A month after the election, I’m still nursing a hangover from downing too much Kerry Kool-Aid. (My previous column taught me a valuable lesson: Never drink and divine.) And the Democratic Party seems similarly sluggish, mired in its quadrennial period of self-flagellation, sniping and backbiting about why they lost this time. If previous setbacks are any guide, the same consultants… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (49)Page 1 of 1 pages“By tacking rightward, Democrats not only alienate their base, but encourage swing voters to think like Republicans.”
Craig’s right. And if Joe LIEberman’s “little buddy” is made DNC chair, it’s telling the base we don’t want you, we don’t need you.
Simon Rosenberg is DLC, is disgusting. For info on him see:
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2004/12/questions-for-questionable-simon.html
The party needs to reach out to their base, stop ignoring us, stop silencing us.
Posted by Ryan on Dec 10, 2004 at 7:37 AM I THINK IN LIGHT OF THE SITUATION, WE CAN NOT GIVE HOPE FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT, REGARDLESS, WHOEVER IS IN OFFICE. PLEASE BE ADVISED THOUGH WE WILL NEVER REST UNTIL THE TREES OF THE ANCIENTS ARE SAVED. UNTIL THE WATER IS CLEAR OF TOXICS, AND UNTIL OUR FOOD IS SAFE TO EAT. ANIMALS HAVE THEIR RIGHTS TO A HOME. AND THE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS FOR REAL. THE NUCLEAR ACTIVISTS AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE TO JOIN TOGETHR AND WORK TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF OUR MOTHER EARTH.
PEACE & BLESSINGS! LET THEIR BE REAL PEACE ON EARTH FOR REAL.
Posted by LINDA SAFLEY on Dec 10, 2004 at 10:41 AM I agree completely—Democrats don’t need to go further left. The people want an ALTERNATIVE, and they’re definitely not getting it. It cracks me up when people call Kerry a liberal. “I am a liberal,” I say. “he’s got nothing on me.”
Posted by Brad O'Donnell on Dec 10, 2004 at 4:39 PM *correction, Democrats don’t need to go further RIGHT.
I apologize for my ignorance.
Posted by Brad O'Donnell on Dec 10, 2004 at 4:42 PM It’s been a long time since the ‘left’ was actually left of center. I was a young boy when The Duke carried only his home state, and since then we’ve not had much to cheer about. Clinton was okay, but too many bad policies slid thru under his watch. Gore would have been worse, and the thought of Joe Lieberman as VP makes Cheney almost seem pleasant (sarcasm! sarcasm!). Kerry—I actually liked him but would his policies have really been anything better than watered-down versions of what the left truly wants? I doubt it.
Does anybody remember reading about the Bull Moose Party, or the Know-Nothings? Why is it that every left-leaning third party has to be so closed and insular—so tied to a narrow agenda that they fail to draw even a marginal amount of votes? If democracy is truly about the will of the people, and voting is our opportunity to state our will, why is it that we often end up voting for the lesser (and often weaker) of two evils?
I’d love to see the Democrats go more to the left, but maybe they should just change their names to Republicans 2.0 so we can get on with the real challenge of building an honest-to-god leftist third party.
Posted by matt on Dec 10, 2004 at 9:01 PM All these editorials miss the point : the Demoplicans are paid to lose. The Clintons, Al From and the rest sold the Democratic Party to the ownership of the Republicans and the resultant Demoplicans know who is “supposed” to win : the “A” team. The Demoplicans are just there for backup, to implement the same policies under a different “brand” if the “A” team should mess up and actually lose the election.
If the Demoplicans were really an opposition party the DLC/DNC who have resigned en masse in disgrace after this election. They lost the White House, lost more seats in the Senate, lost more seats in the House of Represntatives, and 28 States have Republicrat governors. If the Demoplicans could not win this election, if they could not beat a known liar and war criminal and a party that is looting the nation with out even bothering to turn out the lights they cannot win ANY election.
If Americans of color stand up and take over the Demoplican party and ressurect the Democratic Party I’ll think again. But I will NEVER vote Demoplican again.
We need to get behind an Independent candidate in every Congressional District, one who will foreswear “campaign contributions” from anyone but constituents of the office itself and limit the amount of those contributions to a week’s pay at the minimum wage.
We need to require a pledge from these candidates to stop funding the war in Palestine, the well spring o terrorism world wide, and the Western Front of that war in Iraq, the shocking, awful shame that it is.
It is time to take back our country. The infamous axis of evil is the Republicrat/Demoplican Axis right here at home.
