I read part of a post at Daily Kos earlier. The gist of it, I guess it was the gist cause I got bored reading it after the first two paragraphs, was that it complained of Democrats taking positions that weren't Democrat positions.
With all due respect to the Daily Kos cotributor that contributed that article, this Democrat isn't a mindless sheep waiting for any self appointed leader or "conscience" of my party to tell me what to think.
The Democratic Party and Progressive movement in general should not be tied to one mindset. It is the republicans that believe in a rigid set of rules and blind obedience. They're the ones that demand "purity tests" of it's members. My party wants government to help make lives better. The republican party wants government to go away so it's wealthiest and most powerful benefactors can continue to put the shaft to America like Ken Lay and Enron without fear of government interference.
There is no reason the Democratic Party can't be the party of fiscal responsiblity. Especially since we are the party of fiscal responsibility.
The republicans have successfully bamboozeled millions into thinking it's the party of national security. Two wars and occupations unfinished by Bush. The Walter Reed scandal proved they care not about our Veterans. These jokers are high in their praise for generals that obey stupid orders without question while firing generals like Shinseki who spoke the truth.
There is room in my party for all points of view. One issue won't blind us to the evils of a candidate as it does republicans.
Most views, whether they be guns, religion, abortion or defense are fully reconcilable with the Democrats view of the role of government. The republicans have two unwritten rules regarding theirs: Will it keep the base of religious zealots, bigots and homophobes in the fold. And will it make our rich benefactors richer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Gee Whiz Truth - once again you nailed it. I get a feeling of what it's all about when I read your blog. (do you ever read mine?)
Fabulous Truth! The "purity test", Isn't that a big smelly crock 'o shit!! Everything about the rethug party stinks. I just don't get the BLIND loyalty.
Great post Truth!
There is room in my party for all points of view. One issue won't blind us to the evils of a candidate as it does republicans.
Huzzah! Know what the bitch of it is? The diversity makes us harder than cats to herd.
What would be nice though, in the first year of a Democratic Administration, ALL Democrats in Congress give the guy a helping hand, a leg up, just for a year, then go about the business of being individuals.
Holte you are so right on that one. Obama deserves the support from every member, there are too many important issues confronting us this year.
Holte: That would be ideal in an ideal world, but . . . We are the party of diverse ideas, which as hard as it is to come together sometimes, beats the heck out of being robots who shake their heads on cue, where none of the women wear pant-suits at the convention, who have to sign loyalty oaths, and where we all have to look and think alike. How boring. (Sorry for the run-on sentence)
LOL on the Kim K picture and quote!!
Much of this is about what is fundamentally right or wrong. The other side consistently takes the position against humankind. We are better people for that!
This reminds me of the blather about Liberal Party "principles" here in Canada. Sorry, but the Canadian Libs and the U.S. Dems are generally amorphous in their politics. They don't have "philosophies" or "ideologies" to make them consistent. In fact, adherents to both parties tend to use the word "ideological" as an insult, as if having a framework for analysis or a coherent worldview is a bad thing.
I can't tell if I'm being lectured or insulted Stimpson.
Hopefully I'm clear when I say republicans adhere to a misleading and deluded ideology. Their actions tell us what they are. Sadly, a big chunk of the population only cares about the 20 second soundbites they get from Limbaugh and not the reality of republican actions.
"Huzzah! Know what the bitch of it is? The diversity makes us harder than cats to herd."--BeeKeepers A.
Yes! We have conservative Dems like Ben Nelson and Max Baucus in our party and then there're the lefty lefties like Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold.
Name one liberal Republican Senator--Collins? I don't think so after her latest attack on President Obama and terrorism, Olympia Snowe? Urm, no. She will not support the Dems health care reform.
The Republicans are lock-step ideologues, and will not accommodate anyone who doesn't pass a "purity test." That sounds like something a totalitarian regime would impose on its members.
How many African-American Senators from the GOP are in the Senate?
House members?
And yet I've heard many conservatives blame their lack of diversity on their assumption that our African American citizens are being kept dependent on liberal policies and so they don't know enough to switch parties.
I can't tell you how many times I have pointed out to people who say such things as an explanation for why very, very few A.A.s are in the GOP how stupidly racist that sounds. That idea implies that A.A. citizens aren't smart enough to know when they are being duped by a political party. And since about 98% of our A.A. citizens vote with the Dems, the GOPers who express this are implying that they are all too dumb to know what's good for them?
