|  |
| Author |
The Decline and Fall of the Democratic Party |
Guest
Unregistered User |  Posted: Jun 06, 2005 - 01:55 PM |
Another piece of the traditional DNC base exits the party like a CA mudslide:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-schnur6jun06,0,3725636.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
| | |
RyantheGreat
Posts: 60 | Posted: Jun 06, 2005 - 01:56 PM |
yeah "global warming!"
What nonsense, I mean... frankly, I think mountains look better naked, and that way, we can take "snow capped" out of the lyrics...
global warming.. phah... next the egg heads'll tell us we're all evolved from monkeys... as if!!!
Thank goodness I know the earth is only four thousand years old, and thus, global warming patterns obviously can't be real...
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Jun 09, 2005 - 02:56 PM |
Or maybe the earth is really 50 billion years-old, it would have to be for the probabilities of random mutations and adaptations that would cause inanimate matter to slooooowly evolve into a multitude of life forms to work. Yes, over time, very very long periods of time, order can come forth from randomness and ciaos. To the point that it appears that it was designed, but it wasn't. We all know that as time goes on things refine and get better instead of breaking down and getting worse. forget rust and corrosion. Why look at all of the species that are constantly being added to the earth. Just the other day a 747 was found in the jungle where a transistor radio was dropped 60 years ago. Remarkable!
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Jun 09, 2005 - 06:07 PM |
Ahhh...nothing quite like citing the absurd to argue your point, eh Guest?
Come on...get with the program. This is debate, not playground antics.
Besides, we all know the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle, babies come from storks, and Pat Robertson is the Second Coming of Christ. As if, indeed!
Snarkily yours,
Stick out
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Jun 10, 2005 - 08:28 AM |
Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder Mr. Stickman.
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Jun 10, 2005 - 11:57 PM |
I calls 'em like I beholds 'em.
Stick out
| | |
nicrivera
Posts: 235 | Posted: Sep 11, 2005 - 02:49 AM |
It's late at night (or early in the morning), so I'll keep this one short.
Lately, I've been doing a lot of thinking (which can be a dangerous thing) regarding what is to become of our nation's foreign policy and the War on Terrorism that we have supposedly been fighting for the last four years.
Yet, if there's one thing that confounds me as much as Bush's insistence that we continue his misguided adventure in Iraq, it's the Democratic Party's continued refusal to develop a semi-coherent foreign policy.
Here's something that ought to disturb those of you who, like me, opposed the invasion of Iraq. Despite the fact that public opinion has been turning against the war, the leading Democratic contenders for president in 2008 are Senators Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden, both of whom have remained steadfast supporters of the war despite the growing realization of the American public that the administration's purported justifications for invading Iraq didn't exactly pan out and that the post invasion planning has been rather abysmal. Rather than admit to their constituents that they were wrong to have supported the admininistration's Iraq War Resolution in the fall of 2002, these pro-war Democrats have called for MORE troops to be sent to Iraq and have even criticized proposals by fellow Democrats who have advocated a military withdrawal from Iraq. As the Republicans scramble to decide who is to become to successor to their Dear Leader, Democrats are faced with the growing possibility of a 2008 primary which pits Hillary Clinton against an antiwar maverick such as Russ Feingold. And just as Kerry was able to play upon pro-war sentiment and use Republican talking points against Howard Dean to disbatch his political opponent, we can expect Clinton to make national security a central issue of her campaign as she makes political mincemeat of Feingold.
And here's the sad part. All of the Democrats who have been denouncing the Iraq War for the last two and a half years will flock to Hillary Clinton and proclaim her the savior of the Democratic Party, seemingly oblivious to the fact that she, like Bush, was responsible for a war that sent a couple thousand American soldiers to their deaths and claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. We can expect Clinton and the DLC to advertise the fact that the Bush administration STILL has not apprended Osama Bin Laden, and instead of arguing for a more humble and realistic foreign policy that rejects the naive notions of the current administration's War on Terrorism, Clinton and the DLC will argue that the War on Terrorism was not fought HARD ENOUGH and that it would had succeeded had Bush not bungled it all up.
The seeds have already been planted for such a scenario. The Democrats have been unified in their opposition to Bush but fractured in their opposition to the Iraq War. Bush's poll numbers have plummeted, and yet he still receives some of his highest marks for his handling of the War on Terrorism, meaning that this issue is rich for mining by the Democrats. Democrats such as Kucinich and Dean who have spoken out against the Iraq War from the very beginning, instead of being vindicated by the whole Iraq War debacle, will continue to be deemed by the DLC as being hopelessly lost in the "political wilderness" while Michael Moore and Moveon.org will have found new issues to exploit and lost what little credibility they had.
Let this be a warning to you all. A significant portion of the Democratic Party has already decided that a hawkish foreign policy is just fine with them so long as the Commander in Chief is a member of their party, and we can only expect more Democrats to join their ranks as someone like Clinton or Biden draws nearer to clinching the Democratic nomination. We live in a world in which a politician can call for a more humble foreign policy and an end to nation building one minute and then assert that he will use pre-emptive war to reshape the Middle East only two years later--and still be regarded credibly by his political base. How many Democrats who have been critical of the current war will abandon their principles and support a pro-war Democrat in 2008?
