middle class. None. That's when corporations had no boundaries, no laws to regulate them, and when they trammeled over the (no) rights of individuals.
This is the GWBush agenda. And GWBush has *snowed* and mislead and lied to people, pandering to their religious fears in attempts to pull together a coalition of voters in order to achieve his agenda.
Which is why the more educated people across the nation did NOT vote for GWBush. And which is why GWBush and Company belittled educated ppl, etc., etc., etc.
Simple, really."
To which I added that this agenda makes the "party of the middle class" obsolete. Who'll represent the majority?
.
Mon Nov-22-04 05:46 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1381141#1381156
Response to Original message
6. The rightwing political element in this country has . . .
an agenda. Much of it turns around legalities. Their agenda is to turn back the legal clock of time to Lochner, (1905).
This was a time before President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Big Deal" expansion of the federal government that gave our congress great power to over-ride state laws.
So in effect, the rightwingnuts want to erase about 100 years of congressional and U.S. Supreme Court laws. Seriously. It would call back the time when corporations were untouchable, ran rampant over the country and allowed what at that time was called "the gilded age" and "baron robbers."
Envision the movie "Titanic" and the split between the classes of the ship's passengers being only two: upper class and "steerage" of the low class. No middle class. None. That's when corporations had no boundaries, no laws to regulate them, and when they trammeled over the (no) rights of individuals.
This is the GWBush agenda. And GWBush has *snowed* and mislead and lied to people, pandering to their religious fears in attempts to pull together a coalition of voters in order to achieve his agenda.
Which is why the more educated people across the nation did NOT vote for GWBush. And which is why GWBush and Company belittled educated ppl, etc., etc., etc.
Simple, really."
To which I added that this agenda makes the "party of the middle class" obsolete. Who'll represent the majority?
.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
http://www.gawker.com/news/culture/stalker/gawker-stalker-bungalow-8-nycs-best-crack-den-026053.php
Celeb gossip site gawker reports:
Freemans tuesday night the 16th of nov. the bush twins along with 2 massive secret service men tried to have dinner they were told by the maitre 'd that they were full and would be for the next 4 years upon hearing the entire restaurant cheered and did a round of shots it was amazing!!! Ed: We're hearing that this is actually true.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Celeb gossip site gawker reports:
Freemans tuesday night the 16th of nov. the bush twins along with 2 massive secret service men tried to have dinner they were told by the maitre 'd that they were full and would be for the next 4 years upon hearing the entire restaurant cheered and did a round of shots it was amazing!!! Ed: We're hearing that this is actually true.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, November 19, 2004
davhill
Original message
Cult of Personality
As I drove around the bend in I-4 in downtown Orlando I was greeted with a billboard displaying a huge 20' visage of Bush with the inscription "Our Leader". It was not left over electioneering; it was just recently erected. Such billboards are characteristic of dictatorships everywhere. I never thought I would see one in my own country. Are such things popping up all over the rest of the country too?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2720788
Original message
Cult of Personality
As I drove around the bend in I-4 in downtown Orlando I was greeted with a billboard displaying a huge 20' visage of Bush with the inscription "Our Leader". It was not left over electioneering; it was just recently erected. Such billboards are characteristic of dictatorships everywhere. I never thought I would see one in my own country. Are such things popping up all over the rest of the country too?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2720788
Monday, November 15, 2004
Digby - the perfect candidate?
The Pageant
Atrios is full of 'tude these days and rightly so. This nonsense about finding leaders who are immune from GOP criticism is just ridiculous. I thought we all understood that the attack machine has no relationship to the truth. There is no such thing as an acceptable Democrat anymore. There isn't even such a thing as an acceptable moderat republican anymore. Look what they are doing to Specter.
I simply cannot believe that after the last twelve years any Democrat still believes that there are limits to what the Republicans will say to assassinate someone's character or how far the SCLM will go to promulgate it if the story is juicy enough. Perhaps Mr Nelson needs to make a run for the presidency and see if all that Red state love sees him through.
The Pageant
Atrios is full of 'tude these days and rightly so. This nonsense about finding leaders who are immune from GOP criticism is just ridiculous. I thought we all understood that the attack machine has no relationship to the truth. There is no such thing as an acceptable Democrat anymore. There isn't even such a thing as an acceptable moderat republican anymore. Look what they are doing to Specter.
I simply cannot believe that after the last twelve years any Democrat still believes that there are limits to what the Republicans will say to assassinate someone's character or how far the SCLM will go to promulgate it if the story is juicy enough. Perhaps Mr Nelson needs to make a run for the presidency and see if all that Red state love sees him through.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
"Good heavens ..."
Author samela
you've drunk the Kool-Aid again, but this time from listening, I suspect, to too much AM talk radio.
Democrats bowing to PETA? Give me a break. I missed that one.