Awful. Just awful. And it sure ain't the Liberal Democrats sending around those racist emails and photos Leslie Parsley documented on her blog.
Neither lectured nor insulted, Truth. Just stating the facts.
To go deeper into what you say, I think my side needs people that are better at demonizing the right than the right has people that are good at demonizing the left.
I've tried for the job but for some reason have never been able to land it full time.
Shaw said: I can't tell you how many times I have pointed out to people who say such things as an explanation for why very, very few A.A.s are in the GOP how stupidly racist that sounds. That idea implies that A.A. citizens aren't smart enough to know when they are being duped by a political party. And since about 98% of our A.A. citizens vote with the Dems, the GOPers who express this are implying that they are all too dumb to know what's good for them?
Right on, Shaw, that's exactly why there are very few african americans in the republican party - because they're not stupid, and they know the GOP thinks they are just that.
There is room for everyone in the Democratic Party?
How about those Blue Dogs like Landrieu,Nelson and Blanche Lincoln that will sell their souls for a few pieces of gold...or a big ole Medicare payoff inserted into the Health reform bill, in order to get them to vote for the bill itself?
Well said, Truth. Organizing Democrats is like herding cats, because thinking people don't want to be restricted to a particular mindset. I have a way of frustrating both those who think Obama can do no wrong and those who think he can do no right. I'm in his corner, not his pocket. I trust many progressives are like me in this, while Republicans seem content to goose-step behind the Fuhrer de jour
Dusty wrote: "How about those Blue Dogs like Landrieu,Nelson and Blanche Lincoln that will sell their souls for a few pieces of gold...or a big ole Medicare payoff inserted into the Health reform bill, in order to get them to vote for the bill itself?"
Dusty. Seriously. Are you just learning how Washington DC politics work? Every single piece of legislation that has ever been passed has had a component of "We'll give you this if you give us your support."
How do you not know that? Republicans are not virgins when it comes to horse trading like what happened with Landrieu and Nelson.
I'm sure Obama would love to be able to change that, but because of separation of powers, he can't tell the Senate or the House how to do their business. He can criticize it, but he can't stop it.
Dusty. Seriously. Are you just learning how Washington DC politics work? Every single piece of legislation that has ever been passed has had a component of "We'll give you this if you give us your support." ~ Excuse me, but just because it's 'always been done like that' doesn't mean it's correct or an acceptable practice to me or others.
In my humble yet vocal opinion, it smacks of bribery and fuckery..and should not be accepted as the norm.
You notice that most of us progressives gave Landrieu and Nelson hell for their "fuckery" Dusty.
Nelson is sorry for his blackmail attempt. Landrieu needs to learn to stop pandering to repblicans. Republican Bush is the one that said "Heck of a job Brownie." Louisiana won't forget that.
Good afternoon Truth.
Nelson was sorry only after his blackmail was outed by the press.
Truth,
I love reading your blog. It is an exercise in liberal orthodoxy and that is endearing. I also love that you are locked in to the Dems and their rhetoric about their big tent.
I posted an article about the Ohio Secretary of State race. As I said, this isn't a backwater state race for an inconsequential office. It sets the congressional districts for the next ten years. It's pure power politics.
Rep. Garrison was forced by the state Dem party to withdraw because she didn't follow the party line on abortion and guns etc.
Please don't reside in your comfort zone. Remember, all politics is about power.
Good day sir.
You ain't talkin to no cherry here Law Teacher. Nobody understands the ultimate goal more than I do. Smart leaders incorporate the views of their followers into the solution. They also reward them and punish their enemies.
I don't know how it works in Ohio but Illinois Democrats would do well to remember this.
Everyone is sorry when they get caught Dusty. I think Nelson will be penitent.
"There is no reason the Democratic Party can't be the party of fiscal responsiblity. Especially since we are the party of fiscal responsibility."
Bill Clinton ran the budget into the red for each of his 8 years, and added $1.6 trillion to the debt. Obama is really into deficit spending. Before these two there's Carter, and he's really rather long ago, so I'm not going into him.
But if you look at budget matters, you can't call the Dems the party of fiscal responsibility. The best you can get (based on Clinton) is to call it "the party that is a little less fiscally irresponsible".