Posted by John Francis Lee on Dec 11, 2004 at 12:36 AM Actually, I’m surprised that anyone (especially Howard Dean ) still thinks the Democratic Party is worth the trouble. A good number of pols who run as democrats actually vote as republicans. The senate democrats just tapped anti-choice, Scalia lovin’ Harry Reid to take over from Tom Daschle.
Better all around to invite ACTUAL democrats to help form a new party and stop diluting the constituency for change that has been getting duped for years by the DNC/DLC just as surely as the social conservatives have been getting duped by the RNC. Sue them over the rights to the name, the same way John Fogerty sued his former bandmates.
The blue dog democrats can call themselves....Quislings? Fifth Columnists? Invertabrates? Oh well, I’m sure they’ll come up with something catchy.
Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Dec 11, 2004 at 3:02 AM It’s disheartening to see posts from Democrats who want to bolt. We damn near won against the most corrupt and well-oiled slime machine in history. Stay and fight. If you don’t get ready for right wing domination for the rest of your lifetime.
Posted by Pat on Dec 11, 2004 at 4:37 AM Almost won? With your statement “the most corrupt and well-oiled slime machine in history”.With that being the case or so you contend, you should have WON in a major landslide. It tells me that Gore should have won and Kerry also, but where are they now?
Posted by Robin on Dec 11, 2004 at 10:17 AM Rather than paraphrase it, I recommend everyone intrested in revivifying the “Demoplicans”, go to: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121104C.shtml. It really is the economy, and progressives are winning in Republicrat areas using that message. By the way, John Francis Lee has it right; DLC types are just corporate infiltrators creating the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.
Posted by Phil Toler on Dec 11, 2004 at 11:04 AM Matt, the Know-Nothings were a racist, anti-immigrant party, not a leftist party, but I understand your point.
I believe that an antiwar, economically liberal Democrat could have won this year; Kerry’s positions were simply too nuanced to be understood by much of the population. Opinion polls have always showed that a majority of Americans opposed the invasion of Iraq and many Americans would have voted against Bush on this issue. But Kerry was not an alternative, he voted to authorize the war, and only late in the campaign did he take an antiwar stance, saying that the Bush administration had ‘mishandled the war in Iraq,’ and not using the obvious evidence to claim that they had no basis to invade Iraq. Kerry’s claims were not definite, and this made it easy to paint him as a flip-flopper. A candidate who had always been antiwar and was for bringing the troops home immediately, such as Dennis Kucinich, would not have been labeled as indecisive.
Posted by david on Dec 11, 2004 at 5:44 PM I watched a Democratic Party forum on CSPAN last night that had Al From on giving the DLC “vision” of where the party needs to go. We really need to get as far away from that Republican Lite type of thinking as possible.
If you haven’t read George Lakoff’s book called “Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate” I highly recommend it. It’s not much more than 100 pages, but it is full of information pertinent to this subject.
Posted by Matt Harris on Dec 11, 2004 at 10:41 PM There is no BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of the results reported from US federal elections. Learn more about the No Confidence Movement here:
http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2004/11/no-confidence-movement-primer.html
Posted by GuvWurld on Dec 12, 2004 at 1:57 AM Seems to me a lot of folks owe Nader an apology. Or as Nader said when he visited Gainesville: “ I guess you just haven’t been betrayed enough”.
Posted by Bob T on Dec 12, 2004 at 4:40 AM >>>Almost won? With your statement “the most corrupt and well-oiled slime machine in history”.With that being the case or so you contend, you should have WON in a major landslide. It tells me that Gore should have won and Kerry also, but where are they now?
<<<I am saying that in a right wing media climate where the slime machine grinds along relentlessly, it’s difficult to get ANY liberal message a fair hearing. We could have been just as slimy—there’s a lot of Republican dirt that could have been dug into....but we didn’t do it. Maybe we should all buy shovels.
Posted by Pat on Dec 12, 2004 at 7:18 AM “If the Demoplicans were really an opposition party the DLC/DNC would have resigned en masse in disgrace after this election.”
I apologize for the typo.
And, yes, I’ve been betrayed enough. Ralph Nader has more integrity in his little finger than a room full of Demoplicans… make that a country full.
And he has no difficulty dealing in a quiet, rational way with the central issue that the Demoplicans can only run away from.
