Letters to the Editor
farbie
Published Letters: 166 Editor's Choice: 2
-
SEA CHANGE? ONLY IF WE CONTINUE TO MAKE WAVES!
[Read the article: A genuine political sea change?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have read Glenn’s “Sunday” post, and all 47 pages of comments. I must thank Glenn for such a thought-provoking post in the first place to have spent an hour reading the posts.
First, while I agree with DCLaw1 that a “sea change” is coming, The MSM, especially network TV, is still beholden to the right-wing noise machine (RWNM) , and its not-so-subtle pull. For example, yesterday’s ABC “This Week,” where the talking heads agreed that the Democrats risk “splitting the party” over Bush’s expected veto of the war spending bill. They spewed the far-right view that the “new Democrats” are “more conservative” than the “old Democrats” and will not want to be seen as “de-funding” the troops. This has been the MSM view since the election, that the so-called “sea change” of the election was the election of “more conservative” Democrats.
The 2006 elections, showed a resurgence of economic populism, such as Jim Webb in Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana, not a “more conservative” trend. Webb and Tester know that the economy is not running as it did in the 50s, 60s and early 70s, and that corporations have run wild with the “globalization” of the world’s economy. As a result, the middle class has “shrunk,” both in terms of the numbers of people and the dollars earned. There are now more people who are literally living on the edge of the next economic downturn, who struggle just to pay their monthly bills, and who cannot save anything for the future. It’s no accident that in 2005, the U.S. had its first “negative savings rate” since the Great Depression. These are the real “left behind” folks, the Wal-Mart shoppers, who don’t understand why their world isn’t what their parents’ world was, economically.
The question is, can the “sea change” occur while the RWNM still controls what MSM spews? Frankly, I believe that if the MSM continues its current path, it will become irrelevant to the political process. I no longer rely at all on the MSM, both print and TV, for my news, preferring the vastly superior Internet for news, information, and political dialogue. Unfortunately, this leaves out a vast number of Americans, who are too poor or who have too little time to get their news and information on the Internet. The MSM also has its economic interests at stake, and will desperately try and retain “control” over the political process, despite the Internet. One of Timberman’s comments gave me great concern over the issue of “Net Neutrality,” that the Democratic Party Caucus in California this last week tabled a statement of support for Net Neutrality, based on the apparent effort by the TelComm industry to get its unions to oppose Net Neutrality. We must have Net Neutrality, or the Internet, the last great uncontrolled source for news and information, will go the way of the MSM. So, “sea change” will depend, in part, on preservation of Net Neutrality.
Second, “sea change” will depend on the current Democratic party finally accepting the true meaning of the 2006 elections, the resurgence of economic populism, and NOT the so-called “more conservative” Democrat trend that the MSM spouts as the election’s meaning. There’s hope in that regard, given Howard Dean’s continued subtle influence as the DLC Chair. After all, the Democrats chose Jim Webb as the “Democratic Response” the the President’s State of the Union Address, which was a fantastic choice. It’s the people that have been hurt by economic globalization that have dumped the Republican party and have rejoined the Democrats. Those people are now beginning to know the truth about the run-up to the Iraq War, and all of the falsehoods that were spewed, especially by Dick Cheney.
Third, it is essential that the Democratic Party reverse it’s “not on the table” approach to Impeachment, and endorse Kucinich’s introduction of Articles of Impeachment of Dick Cheney. Cheney has not just committed impeachable acts, he is a war criminal, having directly participated in the Administration’s fraudulent build-up to the War, including, quite possibly, the Niger forgery scheme. (forged documents that formed basis of the claim that Saddam Hussein “sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”) It is despicable to me that even John Edwards, who I would otherwise support as a Democratic Presidential candidate, would not endorse Kucinich’s position the other night at the first Democratic Candidate Debate. (That’s why I’m still supporting an Al Gore candidacy)
Fourth the Democrats need to stand firm with Bush on the Iraq funding issue, and either re-submit the same bill to him, or, at minimum, only agree to a two-months “no-strings-attached” funding bill, similar to what Congressman Murtha has proposed.
Lastly, it’s absolutely vital that the election system be fixed before the next election. Rush Holt’s bill is a start, although even it, in its current form, would not ban DRE election equipment entirely. I note 2-cent’s comments that Bush “won” the 2004 election despite his poor performance in the debates. Note to 2-cent: Bush DIDN’T win the 2004 election!!! Look at Fitrakis and Rosenfeld’s books and articles on this. They now have direct evidence, that was spawned by the outrage over the missing e-mails generated by Karl Rove’s and others’s use of RNC e-mail accounts for official government business, that the election count in Ohio, the critical state for Kerry in 2004, was controlled by Rove and the RNC after 12 a.m. the morning after the 2004 Election Day. This isn’t just “conspiracy theories,” folks. There are many rural Ohio county precincts where the Bush “vote” FAR EXCEEDED the actual number of registered voters that voted that day. Who knows what other shenanigans may be uncovered by a full investigation? The 2006 election was much closer than it might have been without the unknown effect of DREs.
In sum, yes, there’s a sea change, but only if we continue to make waves!