Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
Next unions will try to stick us with their UPSIDE DOWN pensions!
Armageddon: What Democrats Are Hiding & Why They Are Really Scared
If Democrats were running a corporation, their actions would be criminal.
Posted by LaborUnionReport (Profile)
Tuesday, October 19th at 2:00PM ED
Unions and Democrats are scared. They should be.
Very soon, Democrats and their union bosses’ worst fears may soon be realized and, if they cannot continue their slight of hand, it may threaten their very existence. While it is true that Democrats and their union bosses are facing possibly debilitating losses on November 2nd, they are hiding the really bad news from voters until after November 2nd.
Do you remember that promise we heard back in 2008 about transparency? Democrats and, in particular, then-candidate Barack Obama stated emphatically that “transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.” What a joke that was. Well, it’s time to shed some light on the house of cards that is about to come crashing down on Democrats’ and union bosses’ heads.
“This is Armageddon.”
In June, a conversation took place in a hotel restaurant in Washington. As a latecomer to the conversation, it was easy to pick up that the topic that was the $165 billion union pension bailout bill introduced by Sen. Bob Casey [D-PA] in March.
Upon introductions, one of the individuals stated, “this is Armageddon.”
When asked for clarification, the person explained about the accounting rules developed to shore up underfunded union pensions and the dates when those union companies affected would have to assume their liabilities had the DC crowd (in particular, the Democrats and the unions) in a panic.
Yesterday, the Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway gave a good breakdown of how bad it could get for Democrats and their union bosses:
On Nov. 1, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) ceases to take public comment on a new rule requiring that companies more accurately report liabilities they have from participation in multiemployer pension plans. Unless FASB is persuaded otherwise, the rule takes effect Dec. 15.
There are some 1,500 multiemployer pension plans in the United States, which are unique to unions. In these plans, multiple companies pay into the pension plan, but each company assumes the total liability.
Under “last man standing” accounting rules, if five companies are in a plan and four go bankrupt, the fifth company is responsible for meeting the pension obligations for the employees of the other four companies.
What this means is that companies with union labor often have pension liabilities that are several multiples higher than the pension expenditures they report — the Kroger grocery store chain shocked analysts last year when it disclosed its multiemployer pension liabilities more than doubled in a year to $1.2 billion.
[snip]
FASB’s new rule could effectively wipe out the paper worth of many companies, especially in the trucking and construction industries. Once banks and creditors are aware of these staggering pension liabilities, it will make it nearly impossible for union businesses to get loans, credit lines or bonding.
The effects of having to meet reality will almost certainly cause a significant drop in stock prices for those companies affected and, as a result, may cause a large ripple effect throughout the rest of the economy. In those cases where the liabilities exceed the value of the unionized companies, it is entirely possible many of those companies will go out of business, laying off tens of thousands of employees, and further causing a drop in economic activity.
Some companies risk having their ratings downgraded, especially if weaker companies become bankrupt and leave the pension plans.
One example of a company that would likely go out of business is YRC trucking, which employs approximately 35,000 Teamsters. While the freight currently carried by YRC would likely be picked up by other carriers (many of which are non-union), the loss of members (and their dues) would be devastating for the Teamsters and the Democrats.
Right now, before November 2nd, Democrats don’t want voters to know that their union benefactors may further cause the economy to fall further or more companies to close and jobs to be lost. As a result, Democrats are not talking about it on the campaign trail. Instead they’re hoping they can work out a scheme during a lame duck session, sticking taxpayers with another $165 billion union bailout.
Without the bailout though, as we noted in July, unions and Democrats face a bleak future:
On the other hand, even though Democrats know that another union bailout will likely make them even bigger pariahs with the American people, the very survival of their party rests on their ability on passing this poisonous piece of legislation. If they fail, the ramifications for the Democrats are disastrous.
As opposed to taking more from taxpayers and adding more to the debt or creating another Ponzi scheme, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s F. Vincent Vernuccio offers some alternatives to the union pension bailout:
The entire multiemployer model needs to be rethought. The funding and disclosure standards of the PPA and FASB are a good start but more needs to be done. Unions who use their pensions for recruitment should be required to tell prospective union members if the retirement packages they are touting are in critical or endangered status. Any mention of government insurance should be accompanied by the caveat that multi-employer plans are only insured by up to $12,870.
No worker should be forced into a critical status pension fund. They did not make the promises to current employees and retirees and should not be forced to pay into a broken system.
Union members should be allowed the same mobility and retirement control as the other three quarters of workers receiving pension benefits in America. Defined contribution (DC) plans should be encouraged for new workers. Older members should be given the option to opt-out of failing pension plans and convert the money they receive into a DC plan.
If all contributing employers or a majority of beneficiaries agree, a multi-employer plan should be terminated if the ratio of employees to retirees reaches 1 to 1 – in 2007 before UPS withdrew; the Teamsters Central States Plan covered 451,000 workers with only 155,000 currently employed. A system where one worker is supporting three retirees is doomed to failure. Instead of having decades of future liabilities, employers should be given an option of a onetime buyout of failing union pensions.
America is careening toward bankruptcy. While blame can initially be laid at the feet of both parties, over the last 20 months, Democrats’ meddling in the private-sector, out-of-control spending, and sheer ineptitude in recognizing the job-killing policies they promote have pushed the nation closer to the precipice.
Now, with two weeks before November 2nd, Democrats are hiding the fact that financial Armageddon may be right around the corner. If Americans are the ’shareholders’ and politicians are the executives in charge, the lack of disclosure on the part of Democrats would be criminal.
__________________
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
I want to clarify my earlier statement...
Make the best EDUCATED vote possible...Please...
(In 2000 the person right across from me asked how I was voting...They couldn't even read the ballot, and didn't care how they voted - Made me very angry!...(I'm pretty sure they were an ESL person)...
----------------------
"VOTE!...Please!...(not speaking to you kristal...since you won't bother)..."
-----------------------
Kristal....I don't care how corrupt the system is....Guess what happens when people do nothing and DON'T participate in trying to be educated about social and political issues, and vote....
It's leaves a big space for 'the system' to become even MORE corrupted!...
Dictators love people like you Kristal!...