Ralph Nader said in a wonderful address to the Arab American Anti-Defamation League :
‘ The peace movement in Israel has filled Tel Aviv Square with 100 thousand people demonstrating. That’s like 5 million here. It is composed of members of the Knesset, former ministers of justice, distinguished artists, authors, scholars, workers, farmers. ‘
Yet the Israeli far-right alone says ‘jump’ and George W Bush, John Kerry and the rest of the American political class, the Republicrat/Demoplican Axis, under “sway” of the
AIPAC, say ‘how high’?The shameful spectacle of George W Bush nullifying international law and approving Israeli annexation of the West Bank is drop-dead proof of the Likud’s stranglehold on this regime.
And the “opposition” Demoplicans fell all over themselves in agreement with this travesty of justice.
There are at least 1233 Israelis refuseniks including 27 Israeli airmen, more than a dozen members of Sayeret Matkal, and Noam Bahat, Hagay
Mattar, Adam Mouar, Shimi Tzamrit and Mittan Kminar who are serving prison terms for refusing to serve in Israel’s illegal, immoral war against the Palestinians. Can you imagine what they are up against?That’s like 60,000 people here.
And I hope there soon will be 60,000 American refuseniks.There are people from the Israeli and Palestinian sides who went to Geneva on their own and ironed out an alternative to “all war, all the time”.
Not only is it no more anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli to be anti-Likud than it is
anti-American for an American like myself who loves his country to be vehemently opposed to “our” present viciously war-mongering and anti-
democratic American regime, patriotism demands that we all repudiate these regimes that are making war criminals of us all.The first national politician who stands up and speaks the truth on this issue is going to ride the crest of a tidal wave onto the American
beachhead and lead the liberation of the American people.And you can be sure that that pol will not be a Demoplican. Even Howard Dean is speechless when it comes to the Likud. If we Americans and Israelis want something more than death as a way of life we’ll have to send the Butcher of Falluja and the Butcher of Sabra and Shatila and Jenin both packing.
2006. The House of Representatives. The next inflection point in American politics. Cut off the funding for the two fronted war of expropriation in the Middle East.
Posted by John Francis Lee on Dec 12, 2004 at 7:30 AM Now you tell us.
I’ve grown up through exactly the years you discuss. Born during Richard Nixon’s second presidency, noticing politics during the Reagan era and an adult through the Clintonian confirmation of the Reagan Revolution.
And I’ve listened to pained and tormented liberals the whoe time. After decades of it, I’ve come to a different conclusion: it’s not that the Democrats have a set of losing tactics, though they obviously do, it’s that their strategy doesn’t represent me or working people in general.
In fact, there is no reason at all to believe this. Except that “small-d” democrats throughout the left press and ngo-land all tell us we HAVE to vote for the Democrats, well, just because.
After NAFTA, after Kerry’s call for more troops, after Edwards apologies for Israeli crimes, after the sacking of Cynthia McKinney and so on and so on—I can’t in good conscience vote for the Democrats ever again.
There are millions just like me. But the problem is deeper than rhetoric. The Democrats support empire, war, unfair trade, the prison state, de-industrialization and all the ills that have hurt the common people of this country (and the world). Democrats are the only political party in the world to ever drop a nuclear weapon. Twice. I don’t remember them ever apologizing for that one.
Maybe it’s time “small-d” Democrats got wise to the basic power structure of this society. A real democracy isn’t about voting on which vocaulary the same ruling elite uses. Until you jettison your allegience to a party that has no use for you, we will continue to lose on the most fundamental issues—and the add-ons.
In the meantime, every author at In These Times who wrote an Anybody But Bush article leading up to the elections should be forced to eat every page it was printed on.
Posted by Jed B. on Dec 12, 2004 at 9:38 AM I am 100% for all you Dems going further left!! The lefter you get the more the decent folks of theis country reject your more wacko ideas. At this rate maybe the next century might be more friutful for you of the left leaning persuasion.
Sadly( for Dems) you still don’t get it. This election was NOT about fighting imperialism or universal healthcare which even for this libetarian leaning conservative are noble and desirable persuits. It was about pushing the gay agenda, ridiculous taxation and the second ammendment. It was about many things that have to do with being out of touch with the real america between the blue states but also the lesser of two evils. Look I hate Bush’s enviornmental policies. I think that his lip lock on big business is scary and I can’t say that much of what he does impresses me really. However that being said I cast a wistful gaze at Mr’ Kerry and his “charming” wife. You gotta be kidding right? This guy was so far to the left of even Teddy Kennedy that my head was spinning around like an owl. Maybe by putting a more realistic candidate out there you might do better. Forget the socialism and big government and all the limo lberal hollywood condescention put forth, send Michael Moore and Al franken on sabbatical to say maybe I dunno Tierra del fuego or somnething and be realistic, friendly, sociable, HONEST, and maybe a few other boy scout type admirable qualities and offer America a viable option and then we’ll talk about taking you back.
