Letters to the Editor
-
Dems are Blowing It By Not Embracing Mark Warner
[Warner] -- or is it Bai? Or both? -- starts to view the lefty blogosphere as Bush-hating, Hugo Chavez-loving naifs, comparable to Jane Fonda in the 1960s, all hopped up about American wrongdoing in the world while oblivious to the al-Qaida threat.
I think it's fair to say that there's just a small (but vocal) minority of Americans that cares much about the Buchananesque "culture wars" or really identifies with the Christian Taliban-right. While a (slim) majority of "mainstream America" was content to tune out those wingnuts to embrace Republican candidates that have (1) embraced a nominally lower tax, smaller government philosophy (including being pro-gun, when taking away one's hunting rifle was seen as the only threat to civil liberties out there), and (2) taken a more "proactive" approach to the perceived terrorist threat. The unpopularity of the Iraq war has proven to be the wedge that splits this uneasy coalition.
In this, there's an opportunity to realign politics in favor of a generally more progressive approach -- if the Dems are careful about the road that they choose.
Problem is, a lot of Americans in the political and georgaphic middle -- who, incidentally include plenty of working-class, "ethnic" white, less "educated" people in the Blue States -- are really put off by the so-called urban liberal elites. You know, the kind of folks that shake their heads in disapproval out the windows of bumper-stickered Priuses when they drive past guys in pickup trucks with toolboxes in the back. Ok, I exaggerate a little, but I think you know what I mean. All those holdovers of the 60s and 70s; the Jane Fonda loving, Che Guavara t-shirt wearing, politically correct talking, food/booze/tobacco policing know-it-all types get a lot of people's hackles up, turning them off to the rest of the message.
If the Dems want to solidify a majority without sacrificing issues that make them different -- universal health care, a restrained foreign policy, better schools, a fairer tax code, energy independence, a belief in science over minority religious viewpoints, among them -- they better be careful about who their messengers are. Squeeze the fringe out and into the Green Party, if that's what's necessary.
Just sayin'
- Cantabridget
-
the language prison
A language born out of competition between two opponents each opponent trapped in a he said she said prison gary alan brumley
-
Are Democrats really so lame?
In a word--Yes!
Just not for the reasons recited by Bai.
One needs only to look at the reasons recited today in Mr. Greenwald's column:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
(August 21, 2007)
-
Retired Military Patriot
No, I don't expect the Dems to "dramatically reverse" Republican achievements, but I'd like to see them do something, anything. But I keep looking and they do nothing. This is not a recent phenomenon; every year, every election, I look carefully and listen to Democratic apologists and I see no action, just excuses. You hide behind the Dem's "scarce majority." Before last November, Dems whined that they didn't have a majority. During Clinton's first two years, their problem was that they only had 55 Senators - not enough to invoke cloture. It's always something with these folks. The time is just never quite right to do any damn thing that might actually benefit someone other than their Wall Street paymasters.
Dems were elected to stop the war and they have done nothing that even hints at that. But why pay attention to the big fish? They can't even land a little one. Increased CAFE standards? Nope. Allow Medicare to bargain with drug companies to reduce drug costs for seniors? No chance. How about repealing the ban on "partial birth" abortion that was so disgracefully upheld by the SC this term? Not that either. Tell me. What is it you vote for when you vote Democratic? I was a Dem for over 30 years and I just don't see it.
Friend, I encourage you to stop listening to what Dems say and start seeing what they do. When you do that, maybe you'll realize what they're really all about, i.e. raising more and more money so they can win elections. Winning elections only makes a difference to most of us if it means some sort of policy changes. Will a Dem president be better than Bush? He/she could hardly be worse, but if that's all you want, then welcome to the world of the status quo. But if you want more, stop voting for and giving money to people who don't represent you or your values. That's the only way politics in this country will change for the better.
-
Hillary could be Bush-lite
Hillary said yesterday that the surge is working in places like Anbar province. The casual way she said it tells me several things:
1. She is not anti-war, she is only critical of the war. That plays well with about 80% of the electorate. The other 20% are Salon readers.
2. She will push more diplomacy but she will also carry around a big stick. She knows the difference between diplomacy and protecting American interests.
3. Despite the lefty angst for Gitmo, wiretapping, FISA, etc. etc these policies will continue with minor mods because there is no practical alternative, but they will become less visible.
4. Gitmo will probabaly be closed but the prisoners will disappear into the CIA archipeligo. Don't think for a second that these guys will ever be released or tried in US court system.
5. She will invest all-day-long in more diplomacy, more effective PR, but despite lefty anguish, she will not sacrifice the methods or tactics used by the Bushies if she believes for a second that they will make a difference in obtaining intelligence RIGHT NOW.
The bottom line is that Hillary will make some tweaks to foreign policy but, despite what she may say, fundamentally nothing will change. She is very very pragmatic about these matters whereas Obama is very idealistic. Hillary is more like Joe Biden or a Sam Nunn.
-
Democrats are complex...
and lame is not a complex adjective.
We Democrats tend to look at both sides of an issue and are loathe to be labeled hypocrite. So while we may hate, our hate is not blind hate.
In a two party system (for the sake of debate) we are the party for all citizens. We do not exclude based on religiosity, accent, skin color, gender, sexual identification, level of education, or income. This makes it very difficult to have one or two simple slogans to rally around during elections. Not having a slick battle logo might be misinterpreted as being lame.
Thanks to the last Bush Administration, simplistic thinking and rash action have gone out of vogue. Smart is In! And this thoughtful crouch, is at least as good a reason to vote Democratic as any I have heard.