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
your powers of discrimination aren't very well developed if you say that with a straight face. They look nothing alike, for one thing. And there are millions of people who are upset with some of Obama's actions; actions that would never have happened under the Republicans. It's fun to dismiss so many people as morons or tools of their oppressors, but they actually do have grounds for complaint. Things -have- changed for them in ways they don't like, and much of it's at Obama's instigation. Bush's ideological successor wouldn't be doing the things they don't like.
That's actually debatable, and even more debatable is how bad things would be if he wasn't in office.
That's hard to argue with...
Obama is just like Bush in that they are puppets for corporate powers who actually run the show.
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
Therefore, we should "do the right thing" by not voting, right?
...and let the Republicans gain power again, right?
...and it doesn't matter because Democrats are JUST as bad as the Republicans, right?
...wrong!
Please vote. I am voting for the Democrats to keep the more fascist oriented Republicans out of office as much as possible. I strongly disagree with your premise that Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same thing. They are not. Yes, they are similar, but after 8 years of Baby Bush in office and 2 years of Obama in office it is clear that there is a difference.
The similarities in public policy are largely due to the fact that we have a 2 party system and this forces public administration to be essentially the same in many areas. But there are important differences and these differences are enough to justify going out to support Democratic Party candidates, or Green, if you prefer.
Kristal, you still haven't answered the crucial question: What do you propose people do instead of voting? Stay home? Abstain? Have a revolt? Have a party? Have a movement somewhat like the Tea Party? Something else?
Republicans really like your message, Kristal. You should seek employment with them because some candidate would hire you in a minute because of your views.
Thank you,
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by kristal:
Obama is just like Bush in that they are puppets for corporate powers who actually run the show.
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by busyb555:
... Well, it’s time to shed some light on the house of cards that is about to come crashing down on Democrats’ and union bosses’ heads.
“This is Armageddon.”
again??? damn.
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
Barry,
I, like you, am incredibly frustrated-- Obama seems to have dropped the ball big-time. He has completely failed to clearly, forcefully and repeatedly articulate the vision of what America could and should be-- which I think should be 80% of his message. He has completely failed to forcefully counter the Greedpublican Nazi craziness and nonsense-- which should be 20% of his message. And, if not him, who? He seemed to be the person who could seize the Presidential bully-pulpit and rouse America to a new vision, bury the Greedpublicans forever, and put us on a new 21st century track.
But the candidate Obama, who could do that, completely vanished into the President Obama, who utterly lost touch with the public and his own base. I am truly baffled-- I just don't get it. Why? What happened? Maybe, as Ralph Nader once responded, when asked if he wanted to be President, that he didn't want to become a corporate prisoner. The Greedpublicans are playing hard ball (in fact, they're using hardballs with lead cores) and the Democrats can't even seem to find the stadium. They keep wandering into small delis asking if anyone knows how to get to the ball field. It is extremely frustrating-- I just don't get why, after riding such a huge wave into the White House, Obama just completely flubbed it. But, I fear, he has and it is too late to do much about it.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
1) The Republicans have been threatening vetos for the last 18 months, but the Democrats haven't forced them the take the floor and actually filibuster. Why? Obama needs to keep pressing the "party of No" label.
2) Today Obama accused that Republicans of "not being honest with the American people". That's a start. But what about demanding they specify exactly what expenditure/programs they would cut (and don't accept the old wimp-out "waste, fraud, abuse") and how they will reduce the budget deficit while cutting or not-raising taxes. The Dems should preemptively state "and don't give us the cutting taxes will raise receipts bullshit again". The economy stalled and went into a tailspin under the Bush tax cuts. Why is this not happening???
It's time to call their bluff and call them at their game!
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
I have found it quite amazing that with all the information that is out there, and actually was out there about Obama before the 08 election, I find it nearly amusing that you on the left can't admit you got sold a bill of shit from the get go. I will admit that GW greased the skids by selling out the country in many ways, that effectively gave the voters all they needed to elect Mr. Hope and Change. The information about Obama as far as where he was introduced to the lefty credo and all those who tutored him all his life, the example in his home, the friends and mentors, his pastor, his long list of "nots" or the many things he refused to disclose about his writing, his friends, and even where a great deal of his funding to get elected came from, well I predict history will hold you on the left responsible for the hole this great country awakens to see it is looking out of.
You see, I am old enough to know what life is like with two parents, where only one works. A place where people had pride in their accomplishments and were raised to make their own way in life. Where "Made in America" meant something. When we had factories that produced everything. I got to live in a time that the population in America was proud and not led by a fault finding politicos and media that will go to any length, tell any lie necessary to "win" the day. Amazingly enough all the prosperity in America came through capitalism, not the touchy feel good thing that being politically correct hatched. I find it humorous that most of the very nay sayers on the left are true capitalists and make a boat load of money because of such a system. My gosh, look at Gore and Michael Moore and while you are at it, look at the big mouths in Hollywood. They should be ashamed, hypocritical jackasses.
As we near the election I see such cheating. Imagine this, Obama and his boys have given the green light for illegal immigrants to vote. In one of the three counties in Nevada they found 65% of the newly registered voters, yes you guessed it ILLEGALS. And our brilliant government is preventing any sort of identity check. WONDER WHY? Not too hard to guess why - DESPERATION I'D SAY. I am amazed the left is not up in arms about that, but you seem to be willing to win by any means necessary. What a brilliant combination, open the borders and then give illegal immigrants a say so in how our country is to run going forward. We have become a laughing stock in the world. Quite ironic, Mexico closed its border to the south but joins in a lawsuit against the State of Arizona for wanting to do the same thing. The president of Mexico must be laughing our loud at the likes of Obama and Holder helping him against Arizona and those who want to close the border.
I read an article about Obama doing more than any other president to save America. He has awakened the silent majority and in one fell swoop sent the left back to the stone age. You see the founding fathers knew that the real back bone of the country would at some point say no and become energized as they have before such as in World War 2, without which France and Italy would be speaking German today.
So, I predict both the left and right will take it on the chin and what will come though this election is us regular folks who now demand we go back to the simpler days I got to grow up with in America. If you wonder about that America do what I suggested months ago, read history, and while you are it pick up an Economics book too.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
1) The Republicans have been threatening vetos for the last 18 months, but the Democrats haven't forced them the take the floor and actually filibuster. Why? Obama needs to keep pressing the "party of No" label.