Posted by redstate on Dec 12, 2004 at 3:47 PM Here here redstate. I should tell you that I have a gay nephew who is in a long term relationship and HE and HIS partner are against gay marriage. He also has 2 businesses with his partner and they are fine with the way things stand between them. He says that a marriage is what his parents have, he on the other hand has a partnership. Even he gets the difference. Oh and he is a conservative republican not a social one but a fiscal one. I hope you were not serious when you referred to Mrs. Kerry as charming. That’s like saying spiders are cute.
Posted by Robin on Dec 12, 2004 at 4:22 PM poor Dear Mrs Kerry. For me she actualy almost made Janet Reno seem charming. Yes I was being facetious. I wish your nephew well and respect his vision. I for the life of me cannot understand why gay folks persue legitimacy in the form of “marriage” . Civil unions would seem to be a less tortuous path and still have the benefits without stirring the anger of middle America. True marriage to me anyways seems to be a few words said, some papers signed, and then a mental agreement sought for mutual benefit . Being pretty much a chicken myself when it comes to battles I would go for civil unions for legal reasons and consider myself married. As a terminal heterosexual myself I cannot picture in my mind what the collective gay mentality seeks. The laws for sodomy have been dropped and most people to some degree accept homosexuality as a persons choice whether personal or biological. As to spiders being cute you could be an arachnologist or just another spider and possibly fit the criteria.
Posted by redstate on Dec 12, 2004 at 5:56 PM So Pat the media is bias huh? Are we really wanting to go there? Does oh say a guy named Dan Rather come to mind? Not only did he show his bias he got caught doing so. It’s calling endorsing forgery to take down a sitting US President. And of cours Al Franken is so fair minded and all the crew at the Clinton News Network (used to be CNN? ) Or there is the ever wonderful Tina Brown. No there are no liberal news people out there. Try ABC.CBS, or NBC.
Posted by Robin on Dec 12, 2004 at 7:04 PM folks who deny liberal bias in the news media bring to mind people who live downwind of hog farms they are so immersed in the stench everyday they tend not to even notice it let alone being bothered by it. Al Franken is the stench from that hog farm personified.
Posted by redstate on Dec 12, 2004 at 7:19 PM Oh Robin,
send my condolences to your poor misguided “cousin” (sure sounds suspiciously like the proverbial friend of a friend). Gay Marriage is about equal rights, sorry but if you can’t grant that a homosexual can marry then you cannot grant that they are human. But then that always was the subtext in all right wing rhetoric about homosexuality, that they are less than human. Only in your America could it be considered viable to literally enshrine prejudice in the fcking CONSTITUTION!
Oh Redstate,
You think JOHN KERRY was leftist? My oh my your country has sunk even further into the slime and sludge of conservatism than I originally thought. Come visit us sometime, we’ll show ya some leftists...heck our supreme court upheld gay marriage!
Posted by lefty canuck on Dec 13, 2004 at 8:54 AM and making fun of Kerry’s wife? Please, grow up. Your guy won remember? You can cut that all out now.
Posted by lefty canuck on Dec 13, 2004 at 8:56 AM Oh but Mrs Kerry gave us so much jovial fodder for all that is wrong with limo liberals. I mean she was right up there with Michael Moore, James Carville, and Al Franken for sheer looniness . She would have been an appropriate poster child for the far left. You know I have read the Constitution over and over but I can’t even find the words homosexual or gay anywhere. There is definitive language on free speech, freedom OF religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms but nothing about gay marriage. I think that is one of the problems liberals have for all the intelligence they say they have in those blue states they seem to have a problem with reading plain english.
As to us “winning” all we won was the lesser of two evils. Until America is returned to a Constitutional form of government and that sacred document is adhered to then we all lose both on the left and the right. Until we get it together and see how all of us are losing our rights while the politicians are all gleefuly thinking of new and creative ways to seperate us from our income and our constitutional guarantees then we all lose.
Posted by redstate on Dec 13, 2004 at 10:27 AM Nice Try redstate,
but what I was saying (as you fully well know) was that by trying to add an amendment to ban gay marriage your government is trying to enshrine bigotry into the constitution (I wasn’t saying it was already there.)
