Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » What Democrats Have Done

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: What Democrats Have Done
KenBean
Member
Member # 603

 - posted      Profile for KenBean   Email KenBean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi Folks

In my mind, the most apparent thing the Democrats have done lately, is loose a midterm election in grand style.

The reason for that is that the entire political spectrum has shifted to embrace THE VERY IDEALS THE DEMOCRATS ONCE HELD AS A PARTY.

Snowden speaks about education...but Dubya is the man who ran for President as "The Education Candidate" His wife's primary focus is education also. (Of course all that was before 9-11, but true nonetheless.)

Dubya gave his acceptance speech to the Governorship of Texas...IN SPANISH! It was his way of offering respect and dignity to our hispanic population.

These are simply meant to be examples of my primary thesis. Over the years, the Democrats like Roosevelt and Kennedy broke some new ground, to the benefit of all Americans. They decided that the government has a rightful duty to help Americans help themselves...to create an environment of "HOPE", and economic mobility for hard work done well.

Bottom line, in my mind the Republican Party sits pretty much in the center of where the Democrats took us in their days of greatness.

I honestly feel that the Democrats have moved left beyond the comfort zone of half of the American people, and they are in danger of moving even further left TO SIMPLY BE DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENCE SAKE...

Give the Devil his due...Clinton understood that. He also understood that it wasn't all the array of social services that the black Americans wanted.....but simply human dignity and respect. I truly do believe That is the reason he was called our first black President.

I think dubya might someday be called our "Second Black President...who is simply color blind".

Gore got the coattail effect on Clinton's rep, but Gore is no Clinton. At his best he is patronizing for power's sake.

I read Mr. Card's column where he identifies himself as a democrat. Like me though, he probably finds himself voting Republican a lot.

The problem Democrats face is that no "LEADERS" have emerged lately from within their ranks.

In addition they want to federalise everything, leaving the various States to muddle around with non-critical issues.

Finally, the Democrats in the government FORGOT we really are in a war. oops.

"progressive elements" equals communists in sheep's clothing. They want everyone a nuetral grade of gray except themselves with their brilliant solutions for the rest of us.

Best regards
ken Bean


Posts: 1539 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tried to wriet a response, but I'm so incoherent right now it was a mess. Perhaps tomorrow
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually this is as clear as I have ever seen you Ev.
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ken, I disagree.

President Bush asked the Democrats to support him. For the most part, they did. It wasn't enough -- Leahy and Daschle managed to block things that Bush felt needed to get done. So Bush went to the American people and said -- "send me allies." We are in a time of war, so the Democrats did not fight back wholeheartedly. The Americans, for the most part, trusted in their president and sent Bush the allies that he asked for.

Now Bush has to deliver. If he squanders our trust in order to push tax cuts for the rich & other items that he did not campaign on, he will be seen as having taken advantage of the American trust during a time of crisis. On the other hand, if he uses this power to win the war, create a lasting peace, and end the recession, then most of us will hopefully have the balls to acknowledge that our trust was well-placed.

Times of crises like these are not the right time for people to fight over the leadership, Ken. I would rather give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt and say that they deferred at political cost to themselves, just as many Republicans did to FDR during world war II. May history reward them for it.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm gonna try here a bit, and fix this up later, I suppose.

"Snowden speaks about education...but Dubya is the man who ran for President as "The Education Candidate"

The education candidate is all for a whole slew of educational systems that, in my mind, are economy motivated, rather then intellect motivated. If our primary goal is to educate children so they can be members of the word force, Bush's plan is good. If our goal is to get children interested in knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and the joy of learning, then we need a different system, one that truly "leaves no child behind."

"Bottom line, in my mind the Republican Party sits pretty much in the center of where the Democrats took us in their days of greatness."

I disagree, as I see the GOP still working towards an oligarchichal society, working from the viewpoint that americans are the only people who are really people, and working on the belief that problems will disapear if we don't try to fix them.