2) Today Obama accused that Republicans of "not being honest with the American people". That's a start. But what about demanding they specify exactly what expenditure/programs they would cut (and don't accept the old wimp-out "waste, fraud, abuse") and how they will reduce the budget deficit while cutting or not-raising taxes. The Dems should preemptively state "and don't give us the cutting taxes will raise receipts bullshit again". The economy stalled and went into a tailspin under the Bush tax cuts. Why is this not happening???
It's time to call their bluff and call them at their game!
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
Dear Philip,
Fair points raised, all of them. I can't respond to every one but I'll try to "synthesize."
First off, I'd like to invite you to criticize the system, not Obama, who is trapped by it. Most people don't like to hear this kind of talk these days precisely because of the profound and depressing frustration that you have described in your post.
Sure, Obama has some of the blame but not the bulk of it because the overall system we live in is very undemocratic and inefficient. When people went to the voting booths in November of 2008, they were dreamy-eyed that Obama was going to save the world, so to speak. That is a very irresponsible and immature approach to take toward politics (in any country, not just the U.S.).
Additionally, even if Obama was everything you wanted him to be as a president (which he obviously never was and never should have been expected to be), he could not have possibly done all of those wonderful things that we dreamed and hoped for in 2008, for the simple reason that the system would and does not allow him to. One outstanding example of this was his healthcare reform but that's not the only instance.
By going to the polls to vote enthusiastically, all of the voters, who could be called, "Democrats/liberals/independents/progressives/lefties/etc," unwittingly stated that they believe in the system, which is a COLOSSAL mistake. The United States is one of the very few countries in the world with a two-party system (and I believe that the only other countries are the United Kingdom, from whom we inherited most of our political heritage, and the Ukraine).
In a two-party system, the voices of citizens are squelched because of having only two choices for government. How would you like it if you went to the local store to do your shopping for food or whatever and the only things you could find for everything you need are confined to only two products? A nightmare fitting of the old science fiction show, "The Twilight Zone." Pretty scary, huh?
Furthermore, add to this the proven dynamic that the two parties that are stuck in the two-party system are forced to imitate each other in ideology and public policy. Here's why: if one of the two parties (or candidates or officeholders) begins to drift off too far from the center regarding policy (such as healthcare reform), then voters begin voting for the party that has maintained itself in the ideological middle ground. Hence, public policy in the United States is largely unimaginative and extraordinarily stagnated and the country cannot move forward on fundamental issues such as healthcare.
In Europe, where democracies have proportional representation and a multiparty system, publicly funded healthcare is the norm! In European countries, political parties are allowed to stand for something substantial without fear of being left out in the cold from political power, like here in the U.S. Necessarily, the same system allows voters in Europe to vote their party of conscience without any fear whatsoever.
Here's why: when 15% of Germans (for example) go and vote for the Green Party in their country, they KNOW that 15% of the seats in the German Bundestag will be occupied by Green Party members. And so on for all political parties, which will also have the same percentage of seats in the national legislature as the percentage of votes cast in the election.
So please, give Obama (and yourself) a break, a big break, because it's really not his fault. Obama voters expected too much from one man who neither was who they expected him to be nor was able to do all of those things that we wished him to do.
This is America. And we live in a very undemocratic democracy. It is an obsolete system and needs to be reformed (basically replaced). Our constitution is more than TWO HUNDRED YEARS OLD! We need a new constitution and a new democracy. Without that, we cannot have the things that we need.
So until that day comes (and it's a long way off), we Americans have to make do with the model T Ford of a system, which is all we have. That means that we, the people, have to go out in large numbers and SUPPORT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY by voting them back into power for another two years, otherwise we are all fucked.
And saying something like, "Well, I'm not voting for the Democrats again. They disappointed me and they've lost my vote." only demonstrates a gross lack of understanding of the very undemocratic system we all suffer in. And that statement would also demonstrate an even grosser misunderstanding of what is going to happen as a consequence if the Republicans take control of the House (and even more hideously if they take control of the Senate as well).
This biggest irony in these elections is that by voting the Republicans back into power (the same folks who drove this country into the ditch in the first place), the American people will only make things worse because this will be a continuation of their failed policies. You see, there is no other alternative. There is only the "pendulum effect" available in American "democracy" because there are only two parties to choose from.
Almost everyone in the United States is only looking at the surface, while the political realities in this country are much more like an iceberg that sank the Titanic. We only see the tip of the iceberg, but what is underneath is enormously bigger than the tip. It is gargantuan. It is vital to keep the larger canvass in perspective and almost no one is doing this.
We need profound, structural reform of our political institutions. But until that day, we need to hold the Democratic Party line.
Please read this article by economist Paul Krugman:
"Divided We Fail"
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/o...rssnyt&emc=rss
Also, this article by author and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, Nicholas D. Kristof:
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/o...R_HP_LO_MST_FB
Best Regards,
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by phltymon:
Barry,
I, like you, am incredibly frustrated-- Obama seems to have dropped the ball big-time. He has completely failed...
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
Nicely put Edward/VO,
But. You're wrong about Great Britain. They have a parliamentary proportional representative legislature. Parliament. There are currently three viable parties there. The Tories, Labor and the Liberals. But they have "first past the post" national elections, which tends to favor the two dominant parties. So while your description is inaccurate, it also has a basis in fact.
They also have a neo-nazi, white working class racist party, that has a small toe hold. The British National Party. Billy Bragg was talking about opposing them electorally in his neighborhood last night in Napa at the Uptown. As well there is a Green Party, various Scottish and Welsh national parties, a Socialist and a Communist Party.The current Prime Minister is from the Liberals and rules in alliance with Labor.
Even if the Democrats win. We've lost. That's the history for the last thirty years, at least.
You, Norm, Barry and your other, "there's no choice but the Democrats" partisan allies are like the musicians playing "Nearer My God To Thee" as the ship goes down. A nice gesture, but a futile one.
I am not sympathetic to the inchoate rage of the Tea Partyers. But out of sick fascination I watched part of a Glenn Beck show two nights ago, I do that once and a rare while, I've seen snippets and mostly news coverage before. He's slick in a creepy smarmy way. And the way he sticks to his story and finds bogus evidence to support it, is like watching a mongoose hypnotize a cobra. His little irrational shifts from one narrative to a totally unconnected one, with the implication that they're all intertwined, is classic fascist propaganda technique. And the hard far Left used the same rhetorical tropes to rev up the masses in support of the Freedom of the Gulag. Fascism and Marxist-Leninism are in no way the same, but they have dictatorial techniques that mirror each other.
