As the winter holiday season blows in and 2005 begins to wane, both major political parties face big questions that will impact American politics far into the future. The question for Republicans is simple: Are they going to continue fueling their culture of corruption and intensifying their wild-eyed ideological jihads? The question for Democrats is also simple, but more frustrating… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (15)Page 1 of 1 pagesIs it really necessary, or practical, for the “Democrats” to speak with one voice? Repubicans tend to march in lockstep; Democrats are just kinda walking together, but can gather and exert political force when necessary. The Senate votes yesterday are a good example.
Noted that you and many others of the “traditional left” identify yourselves first as “progressive”, then state a party affiliation. I wouldn’t castigate the party for it’s lack of cohesion. Better to celebrate the wide range of opinion that produces unanimity based on reasoned debate.
No locksteppers there.
Posted by rba2 on Dec 22, 2005 at 1:02 PM “Is it really necessary, or practical, for the “Democrats” to speak with one voice? Repubicans tend to march in lockstep; Democrats are just kinda walking together, but can gather and exert political force when necessary. The Senate votes yesterday are a good example.”
I don’t think Mr. Sirota was trying to say the Democrats need to speak with one voice. Rather, I think he’s trying to say Democrats need to speak as the voice of the people. Y’know, what they were elected to do. He finds it absurd that so many Democrats are willing to be bitches of lobbyists, as do I.
Posted by BradODonnell on Dec 22, 2005 at 4:09 PM ITT--
1. May-their-names-be-erased have no intention of withdrawing from Iraq ($multi-millions spent on new ‘permanent’ bases. $592m launderd for new Bagdad Embassy)
2. No longer are there Deomcrats & Republicans-- its Ruling Class vs Us.
3. Murtha, Byrd, Conyers, Pelosi are simply humanbeing who see the insanity of Iraq.
4. The Iraq “War” is a misnomer-- its The Iraq Genocide-- i.e,
D.U.
Posted by sandrine on Dec 25, 2005 at 6:03 PM There is one Democrat who has been outspoken - and has taken action- on EVERY major issue. He has been named as the TvNewsLIES Person of the Year.
Here’s the way that person is chosen:
“We make the selection with a focus on the impact someone has had on the lives of others. There is no doubt that this person has had a most positive influence on the democracy he has championed throughout his political career.”
Can you guess who it is?
<a href="http://tvnewslies.org/html/2005_person_of_the_year.html>CLICK HERE</a>http://tvnewslies.org/html/2005_person_of_the_year.html
Posted by skipper7 on Dec 26, 2005 at 10:00 PM The only real difference in the Q & A self-analysis that the two parties are engaging themselves in, is that the Republicans listened when they started to lose elections.
2006 and 2008 will tell if the Democrats will finally stop blaming the Republicans for the Dems electoral losses (which in a perverse way is entirely true) and start listening to the voters.
There are too many good issues that the Dems are allowing to languish in their frothy frenzy to cast the first stone against the demon Bush.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 27, 2005 at 10:44 AM While we’re supposedly trying to “win the hearts and minds” of Iraqis, the leadership and representatives we pay to mind the store have no appreciable desire to win the hearts and minds of their constituency and fellow Americans. Boy, Nixon sure screwed up that expression.
Without campaign reform and a better system of voting, our government will remain corporate lackeys and the best or worst of two evils.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 28, 2005 at 9:40 PM It’s time to own up Democrats. Ralph Nader was right about the war, about your selling out to corporate interests. True liberals join with the real progressive movement.
www.votenader.org
www.gp.org (Green Party)
Posted by NaderRaider on Jan 3, 2006 at 12:12 PM How, NaderRaider, is your attempt to frame the “true liberal” substantially different from tina1’s attempts to do so? Granting that she limits herself to strawman rants and name-calling, and you’re a bit more sophisticated.
Why do you think it’s necessary to make Ralph Nader the messiah of “the real progressive movement”?
It’s all real.
I’m sorry Nader got screwed. We clearly have republicrats and demoblicans and our entire election system is pathetic.
I like Nader and would like to see him head up the E.P.A. or in some other cabinet position with which he can hold industry accountable and put his experience to work.
Saying that he is the only “real” choice and insulting everyone who doesn’t agree doesn’t look to me like a sound strategy.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 3, 2006 at 4:51 PM What do you call it when you do the same thing over and over and expect a different result? Will liberals and progressives again compromise their core values and vote for a Kerry type candidate, or even Kerry himself? Or will they finally vote their conscience and support a truly pro-peace candidate.
It happens when you allow others to define the rules and agree to play by them, even though there are unjust. The answer is don’t accept the rules.
The choice is not between a democrat and a republican. It should be between a candidate supporting the war and one opposed to it. I’m not voting for a candidate who I think will win, I am voting for a candidate that represents my principles (like Nader and Kucinich did).
so it goes,
A Gyenis
www.NotOneMore.USTake the Pledge for Peace at www.NotOneMore.US and commit to only voting for those candidates that can publicly say this war is wrong. Spread the word.
Posted by password on Jan 3, 2006 at 7:16 PM I agree, A Gyenis. I supported the Kucinich campaign, even though I knew he didn’t have a snowball’s chance.
What it comes down to is the Dems are simply fearful of speaking out against ANY war that Israel demands we fight. While Pelosi may be starting to admit this Iraq occupation is going badly, she chooses to ignore the decades-old occupation, as do most of the other Dems, going on in Palestine. And of course ignoring this situation has contributed greatly to the mess we’re in and the world viewing us as a country with blatantly obvious double standards.