A progressive party works to give everyone an equal voice, believes in the basic dignity of everyone, regardless of nationality, and that problems need to be addressed in a real manner.

The GOP tends to be blind towards the fact that racial prejudice is real, that people who work hard and do well aren't necessarily earning a fair wage for what they do, and that the french may occassionally have a legitimate gripe. (Incidentally, great cartoon in a french newspaper at one point. Bush giving one of his speeches "Either you are with us, or you are french.")

In a similar vein, there are real concerns among many americans that the GOP is far too hawkish, even if some of the military actions occuring are necessary. We feel that the government is LOOKING for wars, rather then looking for peace, and building an economy based on war.

Essentially, I'm disagreeing that the GOP is in the center of where the progressive parties have been.

I also disagree that the DNP has moved too far to the left for the comfort zone of many people. Rather, I think its not distinctly far enough left on most issues. When politicians talk about our current military actions and impending actions, none of them are taking the liberal ground. Or rather, Ted Kennedy is all alone. When we hear talk about the economy, there are no great initiatives proposed by either party. Rather, all we hear about are tax cuts and how those should be shaped. We don't hear about the creation of new jobs by government initiative, or how to get better job security for those americans who do have a job, or how to protect the assets of blue collar workers. The DNP has shifted too far to the RIGHT for the core voters, the voters who this week voted green or independent, or libertarian. There is no distinctive voice, because the GOP and the DNP have merged their traditional voices, to the point where the GOP has the only real distinct position that is popular. Cutting taxes sounds nice, and given no real alternative that sounds BETTER, people vote for it.
Which is where we are now. We have two parties, one mild, one extreme, with the same position on everything, other then taxes. And on taxation, the DNP hasn't put forth any strong proposals for the use of government funds, so the GOP wins with its message of tax slashing.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Baldar-
Thats because when someone disagrees with you, your eyes cloud over and you stop reading.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL, usually when someone disagrees with me, their wrong.
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thats what I mean, Baldar. You're so convinced you're right on every issue, you just ignore what anyone else says. Or, rather, you pretend you know their argument before you've understood what they are saying, and reject it as you create an argument you've heard before. Most of the time, you respond to the wrong argument. You don't have a monopoly on truth, but you BELIEVE you do, and thats a huge blindspot.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't ignore it, its just that I have usually heard it before. I don't have a monopoly on the truth (rhetoric Ev), but I have considered my positions with much more thought than most have. I appreciate the attempt to make me the center of attention but it certainly doesn't do much for the thread (and I am accused of attacking people instead of ideas ).
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Bugaboo of racial politics Ev raises was trounced by this last election. Blacks and Hispanics aren't the voting bloc's that are taken for granted by democrats anymore.
quote:

“The key strategy that the Democrats have had for at least 10 years is to scare black folk into believing that the Republicans are the party of racists -- that dog did not hunt in these elections,” said Niger Innis, spokesman for the Congress on Racial Equality in New York.


Rosalind Gold, a spokeswoman for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, said that Hispanic loyalty to either party couldn't be taken for granted, that these voters “are still making their decisions about their political allegiances.” As a matter of fact republicans credit the hispanic vote for getting Jeb Bush re-elected and Rick Perry as gov. for Texas. In FL 60% of the hispanics voted for Jeb Bush, in New York 50% for Pataki and in Texas 1/3 of the hispanic vote went to Perry. Now that doesn't mean that Republicans have a lock on the hispanic vote. Over all most latinos voted democrat, however it does show the inroads republicans are making with Latino's who, face it, are closer culturally to conservatives than liberals. The exception is here in California where republicans have marginalized themselves by moving to the right instead of being centrist (morons ).

The disturbing thing about the low black turnout in both close races with black democrats and white democrats is probably relfected in the blacks being tired of the democratic race baiting and are thinking more critically of the party they have traditionally supported.

An interesting comment made by Mfume

quote:
Democrats took blacks for granted, but he does not believe that means the GOP has made any inroads with them.