“limo liberals”? nice touch...I guess once you have some money you can’t credibly care about lower and middle classes? Isn’t it you guys that are always trying to paint us as “elites”? Your argument sounds pretty damn elitist to me.
p.s. and enough already with this red state/blue state crap...it’s convenient for you guys to gloss over reality in this way, but we all know that the real divide is between rural/urban voters. but if we used that map it wouldn’t look like you control the whole country now would it?
Posted by lefty canuck on Dec 13, 2004 at 10:40 AM I will be leaving for Upstate New York on tne 18th of December (canuck), so when I get home to see my sister’s only son Jerry Lee then I will make sure that I let him and his partner Shane know that they are quote “ a friend of a friend. Possibly if you would like to leave a name and phone # here I will have him give you a call. And yes, he disagrees with gay marriage as does fictional Shane, you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you. And yes I am so sorry for making fun of Mrs. Kerry, it’s not nice to make fun of people who belong in padded rooms. My bad
Posted by Robin on Dec 13, 2004 at 2:04 PM my feeling is first lets abide by the constitution and bill of rights we have now. Force these idiot politicians on both sides to UPHOLD the constitution-- even the parts they don’t like and then we’ll talk. The part that pisses me off is not Gay marriage per se but I’ll be damned if I’ll support somebody else’s civil rights while mine are being ripped away. Then what’s next?? do the lefties want to propose affirmitave action and reparations for homosexuals?? just what we need in this country a gay Jesse Jackson .
I have never been in a limo in my life and would refuse to do so on principle. My 50 plus mpg diesel beetle or my wife’s jeep is enough for me thank you. If I could live accordingly I would get rid of my car and canoe or walk to where I needed to go.
Yeah the blue/red crap is so 2004. I want to live in a green state. Not politically ( altho green party folks do have some good ideas) but a state that has more trees than buildings and highways. I am of a mind that the city drives people to a form of collective frustrated insanity.
and miz Kerry may not need a padded room but she does need to cut down on the booze and bad language.
Posted by redstate on Dec 13, 2004 at 2:53 PM redstate,
your argument is driving me nuts with all the circular logic!! I don’t get how you can support a constitutional ban on gay marriage and then turn around and say that the gov’t should uphold the constitution...and how does allowing gay marriage rip away your civil rights? You can still get married if you want, churches aren’t required to grant gay marriages (after all there is a clear delineation between the religious implications of marriage and the civil ones)
and as for living in a city, I would argue the opposite. By living in close quarters with people of diverse ethnic backgrounds one becomes acclimatized to the inherent “human-ness” of us all. It’s the opposite of collective frustrated insanity, it’s collective humanity.
and I kinda liked Heinz-Kerry, at least she has moxie ;)
As opposed to Laura Bush (who seems too much like the prototypical June Cleaver wife)
Posted by lefty canuck on Dec 13, 2004 at 4:37 PM hey Lefty! I think we talked awhile back in another forum. Holly Hippidaze!
Ahem- I never ever said that i supported a contitutional ban on gay marriage. Gay marriage does not rip at my constitutional rights all I said is that before we do anything we have to force politicos on both sides to uphold the constitution even the parts they don’t like! i guess that I just love the country and not just country like the music I love the wilderness. I hope to someday paddle your beautiful Quetico Wilderness. I am a terminal misanthrope who still likes people just not all at one time! Everybody is different in their desires and values.
sorry about Miz Kerry but I don’t mind strong women( I am married to one) I just don’t like nasty attitudes and condescending attitudes on richpiggies that look down their finely sculpted noses at up plebian hicks. June Cleaver was a good mother and wife and while I do not go for cookie cutter attitudes good values are admirable.
Posted by redstate on Dec 13, 2004 at 4:58 PM Of course the media is biased. You wing nuts have your own channel after all. And MSNBC stacks guests with conservatives. The wing nuts are the school yard bullies now...and guess what? You may think “values” are what it’s all about but it’s not. It’s money going to big business. And when your job gets cut and your kid can’t go to college you’ll be re-thinking all this. Thank God I’ve got my kids both through higher education in great shape...this economy is going to crash. We are now owned by Communist China, thank you Republican big spenders..
Posted by Pat on Dec 13, 2004 at 6:26 PM >>I don’t mind strong women( I am married to one) I just don’t like nasty attitudes and condescending attitudes on richpiggies that look down their finely sculpted noses at up plebian hicks. June Cleaver was a good mother and wife and while I do not go for cookie cutter attitudes good values are admirable.
<<“Piggies”????? That’s how you talk about women? Wonder how your “strong” wife feels about the fact that you are such an oinker....I bet she refers to you as “DH” in emails...."Oh, the darling hubby...”