The fear, pain and anger Beck, Limbaugh and their ilk are channeling against the Left, is real. Bankers are making bank while foreclosures are at a record high. And the Dems are just as responsible for all that as the Repubs. Remember NAFTA, CAFTA, financial deregulation? Most of that happened under Clinton, with Robert Reich leading the way. Of course Reagan and Bush I were doing it before Slick Willy.
Nobody informed thought Obama was anything than what he's turned out to be. His educated supporters thought that he was the best they could get. My kind knew that, and still weren't impressed or optimistic. I give him props for being cogent, reasoned and articulate. That's a nice change. But I've never doubted what he stands for, who hired him, and how he was going to go about doing their bidding. Sloganeering, empty of meaningful content. Vague promises which if the details were examined, always left wiggle room for complete reversal. It was pretty clear what his game was. But desperate people will grasp at any straw blowing by.
In the Green Party in 2000 many true believers thought Ralph actually had a chance to win! There's no risk in overestimating the power of human stupidity. Most people deal with politics as an afterthought. If they even think about it, it's when they're dealing with local government, or just before an election. And the reason attack ads work, is because they're most of what many people pay attention to. Or the daily tit for tat, celebrity feud spectacle that passes as political journalism. Just look at the numbers of book readers, newspaper readers, in our times. People like us are oddities, freaks. Side show attractions. The younger people are, the more likely they'll proudly announce on their Facebook page, "I don't read books."
We have a one party system. The Property Party. And people have been fed mountains of bullshit for so long, they actually, out of desperation and for want of any other seemingly viable alternative, cling to the myths the Democrats use to convince them that if only we vote for the "nice" guys one more time, they're going to finally do the right thing. That might have been true under FDR, but that was two generations ago.
The new "revolutionary" myth from the Tea Party is that both the Democrats and Republicans are going down. That they're some kind of insurgent alternative fighting a war to return to traditional values. Their movement is the result of long calculated planning, well paid organizers and plenty of funding. The idea that they represent some kind of viable change, a new beginning, is just as much hype as the, "only port in a storm", argument for voting Democratic.
I'm not saying the Dems and Repubs are the same. I am saying the interests they serve, when you look at the big picture, have more in common than most people have with them. It's a shell game. It's about manipulation and social, ideological control. It's about the rich getting richer and the poor getting exploited, screwed and kept under the thumb of the forces of order. That's the real conflict in the world, that and the need to figure out how to live here without poisoning the ecosystem to point beyond which life cannot be sustained.
Irrationality, fixed opinion, pre-existing conditions of thought and behavior, have more to do with what we do, than ideas, compromise, reason, democracy. For the most part politics is an epiphenomenon of the invisible but real social structures that we inherited from eons of unconscious behavior. We think that the way we do things, is real, and it is, but it's only real because of a social contract that evolved over time, and no one individual or group of individuals put in place. We just interpret it and tweak it. But we don't control it, in the broad strokes, it controls us.
So, should we despair and just take what's coming? Of course not. But what we shouldn't do is kid ourselves that by doing the same thing over and over again, we're going to get different results.
That's why I don't find your defense of voting Democratic persuasive. I've heard it my entire life. And I've read it in the history for the previous one hundred years.
What makes real social change, is not party politics. It's the educated, organized and energized mass of humanity which in the face of unconscionable conditions, rises up, raises the cost of business as usual to a point where those who benefit from the status quo, see fit (as in are forced for the sake of their own survival, either economic, or physical) to make the concessions, the changes, that must be made to deal with the problem at hand.
Democratic suffrage, slavery, industrial exploitation, imperialist war, denial of civil rights, etc. Each of these problems was addressed when the vast majority of people could no longer accept them. In many cases it was a matter of survival. So with the help of leaders, some selfless, many self interested, they kicked ass, suffered mightily and finally, to some mediated extent, "reason", prevailed.
But what really happened is that the power of the majority, initiated and led by the determination of a minority of activists, reached out, demanded and forced those at the top, to give in, give it up and compromise. And in rare instances those at the top were kicked out on their asses, many times slaughtered, and a new power elite took over in the name of, "The People". That's real politics. What we argue about here, who to vote for and why, is just the pre-show, the intermission divertissement.
I'm interested in real social and political change. I will not and cannot be satisfied by marginal adjustments, while the level of suffering and threat to our childrens future are so imminent and pressing. And there's the rub, because the Left and the Right and even the Middle agree that we're in deep shit. The differences are about the causes and the solutions. That's where we live in alternate realities.
You say the Constitution is outmoded. The populist conservative movement wound up by major corporate interests and money, think a return to the "original Constitution" is the answer. Good luck finding a compromise on that one.
The current debacle is the next step in a long effort to privilege the interests of capital over the interests of the community. It's an old conflict. Unresolved. Perhaps it will never be. But I know which side I'm on. And I know which side the Democratic Party is on. And I'm not about to compromise my interests, values and commitments, by backing the very people who work for the destruction of our economic and ecological futures at every step of the way. Not gonna do it.
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
(I have edited this post. Please re-read)
Miles,
If you were to vote Democrat, I would be surprised and disappointed. Your arguments are simply too solid, meticulous, and well thought out for you to roll over and vote for the less conservative of the two oligarchic parties in the U.S. I can assure you that it is not my intention to try to “win” you over to voting for the Donkey Party, nor do I even dream of it. Perhaps I should more accurately state that it would be a loss for you to switch from being Green to becoming a Donkey. Indeed, it would be very unbecoming of you. I could see you switching parties if you had a huge brain tumor and the surgeons had to cut out half of your cerebral matter in order to get it all out. Even then, I think I would still be shocked.
That said, I do not consider myself a Democrat; I vote for this relatively less reactionary party against the Republicans. I’m trying to keep them out. Furthermore, I’m not impressed by anything the Democrats do nor do I believe that they will be “saviors” of our nation through some triumphant and sweeping public policy, such as the New Deal or even, if I may, “Great Society” of Johnson (I cringe with my reference to LBJ).
