Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
A long time ago Lewis Lapham wrote an essay in which he defined the "permanent government" and the "provisional government". The former represents the enduring body of interests and power blocs which usually have a definitive influence on policy, while the latter is the elected government in Washington.
Lapham was trying to make the point that, on issues of major importance, the provisional government is not going to be able to buck the permanent government. On relatively marginal matters, such as gay marriage, the permanent government has no investment, and policies can evolve democratically, without interference.
However, when it comes to core policies, especially those which impact the distribution of wealth and income, the permanent government stands its ground, and change is usually stifled. This is why hedge fund managers are likely to continue to receive their tax preferences, and why real reform of our health insurance system is unlikely.
So John Edwards' campaign for reform is doomed, and Kucinich's call for people to vote is irrelevant. The system we have is the one we're going to continue to have, regardless of how many Democrats sit in the Congress, or who occupies the White House.
Paul Krugman says it well in Monday's NYTimes "The Substance Thing" http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html?hp
He compares Clinton's campaign so far unfavorably with the 2000 campaign. The media and the voters paid more attention to Bush's demeanor and apparent likability and paid little attention to his policy proposals, which even then were "irresponsible and dishonest." (Of course, Gore actually won the vote, nonetheless.)
Krugman says that in contrast to Edwards and Obama Clinton has been "evasive."
The qualities of honesty and intelligence are the ones we should heed.
As for the picture of Clinton, WTF indeed! Is a campaign a beauty contest??
Poco: One word in the following sarcastic sentence belies that claim.
"Not one story about the amazingly effective democrat congress."
Kucinich said:
"Why don't people vote? It's because they don't think there is much of a difference between the two parties."
Saying people perceive no difference and saying there IS no difference are not the same thing. I think I just read Glenn Greenwald this morning talking about this very issue - that Democrats have failed to distinguish themselves from Republicans in the public eye. We elected them to stop the war and restore our liberties, and they continually disappoint us. Even those of us who believe there is a profound difference between the two parties can see that the end result of all this Bush-pandering on the things that matter will be mass hopelessness. At the end of the day, what most people see is that they're all just politicians playing their little games, and hardly any of them seem to believe as deeply as we do in the things that matter.
For my part, I would not go so far as to say that there is no difference between the two parties. It's just that there isn't enough difference to make a difference. Personally, I see that as a natural result of an outmoded system of representation. But if that was part of Kucinich's point, I guess we never got to hear it, because apparently people are still too bitter about Nader 'stealing' the 2000 election to hear a damn thing.
'a John Belushi impersonator and a chocolate fondue waterfall at the top of the Stratosphere casino'????. Is that blogger code for strippers and cocaine or does a John Belushi impersonator and a chocolate fondue waterfall at the top of the Stratosphere casino really influence that much? Perplexing...amusing yet perplexing. Good to see the effect the l.b has on these candidates, its gives them a kick in the arse Ive been waiting to see.
I'm a pretty devoted reader, and I have seen several features on Hillary and Obama, but the only feature article I've noticed so far on Edwards was an interview with the candidate's wife. There have even been interviews with Richardson, Biden and Lieberman. Will Salon be giving Edwards a chance too?
Essentially got Bush reelected in 2004.
If Kerry won 2004, things would be better right now, because Democrats and Republicans are different. Our electorial process may suck. The two party system may suck. Campaign financing sucks. Lobbying sucks. Both parties are plagued by these problems equally, but that does not makke them the same. They are different.
If the Supreme Court had not unjustly appointed Bush as President back in 2000, we would not be in the middle of this war in Iraq. Furthermore, I'm not even sure 9-11 would've even happened, since I firmly believe that if Gore had been handed a memo about Bin Laden determined to attack the US, he would've read it! Even if 9-11 DID happen, I believe Gore would have cought Bin Laden by now (almost six years later). Global Warming would not be considered a hoax. Shall I keep going?
I think the reason Kucinich was booed was because he spoke the truth, and sometimes the truth hurts. In 2004, I had so many people tell me Kerry was no different than Bush, and every time I heard it I couldn't believe my ears. What a crazy thing to say after everything that has happened. It blows my mind everytime I hear it, and it is still being said all the time!
Melthough said it well, but I'll add something to it. Those of us who believe there's little difference between the parties are talking not about what they believe or what they say but about what would happen if they were in office. Look again at Greenwald's post today: a Democratic-led Congress just pass this this FISA "reform" that is not only apalling but utterly Republican in nature. Why work to put Democrats in power if they're going to do what Republicans would do?
I think it's quite possible that if Gore had become president, he would have invaded Iraq just as Bush did, not because he believed in it but because the Republican-led Congress (and the media) would have forced him to do it and he wouldn't want to appear weak. If Hillary Clinton gets elected in 2008, I'm not convinced that she won't invade Iran simply because the Republicans and the media will put pressure on her to do so, and she won't want to appear weak. If this sound crazy to you, look at the FISA bill Congress just passed!
This Congress has the opportunity to show us that they really are different from Republicans, rather than just saying so. I'm still waiting.
P.S. It's worth repeating what Kucinich said: "Why don't people vote? It's because they don't think there is much of a difference between the two parties." He's absolulety correct, and that's quite different from stating his own beliefs about the difference, and if this statement elicits boos and mockery from Democrats, then God help us.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