Posted by Pat on Dec 13, 2004 at 7:13 PM Robin, why does your gay nephew not favor marriage rights? If he and his partner don’t want to be married it’s clearly their business, but what about other gay folk who do want to marry instead of just unite civilly? What does he say about that? I realize that these questions may be mistakely seen as sarcasm or a cheap jibe, so I hasten to say that they’re real questions. I’m truly interested.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 13, 2004 at 11:51 PM That’s “mistakenly seen as sarcasm”, excuse the dyslexia.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 13, 2004 at 11:52 PM Different point: Although I’ll never be counted conservative, I have to admit that their messages to the public are succinctly phrased, direct, and bespeak a clear vision of how they want society to be. If the liberals (or progressives, or whatever the label du jour) hope to compete, they’ll have to come out with similarly clear statements of principle. They’ll definitely provoke harsh responses, and maybe that’s what worries them. Most likely it stems from the fear that they’ll lose ground by alienating swing voters, but they’re already in arears so what’s to lose? I’d like to see a candidate who takes overt pride in being liberal, who gets their back up when someone tries to make the word liberal an insult, who’s energetic in pushing an agenda of expanded personal rights (marriage and otherwise), religious freedom (instead of coercion) combined with a devotedly secular focus for law, investment in relieving poverty abroad as a way to build connections with the developing world, speaking against companies that profit from victimizing labor practices, pushing REAL family planning practices instead of harping on “abstinence only”, protecting wilderness, super-actively pushing fuel efficiency and reducing America’s energy-use profile, ordering US forces to adhere to international standards of behavior, etc etc. Someone forthright and who has hard data to back up their statements of ideals. During election season, I kept waiting for any inkling of that forthrightness, never heard it except from the guys I wanted to unseat.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 14, 2004 at 12:16 AM Pat I am ahem sorry I offended your politically correct feminazi sensibilities.Your ignorant attact and comments indicate you must be a true liberal attacking a few words that (oh my God) offend you rather than the point made. Go get a tissue and get over it.
Posted by redstate on Dec 14, 2004 at 5:36 AM and just to further educate you in your blindingly liberal ignorance the name “Richpiggie” come from and underground comic book from the 60’s&70;"s called The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers by Gilbert & Sheridan. the Richpiggies were a republican couple so glarinly snooty and very wealthy. So wealthy as to insulate them from the reality around them. thus my reference to Miz heinz hyphen Kerry. Don’t get me started!
Posted by redstate on Dec 14, 2004 at 7:00 AM you started it Pat - not me. I was talking about something and right away certain verbiage in a sentence bothered you and you went of on the stupid PC thing so just get over it eh? And that is why people did not like Miz Heinz hyphen Kerry she demeaned and degraded anybody that did not agree with her position- what do You folks call it now??-- oh mean spirited is the phrase I believe.
Posted by redstate on Dec 14, 2004 at 10:00 AM To respond kuya my nephew does it out of respect for his mother. She has been wonderful to her son and she at one time was anti gay. My parents are in their early 70’s and my father took her aside(Nephew’s) mom and told her to accept and love her son because he is family. I guess it is probably a respect thing more than anything else. They have been together 5 years and they seem to be fine with their current situation. I do not live near them though. I only see them 2 times a year. My feeling is if they want to have a civil union fine. But, if we stop defining marriage as one man one woman where will that take us? Take Tom Green (Utah) he has 5 wives and the latest was I think 13 or 14 when he married her. He is in jail. Does he have a legitimate claim to his 5 wives? I am not being sarcastic I really want to know where would it stop? Mom marrying son, brother marrying sister? I can see that happening and it scaares me. Pwople will try and take things to extreme.
Posted by Robin on Dec 14, 2004 at 5:37 PM If I may interupt the personal attacks for a moment, the original essay was about the Demoplican party’s lurch to the right insupport of the policies of the present regime.
I just read a very good summary of the Demoplican debacle on Democracy Now!. Actually I read the transcript.
Amy Goodman played a tape excerptng a part of Howard Dean’s speech : “...it seems that every time we lose an election, there’s a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party that the way to win is to be more like Republicans...”