You have total amnesia about what this election was about. It was about jobs lost to outsousrcing. It was about health insurance costs rising. It was about being mislead into a war in Iraq. It was about civil liberties assaulted in the Patriot Act. And then, in the end, it was about a tape mailed in from Osama.
Bush and Cheney were not talking about guns. They were not talking about gay marriage. They were not talking about animal rights or wrongs. They were not talking about abortion. THose things were talked about on the pulpits of the churches whose membership lists they obtained. It was a backdoor campaign? WHY? Because most of the nation disagrees with them on these subjects, and they have to whisper them to this tiny but important part of their base in the dark of night, in the back rooms, and in code. They can't reveal them to the rest of the nation ... who poll after poll show to be in agreement with Democrats' openly stated positions on a whole range of these issues.
The Democrats put on a convention show wrapped in flags and tough talk and patriotic songs. John Kerry and John Edwards sat on front porches and addressed groups of believers in churches. They opposed gay marriage in favor of civil unions (as 60% of the nation agrees), they demurred on abortion by saying their personal beliefs could not interfere with the law of the land and the will of the people. They donned duck-hunters garbs and rifles. What do you want them to do? Start espousing trickle-down economics and advocate tax cuts? Start calling homsexuals the spawn of Satan and telling women their place should be in the kitchens?
The margin of error in this election was no doubt the 4 million more evangelical Christians the Republicans managed to get out with their push polls and whisper campaigns. That pushed them over the top. Do NOT confuse that with the beliefs and values of a majority of Americans. Iraq + Terror was the main issue of this campaign. The media allowed Kerry to be beat up on in questions regarding his national security credentials in time of war. The terror warnings and Osama tapes didn't help. A majority of Americans (but only barely, and perhaps not even legally) decided to leave well enough alone. They'll come to regret it, I have no doubt.
In the meantime, your proposal to sell off gays and women and embrace guns and yahoos ... well, it occurs to me maybe you're supportin the wrong side. It's never to late to re-register as a Republican. The rest of us feel good about our mainstream Democratic values.
Author samela
you've drunk the Kool-Aid again, but this time from listening, I suspect, to too much AM talk radio.
Democrats bowing to PETA? Give me a break. I missed that one.
You have total amnesia about what this election was about. It was about jobs lost to outsousrcing. It was about health insurance costs rising. It was about being mislead into a war in Iraq. It was about civil liberties assaulted in the Patriot Act. And then, in the end, it was about a tape mailed in from Osama.
Bush and Cheney were not talking about guns. They were not talking about gay marriage. They were not talking about animal rights or wrongs. They were not talking about abortion. THose things were talked about on the pulpits of the churches whose membership lists they obtained. It was a backdoor campaign? WHY? Because most of the nation disagrees with them on these subjects, and they have to whisper them to this tiny but important part of their base in the dark of night, in the back rooms, and in code. They can't reveal them to the rest of the nation ... who poll after poll show to be in agreement with Democrats' openly stated positions on a whole range of these issues.
The Democrats put on a convention show wrapped in flags and tough talk and patriotic songs. John Kerry and John Edwards sat on front porches and addressed groups of believers in churches. They opposed gay marriage in favor of civil unions (as 60% of the nation agrees), they demurred on abortion by saying their personal beliefs could not interfere with the law of the land and the will of the people. They donned duck-hunters garbs and rifles. What do you want them to do? Start espousing trickle-down economics and advocate tax cuts? Start calling homsexuals the spawn of Satan and telling women their place should be in the kitchens?
The margin of error in this election was no doubt the 4 million more evangelical Christians the Republicans managed to get out with their push polls and whisper campaigns. That pushed them over the top. Do NOT confuse that with the beliefs and values of a majority of Americans. Iraq + Terror was the main issue of this campaign. The media allowed Kerry to be beat up on in questions regarding his national security credentials in time of war. The terror warnings and Osama tapes didn't help. A majority of Americans (but only barely, and perhaps not even legally) decided to leave well enough alone. They'll come to regret it, I have no doubt.
In the meantime, your proposal to sell off gays and women and embrace guns and yahoos ... well, it occurs to me maybe you're supportin the wrong side. It's never to late to re-register as a Republican. The rest of us feel good about our mainstream Democratic values.
Gone To The Dogs (a poem)
Gone To The Dogs
(If the Democratic Party were a lovable mutt)
by
trotcop
As his moderate tail,
Moves to the right,
The lovable mutt,
Gives chase with great delight.
The years roll by,
He makes no gain,
Then one day he feels,
A sharp searing pain.
He realizes too late,
All the time he's let pass.
The only thing that he accomplished,
Is he bit his own ass.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1346790
Gone To The Dogs
(If the Democratic Party were a lovable mutt)
by
trotcop
As his moderate tail,
Moves to the right,
The lovable mutt,
Gives chase with great delight.
The years roll by,
He makes no gain,
Then one day he feels,
A sharp searing pain.
He realizes too late,
All the time he's let pass.
The only thing that he accomplished,
Is he bit his own ass.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1346790
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)