|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 12:48 PM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
 Don't misunderstand me. Although I think the demise of the Democratic Party is overstated, I however feel that there are many good reasons to feel that the Democratic Party is in a sink or swim kind of position. The Democratic Party, in one way or another, has always been an ideal rather than a reality. If you look at American Party history, particularly the demise of the Federalist Party following the War of 1812, I think there are several comparisons between them and the modern Democratic Party. Quote:
Certainly, the Republicans are using this decline in Party success as a way to demonize progressive policies, equating low turnout at the voting booths with a displeasure for Democratic policies, etc., but I think the Democrats would also do this. When the Democrats are on top, they too would talk about how it must be reflective of the bad ideas Republicans put forward, rather than the problem being a combination of things, many systemic. |
||
| Jul 16th, 2003 10:28 AM | |||
| mburbank |
I think the recent barage of reports about the Democratic parties demise are part of an orchestrated strategy, and a particularly cynical one at that. Like certain e-tards, some republican pundits feel simply stating "We won. It's over. Your irrellivant" will help make it so. It's a strategy they apply not only to voters, but countries, world leaders, and multilateral organizations. It's arrogant, needlessly irritating, non productive and will contribute to a back swing of the pendulum in much the same way Newt Ginrich's personality and approach led to his downfall. |
||
| Jul 16th, 2003 02:37 AM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
The Republican Party once had similar problems, but beginning in the 90's, they developed a "no enemies to the Right" policy in order to take the House in 1994. The neo-cons and fundamentalists who run the Party aren't necessarily reflective of really conservatism, but the "real" conservatives have done a much better job of silencing dissent. Quote:
The reports of the Democratic Party's coming death may be over stated. I once thought the Democratic Party may be heading the way of the Anti-masonic Party, but on further review, this two party system has ALWAYS produced a one party dominance. Jefferson's Republicans controlled both branches of the government from 1801 to 1829 for the most part. From 1933 to 1968, the Democrats controlled all three political bodies for 21 of 35 years. The list goes on. |
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 11:31 AM | |||
| mburbank |
Vinth, are you still existing? I think what's wrong with the democratic party is a lack of spine and fire. Shach may be somewhat correct in his assesment, but in a two party system I'll go with a party that cares too much and thinks better than it should of American citizens than a country a party so cynical they can't even be bothered to polish their exploitative lies. |
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 11:24 AM | |||
| Vibecrewangel |
wow Ror - that was the most depressingly beautiful thing I've seen written in a long time. |
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 11:16 AM | |||
| VinceZeb | Are you still talking? | ||
| Jul 15th, 2003 11:10 AM | |||
| mburbank |
Say, that's a really good point. Probably. In some way. Or it would, if I only made fun of you a lot when you insulted me. Instead of... you know... all the time. Tell you what, during my summer vacation I'll let you make fun of yourself. |
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 10:41 AM | |||
| VinceZeb | You sure are talking a lot for someone who wasn't insulted. | ||
| Jul 15th, 2003 10:21 AM | |||
| mburbank |
Absolutely. Few thing hurt more than when some sub cretin makes a joke that insults himself more than his target. In fact, the only thing that hurts more is when they make that same joke again. No, wait, you know what hurts even more? When they make the same joke again. And then, see, when they come right out of left field, right when you think they might do something else? And they do the same thing again? That's, like agony. And then, see, you're dead certain they'll do something else, 'cause you're certain that by now they know that all they've done is make themselves look like a complete witless tag along obnoxious little brother of a guy you totallt hate anyway, they make the same exact joke again?!? Man, nothing, but nothing comes close to that kind of pain. Except when they do it again. |
||
| Jul 15th, 2003 10:15 AM | |||
| VinceZeb | Awwww, did I hurt yo widdle feewings? | ||
| Jul 15th, 2003 09:54 AM | |||
| mburbank |
Thanks. That 'furnace log' comeback was a really good one. If you're a lazy, ignorant, mouth breathing sack of monkey crap. Now see if you can come up with a way to say I'm a Jew. That would be funny. |
||
| Jul 14th, 2003 11:28 PM | |||
| VinceZeb |
Oh man, the furnace log really zinged me a good one! :hurt |
||
| Jul 14th, 2003 10:26 AM | |||
| Zero Signal |
 @ Max. Too true. Not even the entire Swedish girls volleyball team topless could calm me down, either.  Anyway, I think a hybrid form is needed if it is going to be even remotely fair. |
||
| Jul 14th, 2003 09:31 AM | |||
| mburbank |
Vinth's argument boiled down. "I saw me a fat poor person, that's two things I hate right there. She paid with food stamps so now I hate her even more. Right away I see her groceries is better than mine, and ignoring the fact that foodtstamps, just like my cash, are gone once you spend them and she almost certainly has less food stamps to play with than I have cash, my weensy little brain is sure that this woman is personally getting things I should have, and stealing from me. Ignoring the fact that the actual amount of my money in her food stamp order is about .0000007 of a penny, I'm just as mad as if she made me pay for her entire order. Then I see boobies and I calm down." I have a similar argument. I saw a really rich guy blow the living crap out of a whole country and commit my government to running it. He's using MY money to do it. Know what? Even a good set of boobies doesn't calm me down. |