I do not whole-hearidly endorse the Democrats because I do not think that they would be the best political party in office. The Greens would be far closer to my ideological orientation. If I had my druthers, I would vote Green for ALL public offices, including POTUS, US Senators, etc. My exercise in voting consists of keeping the Republicans out of office and the best way I know how of achieving that is to put Democrats in their place. I do not believe that Greens stand the same chance as the Dems of accomplishing this for all federal positions. The Democratic Party is in a much better position to push the Republicans out of power than the Greens are, especially for national offices. Local offices are a different story, of course, and we have Sonoma County as ample proof of this. Green is best, but if the Republicans, conservatives, reactionaries, jingoists, the wealthy, Tea Party demagogues, Libertarian bigots, the capitalists, and the whole zoo of American fascists are close to gaining power then that’s when I will always vote for the Democrats.
I am going to describe a metaphor here that I have been thinking of for the past few months. The two-party system has most US citizens locked out of authentic political expression and power. This creates the situation where millions of Americans who vote for the Dems, like me, are doing so because there is nothing else around. The metaphor that I want to describe is the following. Imagine a small, dark and damp room with a locked metal door keeping us left-of-Democrat-ideology (LODI) voters away from having access to the political process (since we are weird and unstable, and not trustworthy according to the powerbrokers). Imagine that this little room where millions of truly progressive (or Green or Socialist or whatever) voters are shoved into is very much like a cell designed for solitary confinement. Since we do not have direct access or any meaningful access to political power, the only thing we have left to do is argue with each other over whose turn it is to take a shit in the bucket they gave us (with just enough water in it to control the smell).
That is pretty much the scenario I have in mind for us LODI voters and LODI non-voters. All we can do is drive ourselves crazy with our own chatter because we are the only ones listening to each other. The Dems and the Reps ignore us completely. And if by chance they take notice, then it is only for a chuckle and to shake their heads from side to side with a smug attitude, as always. They have this game locked up for them and they are not going to change success. It is an oligarchy of only 2 political parties and they are not going to throw that away in order to make “crackpots” happy. And by the way, theses 2 political parties are indeed very much like each other, for the reasons I explained in my previous post but if you want more detail then you can read the generally accepted theories of Maurice Duverger. It is under his name; you just have to find it. I can look it up for you if you want.
Regarding the UK:
Regarding the political system in the United Kingdom, I did not express myself very well when I said that “we inherited” our system from them. But we did borrow very heavily and many of the things we have to this day are still in existence in the UK as I write this. They have first-past-the-post, which we did assimilate into our system, “whole-hog.” The framers of the US Constitution also created much of what they felt would be a better system from their own imaginations. And they did also borrow a little bit from other country’s systems in their day, during the late 18th Century, when the United States was founded as a sovereign nation. The Framers also took from the Ancient Greeks, the Romans, and other sources as well, in order to fashion what was then a revolutionary democracy. The US was so innovative at the time that the French were also inspired to have their own democratic and republican revolution. That was the French Revolution of 1789, where most of the French royal family was beheaded under the guillotine. And those events paved the way for Napoleon to spread “revolution” with his military invasions of most of Europe.
The UK has a parliamentary system of government whereas each member of the cabinet MUST come from sitting members of the parliament. And all members of the British parliament MUST have won their local election. This is very different from what we have here in the US, where the president appoints whom he pleases right before the beginning of his first term. None of the president’s immediate cabinet members must win any election, nor must any of them be sitting members of either the House of Representatives or the US Senate. It has happened on quite a few occasions that a high-ranking member of the British cabinet has been booted out of office because he or she lost their local election. And the British PM has to find “someone” who can fill that person’s shoes most competently. That does not happen here in the States.
But the most important reference that the Framers used for designing American democracy was the system that they rebelled against, Great Britain. That is what I meant to say.
Additionally, the British Liberals, lead by Nick Clegg, have succeeded in doing something that few, if any American political party has ever achieved, breaking through the two-party system in order to gain representation in the British parliament. This is very difficult and will probably never be duplicated in the US. The British Liberals elect their MPs from strongly Liberal electoral jurisdiction where voters are fiercely loyal and would almost never vote for either Labour or the Tories. By the way, the Prime Minister of the UK is Tory leader David Cameron. One of the youngest PMs in UK history.
The Two-party System:
The two-party system and first-past-the-post suck great big donkey dick and they act as thick, prison walls between people and political power. That’s the way the rich like to have it in any country, whether it be the US, the UK, or anywhere else. But the wealthy have a much harder time exploiting people for their labour and to fight the wars for the rich wherever there is a multi-party system and proportional representation. And that is what we need in the United States if we want to see the substantial changes that the American people need and deserve.
Regarding the loss of an election because the Democrats win, I beg to differ. My reasoning being, once again, that it is the system that is at fault, not the political parties. Why? Because our political parties are only as good as the system that creates them. Furthermore, I would like to rephrase your well-intentioned criticism in the following manner: “Even if we have another election, or even one thousand elections, we've lost. That's US history since its inception over 200 years ago.
I admire your courage in voting for the Green Party against all odds. We, the people, need that alternative and a strong-minded group of folks to remind us that there are other political parties and ideologies out there. But your efforts are not enough. Simply voting Green in a failed, locked-up system, controlled by two oligarchic parties is not going to bring change. The only time the Green Party might gain substantial power or even replace the Democrats as “that other party” is when there is a significant historical milestone such as an impending civil war, another Great Depression, etc.
Then! There will be a two-party system between the Republicans and the Greens and the Greens will become just as corrupt as the Democratic Party is now. Why wait a century to learn this lesson, Miles? Why? Can you answer me that question?
The solution is systemic change from a two-party system to a multi-party system and proportional representation. Voting Green so steadfastly implies in a subtle fashion that the system actually works! But the truth is that the system does not work. Do you really envision the Green Party pushing the Democratic Party out of power, replacing them just as the Republican Party did the Whig Party??? Think again. Will that scenario make you happy? Will everything be fine then, when there are only Republicans and Greens in power, taking turns screwing over the American people? Because that is exactly what is going to happen, my friend. Don’t delude yourself. Contemplate that scenario a little bit and see what your intelligent mind tells you. I would really like to hear a response from you on this.