I appreciate The Nation’s stance that it will not endorse any candidate who is not anti-war. Too bad, Hillary.
Posted by opeluboy on Jan 3, 2006 at 7:31 PM I campaigned a little and voted for Kucininch in the primaries. I voted for Kerry at election time because my main concern was getting Cheny, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld out of power.
Bush is a fundraiser. He doesn’t concern me much. “The Crazies”, however, are extremely dangerous and deluded. We’re more likely to have a nuclear war than we are to elect Nader.
Why not have a party that wants to unite the majority in the U.S.? The far right are lunatic fringe. Why not be so reasonable, clear, and tolerant that the other candidates look like the partisan hacks that they are by comparison? Instead of attacking voters (especially the ones most likely to vote green) how about availing oneself to inquiry and opening the floor for discussing issues, instead of labelling people and claiming that the choices they make are not legitimate? Surely Nader has more to offer than this silly little game.
Why not be the party that wants to put the president back in his place instead of promising to do more to disrupt the balance of power by making promises about things a president shouldn’t have the power to affect without Congressional approval?
(If I ever find a group that is not run by a mysogynist male, a passive aggressive female, and fashion, I’ll give it some serious consideration. For now, I’ll send my belated donations to the ACLU.)
Hillary bites. I am disgusted with most of the democratic party. I am independent, though I need to do the paperwork to switch from dem to independent---had to register as a democrat to vote in the primaries.
Am undecided how to vote on the Senate---the democrat I voted for voted against the war, but he’s also one of the all-time biggest receiver of money from Israeli lobbies.
What you said, opeluboy, about the double standards.
Campaign reform. Election reform. Balance.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 3, 2006 at 8:09 PM I think real question here is whether the party is willing to start standing up for traditional Democratic values again.
Seems to me that Sirota’s point about the Democrats missing opportunities to contrast themselves with Republicans is a salient one. Appeasement doesn’t work with the far right- at best, they (and the public) see it as a sign of weakness. At worst, it legitimizes policies that- not very long ago, would have been considered an outrage.
The only way the Democrats will take back Congress or the Senate is by nationalizing the elections- which means framing the issues in ways that expose the Republicans for who and what they really are.
That’ll never happen as long as highly visable members of the party continue to enable the far right by supporting their egregious legislation and passing on their virulent nominees.
Alito will be a major test of 2006- and will set the tone for the rest of the year. Clearly, the man’s unethical. His prior testimony before Congress regarding recusal on Vanguard cases- and subsequent failure to recuse himself- despite his financial interest in the company- is reason in and of itself to reject him. And most Americans would agree.
Further evidence of the culture of corruption.
If the Republicans use their so called “nuclear option” (which supposedly they bartered away for approval of three of the most extreme judges to ever sit on the federal bench)- then Harry Reid can make good on his threat to shut down the Senate by denying a quorum.
Regardless of transpired afterwards, that would prove to the electorate that the Democrats have the courage and fortitude to be trusted with leadership.
Posted by depakid on Jan 4, 2006 at 12:47 AM I am looking for a candidate who is not saying that the war is just a mistake. I want them to say that is was wrong from the beginning and a crime against humanity. There is a difference between accidently making a mistake, and intentionally doing something wrong like Bush and Company did. I would think that all our elected officials in power were aware to some degree that the so called intelligence was flawed and twisted from the beginning. All is suspect.
As far as Hillary goes, I don’t know if her public pro-war pronouncements are motivated by belief, or fear of ‘losing’ votes, but in the end it doesn’t make any difference as the shame falls upon her for each new death. She is never deserving the vote of anyone who truly is anti-war and she won’t get mine.
Of course that doesn’t mean that there is a lot of choice. But we have to hold out for real change. This is my theory. Vote, even if you write in Donald Duck. Then the ‘winning’ party gets a lower percentage of the vote. If the 50% of the people who don’t vote cast a vote for none of the above, the winner would get 25% of the vote, certainly not the mandate of a society.
take the pledge for peace, www.NotOneMore.US
peace and justice
Posted by password on Jan 4, 2006 at 12:59 AM I’m looking for a Democrat to call all of the crooks and liars what they are. I don’t care what party they call themselves but all of these corporatist criminals must be removed or we’re doomed. The corporations run the entire government and until we deal with that nothing will change. Corporations are not individuals and their 1st Amendment rights should be ceased.
Posted by AmericanInsurgent on Jan 4, 2006 at 3:30 AM That’s the problem ---most of the Democrats are crooks and liars too. No one can raise the money needed for a winning election without selling their soul, or at least taking money from lobbies that they will end up owing favors to.
I don’t buy the “we were fooled” argument at all. Almost everything you hear now was published on the net before we went to war. If their aides were doing research instead of giving blow jobs, they would have known.
I know it’s crass and ugly of me to say so, but capital hill is crass and ugly.
You’re right Insurgent, the corporations write the legislation and Congress signs it without reading it.
That’s a good argument for voting anyway Password, but in how many states are the votes actually being tallied?
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 4, 2006 at 1:31 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Sirota
- Tuning Out the Braindead Megaphone
- Mandate for Change
Voters' message to Obama: think big - Knowing When To Walk Away
- McCain Banking on a Confederacy of Dunces
- Signs of an Earthquake in Oregon
- Remembering Those Other American Dreams
Democrats struggle to win blue-collar voters
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
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