||
| Jul 13th, 2003 11:22 AM | |||
| Zero Signal |
I actually do agree with Vince on socialized medicine. What I agree with more is socialized medicine for those who want it, and leave the people who get it through their employer alone. Have those on socialized medicine pay for through their own taxes, and do not tax those who do not wish to partake of it. Socialized medicine is a joke in some countries, when you get right down to it. I have heard reports of people with serious circumstances having to wait in line after Joe sprained his foot, just because Joe was in line first. meh |
||
| Jul 13th, 2003 10:49 AM | |||
| VinceZeb | Democracy is bad. That is why we have a represenative republic. | ||
| Jul 13th, 2003 08:02 AM | |||
| crash0814 | I agree with Immortal Goat. Fuck parties. Republicans and Democrats both make me sick. I say death to democracy in general. People aren't smart enough to decide what's best for them. | ||
| Jul 13th, 2003 07:49 AM | |||
| VinceZeb |
Socialized medicare won't work because it goes against the base instinct of man to care about one's self. I don't want to pay for the medicare of some welfare queen or some elitist socalite and vice versa. Anywhere socalized medicine is tried, it turns shitty quick, fast and in a hurry. Govt being compassionate always has disasterous results. Quick example: I was waiting in line at a grocery store here and this very large woman was buying groceries. She had the good shit, and I had crap. I overheard her saying she was going to pay with EBT, which for the government school educated, that means food stamps. Here was this behemoth of a woman buying good (i.e. expensive) food and junk food with my money. The only thing that stopped me from screaming at the top of my lungs and getting escorted out of the store was staring at this good looking checker chick. In other words, govt compassion turns into govt waste and shit all the time. Democrats think that the govt gives us rights, can protect us from life, etc. when human nature proves them wrong. The only thing they can do to keep voters voting for them is blowing the unions, making the minorities think that they are too stupid to exist without the white liberal democrats fighting for them, and scaring old people to death. |
||
| Jul 13th, 2003 06:19 AM | |||
| The_Rorschach |
Originally I had spent my first hour writing and revising a response to this thread, as I had initially intended a few days ago when I first posted but I have decided not to. The blase responses of everyone aside from Kevin has convinced no one truly cares about answers and the results of this, or any thread, is only so much noise produced to fill the vaccum. A great man once commented he respected his enemies because he could learn from them, but noone here is really interested in learning. Not really, we are all to eager to throw in our own understanding and defend even dying philosophies -I am no exemption. In light of this I will be brief. What is wrong with the Democratic Party, as I see it, is an exact reflect of what is wrong with society. The Democratic Party relies upon those whom care, whom possess good intent and enough initative, pride or concern to live according to their convictions and protect the public. Universal Healthcare is not an evil ideal in and of itself, only unreasonable in light of the effects of its implimentation. It is the perfect example of the Democratic Party's conceptions. It is a wonderful, idyllic dream which men cannot be trusted to keep. It, like many Democratic plans, requires a quality of people which truly care about their fellow man and responsible enough not to abuse the power which would be created. It requires those whom can look after a Big Government without being caught up in petty concerns such as re-election and financial accumulation. It requires men whom can respect the intellegence of those whom have come before them before postituting their programs to the knewest scientific findings (sciences both hard and soft). It requires men whom hold themselves accountable to the public, and with great enough humility to not only admit they have been wrong, but to do so swiftly and move to correct their failures before passing the torch to their replacements. Big Government is not evil because Government is inherently evil, but because men are. Such men as the Democratic Party needs to champion its ideals no longer exist in politics because they do not exist within the public any longer -and I greatly doubt they ever will again. It doesn't matter anyway, it is all such a game really. Sadly its the only game in town. |
||
| Jul 12th, 2003 08:16 AM | |||
| VinceZeb |
What's wrong with the Democratic Party? It's one of those questions that answers itself. They are the Democratic Party; that's the problem. |
||
| Jul 12th, 2003 01:54 AM | |||
| Sethomas | What's really wrong with the Democratic Party? Not enough babes. | ||
| Jul 11th, 2003 07:37 PM | |||
| Miss Modular | Here's a fine piece of DLC Propaganda. | ||
| Jul 11th, 2003 07:24 PM | |||
| The One and Only... | Libertarian is the only way to go. I disagree with them on a few subjects, however. | ||
| Jul 11th, 2003 05:32 PM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
http://commondreams.org/views03/0710-02.htm Published on Thursday, July 10, 2003 by CommonDreams.org An "Aberration" Responds to the DLC’s Attack on Progressives by John Vigileos In their July 3rd LA Times opinion piece, "Activists are Out of Step," Bruce Reed and Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council shed their sheep’s clothing and reveal themselves to be, not wolves, but little emperors with not much on. The DLC leaders make a desperate case for alienating the growing chorus of progressive voices within the Democratic party. Their discourse succeeds, however, only in betraying a myopic agenda that is startlingly void of anything remotely suggestive of such things as vision, principle, ideas, and er substance. Reed and From dismiss the Democratic party activists as belonging to "special interest" groups that are out of touch with the "rank-and-file" Democrats. And who are these rank-and-file Democrats? Well, according to Reed and From, they are