Ralph Nader replied : “...just hearing what he has to say, he’s right on. And the established Democratic Party now is getting ready again to gang up on Howard Dean and defeat him for the D.N.C. chair, just the way they ganged up on him in the primary. This is not a party in decay, Amy. This is a decadent party. A decaying party ends up going out of the way. It’s replaced. A decadent party remains, loss after loss, after loss, for the last ten years at the local, state and national level, to the worst of the Republican Party. And there’s no major insurgency, except what is attempted by Howard Dean. And my prediction is that he’s simply not going to make it. There’s going to be another bland, monetized mind running the D.N.C. and curtsying to the Democratic Leadership Council, which is really the corporate Democrats that have run this party into the ground over the last decade. “
I see no reason to disagree with Ralph Nader’s future vision. Staying with the Demoplicans is like “staying the course” in Vietnam or Iraq. But we do it anyway?
At this point it takes an act of willful ignorance, not unlike the willful ignorance of the 71% of the voters in Utah, or the 66% of the voters in Nebraska who voted for the present regime on November 2nd, to continue in support of the Demoplican party.
And it’s no longer a question of them stealing from the general treasury or rewarding polluters. Now they are murdering the blameless in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and who knows where else shortly.
We are Americans. This is our government. Our government is committing war crimes. Our government has made us war criminals.
Do you think its time to stop them yet? Or do the war crimes get easier and easier to commit as time goes on?
Posted by John Francis Lee on Dec 14, 2004 at 6:52 PM We have allowed our politicians to get out of control.We do not hold them accountable to the people and the constitution. Any politico of any party should uphold the conststitution even the parts they don’t like. What we need is a Constitutional party that follws the rules and guarantees our rights and works everyday to preserve them.
Posted by redstate on Dec 14, 2004 at 7:12 PM Thanks for The Common Ills link, Ryan. I loved it. And they seem to be on the same page as Craig is in this article. I hope Craig’s right and that the only path is to turn left. I worry that a turn right will be imposed upon us. Especially if a Repub-lite like Simon Rosenberg gets made the new DNC chair.
Posted by Elaine on Dec 14, 2004 at 7:59 PM Thanks for the response, Robin, I appreciate your candor. :-)
As for where things would end up if marriage rights were extended, I would advocate that they end with consenting adults being able to marry whoever they wish, including all the legal, property, and next-of-kin rights, emphasizing the contractual relationship within the law and leaving the emotional-romantic-sexual components to the people involved. This would provoke some people, it’s true, because plural marriage of multiple spouses wouldn’t be excluded any more than gay marriage. Islam, you probably know, permits a man to have 4 wives provided they agree and he treats them all equally (that’s EQUALLY!), so it’s not a truly outlandish concept considering cultural variation around the world and including America. There are surely risks and uncertainties, no question about it, and also some legal adaptations would have to shake themselves out regarding shared custody rights over children (I would give biological parents prior responsibility, all things being equal), property agreements (maybe something like a limited partnership in business?), inheritance rights, procedures for divorce, etc. As for marrying minors, clearly kids must be a protected class of people and the law should not allow them to enter contractual agreements or sexual relationships with adults. For example, if a person was to try to marry a child on grounds of “it’s my traditional culture”, I’d still forbid it from a secular legal perspective. Let them grow up, then they can make adult decisions for themselves.
I guess my major objection to keeping marriage rights exclusive is because we shouldn’t all have to observe Judeo-Christian customs regarding marriage unless we accept them ourselves. I think the law can adapt to protect and hold responsible those people who will wish for a marriage that falls outside the majority’s current conception. Marriage as an institution pre-dates the religious traditions most religious Americans observe, and I don’t believe there’s a legitimate claim upon citizens to go along with a limitation upon non-harmful behavior that they haven’t freely accepted for themselves. Traditionalists may well be offended, but to tell you the truth I don’t consider that a good basis for the law. So in the interests of personal liberty and keeping government religiously neutral, that’s what I would like to see.
It’s a very emotional issue, gets right to the heart of people’s religions, self-concepts, etc.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 14, 2004 at 9:50 PM John Kerry and company ran a horrible campaign (everyone acknowledges this fact ) and the positions he took were unimaginative, recylced, opportunistic pap. He came off as an insincere, flacid career politician and the American public saw him as such (even his supporters could see this ). The only reason he got as many votes as he did was due to the unrelenting promotional bias heaped on him by mainstream media. Take away that factor and the loss would have been much worse.
No matter how many times “liberals” tell themselves that there is a silent “progressive” majority in America and the evil Republicans lied and cheated their way into a win doesn’t make it fact. The real Left in this country could never win a presidential election because the vast majority of Americans do not believe in the leftist program, they are traditionalists. Nothing will change this, it is our national character.