If and when the Greens were to replace the Democrats (and I really don’t care if they do; I actually wish they would to stir things up a bit and I would support them), the exact same dynamics that pull down the Democratic Party will inevitably pull down the Green Party. The Green Party will see itself forced to imitate Republican public policy because they will start to recede in national elections as they keep their policies far from the “center” or the Republicans. Because Americans, again, only have two choices, the “pendulum effect” imposes itself on political officeholders and parties. And voters will go running back to the Republicans just like they are doing now in November 2010 midterm elections.
I really do hope the ship goes down. It will be ugly and unpleasant but only great crisis such as civil war and the Great Depression will knock sense into the stubborn little ignorant minds of the American people. And in the case of the 1/3 of the American people who are religious fundamentalists, we are talking about a potentially dangerous group of fanatics who will NEVER change their minds (because they are following God’s path, you see). This 1/3 of the national electorate is what gives Republicans power even though they are the worst possible choice. A multi-party system would create a deal-breaking amount of distance between the fundies and the Republicans and political power (if the Republican or Democratic Parties continued to exist is another question).
As far as Marxist-Leninists, Communists, Marxists, the Revolutionary Communist Party, etc, etc, etc, I am not worried about microscopic fringe groups that don’t stand an ice cube’s chance in hell of ever gaining any amount of power in the US, no matter what system we switch to. Talking about them in power in the United States is the type of conversation that Tea Party idiots like to engage in. I don’t like wasting my time talking about completely unrealistic scenarios and fear mongering.
Voting Green in a national contest is a protest vote. There is very little realistic opportunity for the Greens to gain power. And if some day they did, they would fall prey to the same two-party system today that corrupts the Democrats. There is nothing inside the Green Party that can shield itself from this. There are human beings in the Green Party and the Democrats and the Republicans have plenty of those running their parties.
It is a serious mistake to think that the Greens could do much more than the Democrats because it is not a matter of which party is in power nearly as much as it is a matter of the system in which political parties gain and maintain power in the US.
Think further ahead in the scenario of the Greens gaining national power. Then it will be the Greens hoping an praying not to get the same wallop that the Democrats are about to get in tomorrow’s elections and the Republicans screaming, “The People Have Spoken!” while the Greens go home licking their wounds in humiliation, just like the Democrats will do tomorrow evening.
And that’s not all…
There will be a small political party, just like the Greens once were, going, “peep, peep, peep. We are more progressive than the Greens are. The Greens betrayed and disillusioned voters who put their trust in them. Vote for us, the “_______ Party!”
And history will repeat itself until someday, if the nation that is today called the USA still exists, there is fundamental, systemic change and the two-party system is tossed out the window once and for all. That is the solution, not the Green Party.
Yes, we do need a new constitution and I’m not backing down from that one. It’s obvious that the current one is obsolete. But if we try to write a new constitution then we will have the Right Wing wanting an article abolishing abortion, like the Irish Constitution has and who knows what else. Just because it is not a good idea to try to change the constitution today doesn’t mean that it is not obsolete and “should” be rewritten. It would be dangerous to attempt it at this point in history and probably not for another hundred years or so.
Finally, I’d like to say that I don’t give much a care for the Democrats either. I know for a fact that they will neither do what I would like to see happen in this country and also that they can not do what I would like to see happen (as they have demonstrated time and again) because the system won’t let them. And tomorrow is an example of that.
If I lived in a U.S. with a multi-party system, I would never vote for the Democrats. If the political party spectrum were like in European countries, I would move my vote around between the Greens, the Socialists (aka Social Democrats), or some other left wing party. The only time I would have voted for a Liberal Party is when Nick Clegg ran recently for Prime Minister of the UK on a platform of electoral reform. One exception for my dream cause.
Strategy:
The best strategy is to keep the Republicans out of power while we work for a multi-party system. A Pagan friend of mine very recently said that the transition from Democrats to Greens would not last forever. That we Americans would only have to suffer the Republicans in power for "X" number of years until the Greens were firmly in power. That's a humongous, hypothetical gamble that I'm not willing to take. And it would not be the final solution because we would still be in the same two-party system.
Also, the Green Party can be grown locally and gradually. Eventually, the Green Party might conceivably reach the governor's mansion in Sacramento, as well as many city council seats, mayor's offices, and county seats. This is far more realistic for the American people to get the policies they need, at least in California, where they stand a chance. But national contests are just plain crazy attempts at power or protest votes. And are dangerous because it gives the Republicans another chance at screwing things up as badly as the did under Baby Bush.
I have much more to say but at least this post is almost as substantial as the one I wrote but lost some weeks ago.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Nicely put Edward/VO,
...The current debacle is the next step in a long effort to privilege the interests of capital over the interests of the community. It's an old conflict. Unresolved. Perhaps it will never be. But I know which side I'm on. And I know which side the Democratic Party is on. And I'm not about to compromise my interests, values and commitments, by backing the very people who work for the destruction of our economic and ecological futures at every step of the way. Not gonna do it.
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
... I vote for this relatively less reactionary party against the Republicans. I’m trying to keep them out. ... Simply voting Green in a failed, locked-up system, controlled by two oligarchic parties is not going to bring change. The only time the Green Party might gain substantial power or even replace the Democrats as “that other party” is when there is a significant historical milestone such as an impending civil war, another Great Depression, etc. ... The solution is systemic change from a two-party system to a multi-party system and proportional representation.... If and when the Greens were to replace the Democrats (and I really don’t care if they do; I actually wish they would to stir things up a bit and I would support them), the exact same dynamics that pull down the Democratic Party will inevitably pull down the Green Party. ....
I really do hope the ship goes down. It will be ugly and unpleasant but only great crisis such as civil war and the Great Depression will knock sense into the stubborn little ignorant minds of the American people
I agree with you on the reasoning for voting for the Democrats. There's an immense inertia in politics and it's difficult to imagine substantive change, so mitigating disaster seems to me to be the better option. However, I'm not enthusiastic about that strategy. I'm also more optimistic than you about the possibility for bigger changes, hopefully without the major disruptions you mentioned. If we reach a point where a majority of people are really ready for a change in the status quo, it will be valuable to have alternative parties available.
We're also seeing a change in the way political figures reach positions of high visibility. For example, why are Sarah Palin's views being sought by media other than Fox News, and more importantly, why is her endorsement politically valuable? Few ex-VP candidate/ex-governors have national visibility like that. It's only been a few decades since the party organizations were essential for a politician to succeed. We're still seeing an alternative system develop. You have a few disruptive figures historically, like Teddy Roosevelt, who reached power because of miscalculations by the parties. But it seems to me much more likely to happen in our future. Certainly it's happened in many other countries. So with any luck, the Hobson's choice between D/R may not be the only choice in our future.