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Sep 12, 2005 - 08:10 AM |
Well stated, Nic. Here here!
The concept of a Democrat (Lieberman) using that line about "failed policies of the past" (a Republicanism if there ever was one) against other Democrats is both significant and downright weird.
Strange days, indeed.
The "obvious" Democratic leaders who may or may not take a stab at the White House in '08 did indeed support the rush to war and bought the Bush administration's lies hook, line, and sinker. Bush essentially stuck our tallywacker into a trap that's far more painful to escape than it was to get in. Now what? What IS a responsible leadership position on Iraq? Pull out? Go in even deeper? Accellerate "Iraqi-ization" (say, doesn't that sound vaguely like "Vietnamization?" Oh, no...sorry...my mistake. I keep forgetting that Iraq is not Vietnam. I should really pay attention to Scott McClelland and Dick Cheney.
You have to give Bush & Co. credit, though. There's really no way to oppose current Iraq policy without being branded a traitor, "weak on terrorism," or half-crazy for suggesting that we send even more troops. Brilliant! They've effectively silenced their critics.
Stick out
| | |
nicrivera
Posts: 235 | Posted: Dec 07, 2005 - 11:38 PM |
Senator Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law:
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _ though she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.
Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject.
Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last summer, when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation making it a crime to desecrate the flag.
In her public statements, she has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law.
The Bennett-sponsored measure outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property.
Section 3 of this bill, S. 1911, reads as follows:
SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST USE FOR PROMOTING VIOLENCE.
(a) In General- Section 700 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 700. Incitement; damage or destruction of property involving the flag of the United States
`(a) Definition of Flag of the United States- In this section, the term `flag of the United States' means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, in any size, in a form that is commonly displayed as a flag and that would be taken to be a flag by the reasonable observer.
`(b) Actions Promoting Violence- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
`(c) Flag Burning- Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.
`(d) Damaging a Flag Belonging to the United States- Any person who steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to the United States, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
`(e) Damaging a Flag of Another on Federal Land- Any person who, within any lands reserved for the use of the United States, or under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States, steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to another person, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
`(f) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to indicate an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, or possession of the United States, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The chapter analysis for chapter 33 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 700 and inserting the following:
`700. Incitement; damage or destruction of property involving the flag of the United States.'.
Well, that about does it for me.
There was no way that I was going to vote for an opportunistic militarist Democrat in the first place, but after reading about Senator Clinton's latest political stunt, I will now make it my business to actively encourage EVERY Democrat that I know NOT to vote for Senator Clinton come primary season. And should the inevitable occur, and Senator Clinton be coronated as the Democratic Presidential candidate, I will be only too happy to vote for the Libertarian candidate in the general election, confident that there is no such thing as "the lesser of two evils" . . . just two evils.
It's bad enough having "I'm more patriotic than you are" Republicans performing their biennial riatual of sponsoring anti-flag-burning amendments, but for a Democrat to sponsor anti-flag-burning in the form of hate-crime legislation is just nauseating. This is blind opportunism as its worst.
Flag burning laws and hate-crime laws are unjust, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. Any Democrat or Republican who passes either of these laws is utterly ignorant of the ideals upon which this nation was founded upon.
I could go on about how just wrong this bill (and the idea of trying to criminalize expression, thoughts, or the desecration of one's own property) is, but I don't care to get myself worked up about this now. I'll expound more on this subject at a later time.
| | |
nicrivera
Posts: 235 | Posted: Aug 11, 2006 - 11:27 PM |
RE: Senator Lieberman
American politics is in a constant state of flux, but certain axioms remain true, and one of those axioms is that INCUMBENTS DON'T LOSE. This is especially true in the House of Representatives (where incumbents have the advantage of having congressional districts gerrymandered in their favor) where 95% of incumbents regularly win back their seats. And even in the more "violatile" Senate (where gerrymandering doesn't play a factor), the rate of incumbent re-election remains fairly high (around 89% in recent years). And with it being this rare for an incumbent to lose his seat in a general election against a member of the opposite party, then you can imagine how uncommon it is for an incumbent to lose a primary election against a member of his own party.
Thus, when three-term senator and former vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman was challenged by political neophyte Ned Lamont in March of 2006, there was little reason to suspect that Mr. Lieberman was in any danger of losing his Senate seat.