The left is a tiny political minority who cling to the fantasy of the silent “progressive” majority because without it they would find themselves hard pressed to find the energy to maintain their unpopular positions. One manifestation of this is the assumption that because substantial numbers of voters were against the Iraq war then those same voters must be against Bush. Oppostion to the war was assumed by the left to indicate an equal amount of oppostion to the president in total.
We live in a country were liberal and conservative are free to pursue their agendas without the fear of reprisal (unless you classify an electoral loss as a reprisal). This is a liberal country in as much as this is true. Many of the policies advocated in magazines such as In These Times are socialist policies. Nothing wrong with that. But it does grate on the nerves to constantly hear the the small cadre of citizens who subscribe to the socialist vision complain about the unpopularity of their ideas. The indignant and paranoid reaction to the outcome of the election by many in the elite left revealed quite candidly their lack of intellectual diversity and aristocratic disdain for the beliefs of average Americans.
As has been said before on this site: the Democratic party does not really stand for true socialism and it’s forceful application on the American populace. Hardcore socialists should give up on the Democratic party and allow it to recalibrate itself to it’s once moderate tradition. This will not happen though, because in doing this they would lose the false veneer of popular legitimacy that the Democratic party bestows on upon their ideas. As much as the truly commited leftists hate the Democratic party, they in fact need it.
Either the Dem party should purge itself of it’s more radical elements or it will lose it’s core animus and become even more of a compromised institution than it already is.
regards
Posted by kingfisher on Dec 15, 2004 at 10:19 PM Funny you should mention home-schoolers. My parents home schooled me, and they’re pretty left of center.
One reason why I take pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-minimum wage, and other ‘liberal’ positions is that I believe in the rights of the individual. Compulsory education treads on those same rights.
You mention “fighting inequality”. But inequalities aren’t the problem; lack of justice, and lack of consideration for context is. No two people are equal.
Listen to a disillusioned ex-Democrat: I voted for Kucinich (and later Kerry) because they best represented my worldview. But what I want as a progressive is not some Harrison Bergeron, socialistic vision of government dole, high taxes and equal schooling for all. What I want is a society where people are treated as they would like to be treated.
Posted by anarchromatic on Dec 16, 2004 at 12:54 PM there’s been a lot of good critique of the pro-corporate, pro-empire forces that dominate the Democratic party. and the beginnings of good strategic thinking about how to start winning the struggle for peace and justice. interesting stuff that made me want to read.
however, there’s also been silly flame-baits from right-wingers that get scared when progressives start actually doing sharp critique and strategic analysis. for the sake of quality discussion:
IGNORE FLAME-BAITS FROM RIGHT-WING NUTS & PROVOCATEURS.
DO NOT GET DEFENSIVE ABOUT BEING FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE.
You will not change their minds but you will help turn readers like me off from reading the thread.
Posted by Shawn on Dec 19, 2004 at 6:46 AM CATECHISM
1. I believe that the U.S. deliberately invaded Iraq with fewer forces than necessary in order to create a debacle. Bush and the neocons want a war that will last indefinitely, distracting the world community from the sorts of issues it was beginning to talk about before September 11 – like raising the minimum wage and how best to defeat corporate globalization.
2. I believe George Bush and Co. are implementing disastrous economic policies at home not because they are so ignorant but because they are shrewd: an America that is falling apart is easier to manipulate than one which enjoys general prosperity (that one would vote Democrat).
3. I believe another free and fair presidential election will never be held in the United States EVER. Democracy has been phased out, without most people even noticing.
4. I believe the Democrats will never win another election – at least, not until America is in such a mess that the election is rigged to ensure that the Democrats have to pick up the pieces and create something for the Republicans to steal again.
5. I believe that Tony Blair is an undercover operative for a secret organization that tells him what to sing and when to dance. I don’t know what the name of this organization is, or where its headquarters are, but I bet George Bush, John Howard and Jose Aznar are also members.
6. I believe that John Kerry went into the 2004 election knowing he would never be allowed to win. He probably doesn’t even want to be president, at least not right now. That would mean dealing with Bush’s mess – not a good idea if you want to be re-elected!
7. I believe George H. W. Bush is the most evil man who has ever walked the planet. And yes, that he killed the Kennedys.
8. I believe once a nation has been taught to revile liberalism it is on the fast track to barbarianism.
9. I believe that the U.S. is the closest thing to an evil empire which has ever appeared on this earth. After all, the Nazi empire in Europe barely lasted 2-3 years.
10. I believe that the U.S. is going to collapse the way the Soviet Union did within ten years. Golly, I am looking forward to it!
Posted by Open Sesame on Dec 21, 2004 at 11:16 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Craig Aaron
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