Sure, digging the debt hole $1.6 trillion deeper is not as bad as what Bush did after Clinton. But to call it "responsible"? That's a real huge stretch.
dmarks:
U.S. budget deficits and surpluses
Annual budget deficit grew in GHW Bush years, shrank in Clinton years until there were surpluses, grew in to record deficits in GWB years.
"Bill Clinton ran the budget into the red for each of his 8 years" = falsehood
Truth: Just to clarify, I intended no insult against you. I was simply commenting on the nature of political parties. I understood your post to be commenting on "blindness" not ideology.
And just in case you want to quibble with the methodology or whatever, here's a chart from another source:
Surpluses and Deficits
Again, surpluses in Clinton years, deficits in Bush years.
Relax Stimpson. I rattle off a post in about three minutes. It doesn't always come out as clear as I would like.
I guess I could just post my stuff at MadMike's or American Nihilist, or The Wulfshead so Repsac, Bartender and MadMike would have to edit them before letting them go online. But then I would lose the flavor of my lack of proper grammer and syntax.
Blue collar blogging is my specialty.
Hey Dmarks: Stimpson just punked you man. You gonna take that or are you going to stand up and misremember some other stuff to?
Shaw said: The Republicans are lock-step ideologues, and will not accommodate anyone who doesn't pass a "purity test."
Well I guess that explains why I ain't one of them those.
The irony of what you talk about, Shaw, is that not one of those people would "voluntarily" lunch or socialize or play golf or whatever with an A.A. unless they thought they could get a vote out of them for their candidate. "I'm not prejudiced, but . . ."
Thanks for mentioning the piece on racism.
Truth; He didn't punk me. The supposed Clinton surplus was smoke and mirrors, because the debt kept getting higher for eight solid years.
Clinton ran the country into the read for each of his years, as evidenced by the constant actual debt increase. I didn't misread anything, as I am capable of checking to see the debt go up in each of the 8 years.
Also, even assuming the cooked numbers for the last budget or two, what is the total effect? Clinton adding $1.6 trillion to the debt. The supposed surplus amount hardly makes a dent on this. I defy anyone to call that "responsible". And in case someone says that Bush was worse... so what... I already pointed that out in a previous comment.
By the way, this page shows the debt year by year. The second chart shows the actual amount of debt, always increasing in the Clinton years, even if it only slows at the end. The third chart alters the real dollar figuresd, but even this one shows that overall the debt soared under Clinton.
Sure, Bush and the Republicans were worse. But do you honestly think that it is possible to spin the $1.6 trillion debt increase under Clinton as "responsible"?
I think you're confusing year by year budget deficit with total deficits from the start of the charts Dmarks. Clinton had 4 budgets with surpluses. How many did the republicans have again?
No, I am looking at the increase in the national debt, which was constant during all of Clinton's 8 years.
Here's the national debt at the end of each of the Clinton years, from the US Treasury. The smoke and mirrors of a claimed surplus runs into the cold hard fact of the debt going up constantly.
(year, debt, yrs defecit)
FY1994 $4.6 trillion, $281 billion
FY1995 $4.9 trillion, $281 billion
FY1996 $5.2 trillion, $250 billion
FY1997 $5.4 trillion, $188
FY1998 $5.5 trillion, $113 billion
FY1999 $5.6 trillion, $130 billion
FY2000 $5.6 trillion, $17.9 billion
FY2001 $5.8 trillion, $133 billion
------------
"How many did the republicans have again?"
Same as Clinton: 0. Hey, the low $17 billion dollar deficit in Clinton's last full year is pretty good... relative to the others. But it's a drop in the bucket even to the other defecits he ran up in his other years.
You still haven't convinced me that adding $1.6 trillion to the debt is "responsible", even if it is not as bad as what George W. Bush did.
"The republicans have two unwritten rules regarding theirs: Will it keep the base of religious zealots, bigots and homophobes in the fold. And will it make our rich benefactors richer."
Ouch! Glad I am not a Republican.
But then again, I am thinking that not all Republican's fall into the "broad brush stroke" as defined by your words sbove.
And what of indendent minded conservatives How would you define them?
I have come to learn that not all progressivs fit the stereotypical description of "socialist."
Athough they do tend to be statist as do many on the right. Different tune perhaps, same result in the end.
Call me a radical for individualism, capitalism, and a fine wine with a good cigar!
Should I ever find myself in your part of the country I would be honored to drink fine wine to capitalism and enjoy a good cigar with you RN.
What a great resource!
Post a Comment