“The Democrats have assumed for a long time what they were doing was enough, and Republicans have assumed for a long time there was no use in trying. Both parties are wrong,” he said.


quote:
I disagree, as I see the GOP still working towards an oligarchichal society, working from the viewpoint that americans are the only people who are really people, and working on the belief that problems will disapear if we don't try to fix them.

A progressive party works to give everyone an equal voice, believes in the basic dignity of everyone, regardless of nationality, and that problems need to be addressed in a real manner.


I can only respond to what I have seen

quote:

A talk radio host has joined the attack on the leading African-American figures in the Bush administration, and drawn fire himself from critics who see his comments as racist.

Just weeks after singer Harry Belafonte slammed Secretary of State Colin Powell, likening the fellow Jamaican-American to a "house slave," Florida's Neil Rogers jumped on the bandwagon with comments about National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart?" a song parody broadcast on Rogers' show says. "Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?"

The song is supposed to be funny, but many say the popular talk-show host has stepped over the line.

Rogers refused to do a regular interview, so Fox News Channel called into his show, which broadcasts on WQAM in Miami, Ft. Lauderdale and Ft. Myers, Fla.



And that is a very large and popular radio show at that. Sounds like a progressive party indeed.

With Nancy Pelozi the democratic party will go ever further left and continue to reduce its effectiveness as a party. I also beleive the dem's will continue to make attempts at race baiting in order to show their "moral superiority" rather than deal with some of the real issues.

In this past election, they had not clear voice, no clear plan, no clear anything and it seems they have chose to isolate themselves further from the center with the choice of Nancy Pelozi as minority leader. Many democratic leaders feel she does not represent the party and it is that very thing that will continue to divide it.


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dyany
Member
Member # 773

 - posted      Profile for dyany     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
me, I'm just anti-party altogether. I see today's political structure with parties as an excuse to stereotype, slander, and create a strong 'us vs. them' feeling in an American people who wouldn't care about politics otherwise. So instead of real issues, we have the 'baby-killing, criminal-loving, terrorist-coddling, tax-raising knee-jerk liberal democrats' vs. the 'gun-toting, grandma-robbing, fat cat war-monger uptight Republicans.' Me, I've never known someone of either party that completely met the stereotype.
Sorry for the rant, guys. I've been sick and it's late and I've lived in Idaho way too long. bleah. that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Dyany


Posts: 47 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In a similar vein, there are real concerns among many americans that the GOP is far too hawkish, even if some of the military actions occuring are necessary. We feel that the government is LOOKING for wars, rather then looking for peace, and building an economy based on war.

OY, Ev, go easy on the indirect usages and passive voice, even if it exposes your honest ambivalence. Do you oppose this war, yes or no? Is it honest or productive to demean Bush for prosecuting a war that you know, in your heart of hearts, that our country needs to fight? Is it reasonable for you to pretend that you can see intents to that degree, and that your assessment of motives is not clouded by political convenience?


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you *are* truly against the war, rather than simply exhibiting squeamishness about making common cause with those whose politics that you abhor, then come right out and say it. Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but you seem to want it both ways.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I had a long discussion with greg, and as it turns out, I'm strongly against war on iraq right NOW. I think we need to explore other options, and many of those are military options short of war. I think war will become necessary in Iraq, but I feel that Bush is seeking that war, rather then trying to avert it.

Likewise, our war on terror is framed in terrible terms that will keep our nations young men in combat for the next 20 years at the very least, because it cannot be won.

And now, Bush seems to be working his way towards war with North Korea, by demanding they disarm before we even talk to them. Umm, excuse me, don't we have a diplomatic corps for a reason?

War should be our LAST resort, Bush is making it about second or third. Thats not enough concern for the effects of war.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The last option. Did you support the first Iraq war to free Kuwait? Was war the last option then? War was certainly not the last option at the beginning of World War II, many were still hoping embargo's would work. Poland was gone, maybe if France had done nothing only the smaller territories would have been taken and Germany would have achieved regional dominance without the war, Germany would certainly have been in place longer and had more time to build its forces. But that would have happened only if War were the last option.