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
All very well and dandy but you continue to think inside the box of the two-party system. For example, you mention the astute observation that when big change comes that we will need a Green Party to take power. Agreed. But this is still inside the system and it is the system that needs changing, more than political parties do. Our political parties are only as good as the system that contains and defines them. Therefore, even the Green Party will be corrupted, eventually.
And I think I might need to apologize about my statement, "...knock sense into the stubborn little ignorant minds of the American people..."
I do get very angry and frustrated sometimes. I'm more inclined to believe that the American people are ill informed and lied to as opposed to being small minded maggots and religious fanatics.
So I am sorry. Please forgive me.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
I agree with you on the reasoning for voting for the Democrats. There's an immense inertia in politics and it's difficult to imagine substantive change, so mitigating disaster seems to me to be the better option. However, I'm not enthusiastic about that strategy. I'm also more optimistic than you about the possibility for bigger changes, hopefully without the major disruptions you mentioned. If we reach a point where a majority of people are really ready for a change in the status quo, it will be valuable to have alternative parties available. We're also seeing a change in the way political figures reach positions of high visibility. For example, why are Sarah Palin's views being sought by media other than Fox News, and more importantly, why is her endorsement politically valuable? Few ex-VP candidate/ex-governors have national visibility like that. It's only been a few decades since the party organizations were essential for a politician to succeed. We're still seeing an alternative system develop. You have a few disruptive figures historically, like Teddy Rooseveldt, who reached power because of miscalculations by the parties. But it seems to me much more likely to happen in our future. Certainly it's happened in many other countries. So with any luck, the Hobson's choice between D/R may not be the only choice in our future.
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
Edward/VO,
Very good points, a mite repetitive, but who am I to criticize, I do the same thing!
Thanks for correcting my error on who the Liberals are in coalition with in the British parliament, and who is PM.
In many previous posts on this general array of topics, I've emphasized that I vote strategically. If a Dem is threatened by a Repub, I consider voting for the Dem. In California, especially in Sonoma County, that's a choice I seldom have to make. And therefore I'm comfortable making my status quo ante choice since 1987 and I vote for my party's candidate from The Green Party of the United States of America.
I've noticed that in discussing this, you don't acknowledge that specificity. You write as if who we vote for, for President in California, is a matter of popular choice for the whole country. I know you know about the Electoral College, and we probably agree with what's wrong with it and how archaic it is. But because it exists, votes for president are state by state, not national.
As for the possibility / probability of the GP replacing the DP in the future. That would be a dream of mine come true, but I'm not holding my breath.
"Conscious" voters are trapped in the limits of our electoral laws, especially "first past the post", the Electoral College and the current dominance of the two wings of the Property Party.
For the dangers of all that, see the article about the "Signs of a Fascist Takeover" that I linked in WaccoReader today.
In oh so many ways, the citizens of this country, and the people all around the world, are screwed politically. But if you watched, "The Rally To Restore Sanity and/or Fear", on Saturday morning, and if anyone hasn't they should view the recording, it's three hours, but it's a fun three hours, you know that all isn't lost.
Stewart and Colbert et al papered over a lot of important stuff, but their basic message: we're all in this together, we have to treat each other with respect and find ways to communicate, compromise, get along and address the real problems that beset all of us, is a good reminder.
So, who's voting No on 20? Who's voting Yes?
I keep going back and forth. I think the question comes down to, do we want real districting which is equitable and reasonable, that ends gerrymandering? Or do we want to maintain the Democratic Party lock on most electoral districts in California?
If the latter, no, if the former, yes. It's a tough call. Because changing the setup opens things up for the real wingnuts on the right, and they're the ones on a roll lately. Because I believe strongly in procedural justice, I'm leaning towards yes, but I can't really say for sure.
The new "Progressive" in town called for a Yes vote on the other districting/gerrymandering reform Prop. 27 here yesterday. I found that curious, since every single Left / Liberal source I've seen in the last two months has been vehemently opposed to 27 passing. I found that contradiction interesting, coming from a self-proclaimed Progressive.
(Don't get me started with the problems with Progressive as a descriptive political term. I've written about it here a few years ago. It's becoming so overused and inchoate as to become meaningless. I read a post on Facebook the other day that talked about the "Progressives who organized Woodstock"???!!! And I thought they were hippy entrepreneurs?)
Vote! Vote Yes On 19!!!
Here's to Evans, Allen, Jacobi, Gorin, Torliatt and every other Democrat who deserves to win tomorrow. They're in the wrong party, but they have the right politics. IMHO.
Polytricks an de Shitstem, Polytricks and de Shitstem....
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
After having written more than 5 pages in MsWord, I expected a slightly longer reply.
;0)
At least touching some of the main points I made, not the least of which is that the same dynamics that corrupt the Democratic Party today would also, inevitably, corrupt the Green Party. So criticism of either of the two dominant parties is a waste of time because any new party (such as the Greens or Tea Party) that bumps out either the Dems or Reps will be swallowed up by the deep, dark, two-party chasm of despair. (And when I speak of corruption I am not referring to a politician who takes money and abuses power. I am referring to a broken system that very poorly serves the general aims of democracy, which among other things is supposed to represent citizens. This cannot happen in a two-party system and that is what I mean when I say "corrupt" in this context.)
The Green Party cannot withstand these systemic pressures and would eventually end up folding under them. You believe, mistakenly as do most people, that putting a different party in power would make all of the difference. This is not true. The Greens would be able to make some changes in the first years but they too would eventually become just as reactionary as is the Democratic Party. The system needs a change, not the parties. If you change the system, you change the parties. Otherwise we are still playing their game and into their hands.
You also have to consider the crucial factor of the psychology of human nature and how that will hold up with a Green Party mindset assuming power as one of the two big parties. The truth is that only so much can be accomplished and that the 'Green Dream' would evaporate in less than ten years' time. Once the Greens become a new "co-party," the system is going to force them to either comply, as do the Dems, or be rejected back into obscurity, probably never to return.