that group of Democrats who look pretty much the same as "all registered voters." In other words, the Democratic rank-and-file have the same views as the rank-and-file Republicans. Well golly, what do we even need two parties for? Why not just one party? We can call it the "rank-and-file" party. Of course single party rule is exactly what we are up against in this country. While the DLC has been busy formulating its cautious, middle-ground strategy, based not on principle but on political expediency, the Republicans have been aggressively redefining what the middle-ground will be. The right-wing opinion makers, who dominate the media landscape, take every opportunity to attack the most moderate Democrats and portray them as elitist ideologues. The success of this strategy is all too apparent in Reed and From's appropriation of the right-wing's standard abasements of the left. These DLC leaders castigate progressive elements within the Democratic party as being "a modern-day version of the old McGovern wing of the party, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist interest-group liberalism at home." The Republicans are fortunate indeed to have such brave soldiers fighting their war at the middle line. The party of George Bush and Tom Delay did not attain its dominant status by playing middle ground politics and dismissing Republican party activists and "single interest" groups as "aberrations." Certainly Bush finagled his way into the White House by feigning moderation on the stump. But he gave enough winks and nods to those single interest groups—energy interests, media corporations, the gun lobby, Christian fundamentalists, anti-choice activists, etc.—that they knew ol' George could be counted on to push their agendas right past the rank-and-file if they supported his campaign. Their expectations have not been betrayed. From and Reed's status quo philosophy—that the Democratic party should stand for whatever the majority view happens to be—puts them in a poor position to protest the policies of an extremist President who also happens to be polling well. The DLC has failed to see or care that the majority dollar that it is so desperately clutching after is on the end of a string being pulled by Bush's Republicans. Bush and company did not gain approval of the majority by following the polls—they have shaped the status quo by setting a bold (though extremist) agenda and letting the polls follow them. The DLC's best alternative to this Bush juggernaut seems to be something along the lines of "what he said, but maybe just a little less of it." Having boxed itself in as a weak proxy for the majority rule, the DLC brain trust is reduced to tearing down the activists in its own party. Reed and From tell us that real Democrats stand for the death penalty, big defense budgets, and welfare limits. But what is lacking in their apologia is the least modicum of vision or principled leadership. There is no willingness with this group to consider how America might be made safer by spending less on bloated military contracts and illegal wars, and more on homeland security and renewable energy to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil. In parroting the majority view on capital punishment, From and Reed cannot be bothered with the hard fact that the death penalty is disproportionately meted out to minorities or that too many innocent people are executed to justify an unqualified endorsement of this most extreme form of punishment. And they are too busy jumping on that republican engineered crusade against social (but not corporate) welfare recipients to notice that many struggling single mothers cannot support their children off the welfare dole unless they are provided universal day care, and a national minimum wage above the poverty line. When Reed and From warn their fellow Democrats against "special interest groups," who are out of step with the majority of the voting public, their words reek of that cynical political doublespeak that has fostered an intense voter apathy in this country. The DLC is not a grassroots organization composed of that "everyone else" in America who Reed and From claim to speak for. Far from representing the concerns of ordinary Americans, the DLC exists for the sole purpose of furthering the special interest agendas of its large corporate patrons. In contrast, liberal activist groups are working to break down the doors of a political establishment that is controlled by elite corporate interests to the exclusion of ordinary citizens. For example, organizations like Moveon.org, Common Cause, and Free Press mobilized public opposition against the recent Federal Communications Commission’s decision to ease media ownership restrictions. If that decision stands it will allow conservative media moguls like Rupert Murdoch to strengthen their monopoly hold on the marketplace of ideas—that would be anathema to our form of participatory democracy and would only shift the DLC’s coveted middle-ground further to the right. But thanks to grassroots organizing and pressure from activists our elected representatives in the Senate have promised to overturn the FCC decision. The bad news for Reed and From is that aberrations don’t get those kinds of results. The good news for ordinary Democrats is that the progressive base of the Democratic party has been energized, and is giving us all the courage to challenge and redefine the "mainstream." By pushing against this growing tide of activism the DLC is only creating the ironic result of leveraging itself into the margins. But then, that is really where Reed and From can do their best work for the party—gauging the shifting sand of the middle-ground, following polls, cheering on the rank-and-file from the back of the room, and letting the leaders lead. John Vigileos is an ordinary Democratic voter and student at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, CA. He can be contacted at john@vigileos.com. ### |
||
| Jun 29th, 2003 09:43 AM | |||
| The_Rorschach | Hmm. . .You know, I think I'll respond to this tomorrow, it's given me quite a bit to stew over. He raises some very interesting points however. | ||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||