But when relative unknown Ned Lamont received 33% of the votes during the convention in May of 2006 (more than twice the amount needed to force a runoff against Lieberman), suddenly Lieberman's seat become competitive, setting into a motion a nationally televised race between a pro-war Democrat and an anti-war Democrat. What resulted was an extremely polarizing election campaign in which pro-war and anti-war Democrats denounced one another while pro-war Republicans, neoconservatives (pro-war, Big Government conservatives), and Christian Coaltion agitator-turned-Democratic Leadership Council member Marshall Wittman, used this race as an opportunity to denounce the anti-war left. Neoconservative pundit David Brooks even went as far as to suggest that the netroots-backed movement to unseat Lieberman was nothing short of a liberal inquisition against a politician who dares to "distrust ideological purity" and who "[rebels] against movement groupthink" (interestingly, Mr. Brooks never denounced conservative pundits and bloggers for their "inquisition" of antiwar liberals whom they branded as "Saddam apologists" and "unAmerican"). Comedy Central's Steven Colbert had a rather interesting reply to Mr. Brooks' remark.
I've always held that if Democrats are going to demand accountability from President Bush and the Republicans for the Iraq War, they ought to be honest enough to also demand accountability from members of their own party who voted in favor of the war and still have not apologized for their lapse in judgement. Thus, I was only too pleased when Democrats began to demand answers from Lieberman for his fervent support for the war.
Now, I don't think Lieberman is a bad guy. I never cared for his views on social policy, but I appreciated his more centrist views on fiscal policy. I even voted for him and Gore in 2000 (not one of my proudest votes), but I pretty much lost any respect that I had for Lieberman when he attacked fellow Democrats for not supporting the war, and more or less mimicked the mindless rhetoric of pro-war partisans when he argued:
It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril.
Zell Miller was wrong during the 2004 Republican Convention to insinuate that it is unAmerican to attack a president's policies during wartime, and Lieberman was just as wrong for his remarks.
Thus, I was pleased when Lamont challenged Lieberman primarily over the issue of Lieberman's support for the Iraq War. Yet, as I grew to learn more and more about Lamont, I realized that this "pro-war Democrat versus anti-war Democrat" matchup was shaping up to be more of a "Warfare-State Democrat versus Welfare-State Democrat." It seems that you just can't win with the Democratic Party. Just when you think you've found a Democrat who is willing to embrace more centrist, free-market-based fiscal policies (i.e. Lieberman and the DLC), you find out that he's a closet warmonger. And just when you think you've found a Democrat who is willing to stand up against our disastrous foreign policies, (i.e. Lamont and progressives), you find out that he's a Big Government type on fiscal policy.
So, while I'm pleased with Lieberman's defeat and hope that it will serve as a wakeup call to the Democratic Party to stop pandering to the pro-war crowd on issues of national security, I'm not very optimistic about Lamont. Once you strip away the war issue, you're basically left with a fabulously wealthy Big Government Democrat who claims to be fighting for a underclass voters who have little in common with him.
Still, it's been entertaining, to say the least, to hear the reaction coming from the mainstream media and the blogosphere following Lieberman's defeat during last Tuesdays primary. Republican pundits and bloggers have predictably proclaimed that Lamont's victory spells the end for the Democratic Party and that it is a gift to the Republican Party. Indeed, even our friends at the Centerfield Blog couldn't help but shower Lieberman with praise while denouncing Lamont and proclaiming that the Democratic Party has become a "malignant cancer that will do grave harm to this country."
Yikes! And that comes not from a conservative, but a "centrist."
These days, it's hard to find indepent analysis that steers clear of the Democratic and Republican talking points that are repeated ad nauseum throughout the blogosphere. Most libertarian blogs that I've come across haven't commented a whole lot on the Lieberman versus Lamont race, or else their assessment is the same "a pox on both your houses" type of reply that I've came to expect from libertarians who, like me, are unhappy with both the Democrats and Republicans and detest our current two-party system.
Libertarian Radley Balko actually offered a pretty good assessment of the Lieberman versus Lamont race and its fallout:
Lieberman
Good riddance.
Look, Lieberman is a likeable guy (in the same way, as the lefty bloggers have noted, that Willie Tanner was). But he embodies so much of what's wrong with Washington. He's the prototypical David Broder candidate, a big government liberal who's willing to engage in magnanimous gestures of bipartisanship . . . on issues where Republicans also support big government. So he's cool with bombing and nation building, and state-sponsored health care. He's okay with government censorship of video games and cable TV, and heavy-handed regulation of business.
Golly. What a moderate!
In other words, he's wrong on every issue. He's a culture warrior, a values cop, a Nanny Statist, and a big government foreign policy hawk. He favors high taxes, and a massive welfare state. He's pro-pork, pro-status quo, and pro-business as usual.
So the choice for Connecticut was between a culture warrior, foreign policy imperialist, and welfare statist; and a socially liberal, dovish, welfare statist. I know who I'd have voted for.
Let's also cut this crap about Ned Lamont's position on the war being "fringe" or "extremist." More than 60 percent of Americans now think the Iraq war was a mistake. Fifty-six percent think we should set a timetable for withdrawal. That's the American public at large. I'd imagine the bulk of Democrats in Connecticut skew much more dovish. It's the hawks' increasingly untenable position of support for a trillion dollar war that's now claiming 100 Iraqi civilians per day that's now at the margins, not Ned Lamont's . . .
| | |
|
|
|
|