I appreciate our little talks because I have been able to define in greater detail my thoughts, and these are thoughts that I have had since I was first a student at Santa Rosa Junior College in the early 1980s. They essentially have not changed but have become more refined, thanks in part to the discussions on this list. If you err in believing that the Green Party in power at the national level can make the differences we need then you are still not seeing that you are unwittingly expressing "faith" in a broken system, very much like a religious person has faith in something that does not exist.
Oh, and yes, I do know that there is an Electoral College system. This means that in California, or any state standing by itself, if there are enough Democratic Party votes (and therefore enough Electoral Votes or Electors, etc) then a citizen can go to the ballot box and choose his or her representatives according to their conscience (the Greens). And the process is repeated for each individual state, independent of the results that take place in other states. The POTUS is not elected by a popular vote. This was painfully evident in 2000.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Edward/VO,
Very good points...
Vote! Vote Yes On 19!!!
Here's to Evans, Allen, Jacobi, Gorin, Torliatt and every other Democrat who deserves to win tomorrow. They're in the wrong party, but they have the right politics. IMHO.
Polytricks an de Shitstem, Polytricks and de Shitstem....
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
Isn't it - that in this country 3rd parties just won't do on the national level...
Voting 'green' might work on a more local level, but nationally, if you want to make some changes - you are going to have to work within one of the 2 parties...
That's just the political, and historical reality of it...
=============================================================
..."You also have to consider the crucial factor of the psychology of human nature and how that will hold up with a Green Party mindset assuming power as one of the two big parties. The truth is that only so much can be accomplished and that the 'Green Dream' would evaporate in less than ten years' time. Once the Greens become a new "co-party," the system is going to force them to either comply, as do the Dems, or be rejected back into obscurity, probably never to return."...
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
E/VO,
I did not address your prognostications about what would happen if the GP came into power for several reasons:
It's not really a pressing issue. The likelihood at this juncture is nonexistent.
You can't predict the future. Nobody can.
I've been clear over the years in my political writing here as to what is wrong with our system, and what I think needs to be done to address those problems. Massive non-violent direct action, sustained, experienced and dedicated. The rest is a problem for future generations to solve democratically.
In my writing over the years I've been clear about why I'm with the GP, and why I vote for it when it's a good idea. Voting isn't only about exercising power, potential or actual. It can also be about sending a message, communicating ideas, representing one's values and hopes. Reducing it to the exercise of power, which is what the partisans for the status quo do, condemns us to this dysfunctional system that has us in its maw. Even if there's no way out, we can cry for release. Sometimes that's all we can do and still maintain our self respect.
I've been writing a lot here and on Facebook about tomorrow's election and focusing on the big picture is not my current priority. Plus even though all of my time is my own, while unemployed and getting dole checks, I haven't read today's and yesterday's newspapers.
Yesterday afternoon when I normally read the NYT's and PD while listening to KPFA's Sunday afternoon TwangFest, I was preoccupied with filling out my ballot for the annual Industrial Workers of the World election. And if you think the vote tomorrow has a lot of complicated factors, you have no idea what it takes to figure out how to try and help to quash a long brewing faction fight among militant industrial unionists!
So, sorry if I haven't met your intellectual curiosity needs, but I've other things on my mind.
And please stop putting words in my mouth, just because I support the Green Party as the best electoral alternative, given the specific conditions in California and the nation at this time, it doesn't mean it's my only political strategy or theory. Your tendency to speak for your interlocutors is irritating and insulting. Say what you think, ask questions, don't presume to know everything everybody else thinks. It's arrogant and sabotages your efforts to reach any kind of mutual understanding. You don't speak for me, I do.
I've at least an hour of FB to review and participate in, then it'll be time for TV and bed. Life is sweet and this stuff is ultimately irrelevant to the immediate experience of that sweetness.
Met a couple of dub musicians in their early twenties, while leaving Hop Monk tonight, they don't vote at all. It's not part of their reality. As I said to them, "I won't have that conversation with you right now." They replied, "Good because we've already had it with _____." I didn't catch the name.
G,Night!
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
I regret having offended you. I assure you that it was unintentional.
Best,
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
E/VO,
I did not address your prognostications about what would happen if the GP came into power for several reasons:
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
from the Wall Street Journal, no less, commenting on the projected outcome of the voting today -
"More precisely, it is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that's lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve."
wow. The mouthpiece of half of the elite acknowledges this too? Usually they find a way to twist their perceptions so only the other half is being rejected...
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
Podfish,
Stanley Aronowitz, when he was teaching at UCI from 1977-79 used to say, "If you want to know what the ruling class is saying amongst themselves, read the WSJ."
E/VO,
"Offend" is too strong. Irritate, badger, presume are more accurate. I was not insulted, much, I just was/am not going to answer repetitive questions or respond to open provocations on demand. But there was no need to apologize, and now that you have, I accept your apology.
Just don't do it again!!! Nah, do it if that's what you are moved to do, just don't expect a different response from me!!!
Here's to the impending debacle for the Democrats, the nation and the world. May it not be as bad as predicted.
While I criticize the Democratic Party for the positions it takes, the actions of its leaders, whose interests it represents and the uncritical dedication of its supporters (who's presuming now?!) I recognize that in the greater scheme of things, they/you are much closer to what I think is important and best, than many others. More often than not, we're on the same side.
I still can't believe my brother has been registered Republican for eight years now!!!! But, he always could be a really irritating little shit!!!!
Rock On!
Re: Why are the Democrats not fighting back and taking it to the Republicans?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Stanley Aronowitz, ... used to say, "If you want to know what the ruling class is saying amongst themselves, read the WSJ."...
Here's to the impending debacle for the Democrats, the nation and the world. May it not be as bad as predicted.
yah, that's why the quote surprised me; instead of the familiar "the Democrats misread the people" it's "both parties are being rejected". I suppose it's so blatantly obvious that they'll acknowledge it. Not that I haven't seen them deny that the sun rises in the East...
As far as an impending debacle, it's certainly possible that without one no real change will ever happen. But I'm not particularly optimistic that even with one there will be mass rejection of the Republican's agenda, or support for real health-care, environmental, and energy policy reform. Somehow people seem to be reacting to the destruction of the middle-class by rejecting all public spending, business regulations, and any taxation, as if they themselves were the ones being regulated and taxed for the benefit of the lazy, feckless, and illegal.