Korea, war could have been the last option there too. I mean, its really just Koreans fighting Koreans. We could have embargoed there too, diplomacy might work, should war have been the last option there?

It is unwise to make war the last option because when its your last option, its often too late to use. Remember forgiveness is easier than permission. It would have been easier for Saddam to seek forgiveness after he had taken Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (or at least part of it) than it would have been to get permission.

It certainly was easier for Hitler to get forgiveness for the Sudatenland than permission.

It is unwise to make war the last option. Leave such rhetoric for those with faint minds, its not a real philosophy that works.


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More people die when you make war the "last resort" in the way that you describe.

Ev, if in 5 years we are at peace with North Korea and the middle east, and Israel is in a safer position, and the threat of terrorism is palpably diminished, will you admit that you were wrong about George Bush?


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KenBean
Member
Member # 603

 - posted      Profile for KenBean   Email KenBean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi back guys

I am so glad I was invited to join this forum.

Everyone of you have made some really clean insights into this thread.

I am a better American for your comments.

That is important to me.

Let me answer some of the differing opinions, and see if there is any more value here.

One of you questioned our "education candidate" on the basis that he is more concerned with the economics oriented education rather than the joy of learning "intellectual" type education.

I agree. I think he understands that until a person has a sense of economic independence, that person just truly doesn't give a s**t about "intellectual facination".

When a person comes to understand that in our society, he/she can become financially independent.................when he/she really smells that reality in their own life..............things take on flavor.

When that person can do that with excellence and smarts...instead of breeding or ancestry, or shotgunning their competition, life takes on a truly nice flavor.

The idea of "an equal voice for everyone" I have a serious problem. Let's face it honestly folks, some voices are simply STUPID! IGNORANT! ANGRY! TERRIFIED! etc.

I want to make a very quiet observation right here. Each of us is in that oligarchy spoken so harshly about by one of you.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US ON THIS FORUM HAVE SOME TIME TO THINK, AND QUESTION, AND ANALYSE.

Some of us have worked pretty dilligently for a number of years to achieve that "time".

Some of us are supported by wealthy parents and we play with ideas for lack of nothing better to do?????

Some of us have decided that the "dumbsh*t"
workaholic parents who are so boring"...somehow owe us a time to be thinkers.

And some of us have layed aside economic security on the alter of understanding.

ON EDUCATION:
I like every kind of education. I like educating kids to be solid,(horror of horrors tax paying) citizens!

I like education that teaches ideas and ideals, and blows gently on the embers of learning stuff for its own sake.

I belive in the concept of the "local school" transferring the best of our civilization to our kids. At the very same time, I hate the PC BS brainwashing our national teachers unions like.

more later

Best regards
KenBean


Posts: 1539 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete-
Only if one other thing hasn't happened...

The Bush Doctrine is one of aggression. If that philosophy has not taken hold, and has not caused other nations to look at war in a new light, then I MIGHT admit I am wrong about Bush. There are many other factors here besides the obvious ones. For example, the liklihood of wars occuring needs to be analyzed, whether the US is on a path towards empire rather then continuing along a path of republicanism, how alone we are on the world stage, etc.

Also, how exactly did I "describe" war being used as a last resort? I didn't. I pointed out that its being used as a second or third resort. In germany's case, it was about the 8753rd resort. Thats far too late. Second, in our situation with Korea right now, is far too early.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Bush Doctrine is one of aggression.

Then so was Winston Churchills, FDR's, the United Nations (see Korea) and so many others who have met aggression with something less than passivity. I think your statement, besides being a cliche of the left is also very incaccurate. We have not appropriated any land, nor has the US sought to deny the democratic sovereignty of any nation. What we have decided to do is stop a massive world wide terrorist plan (now not backed by the USSR), we have decided to stop a crazy dictator from becoming a regional power. Ev, how much double speak are you going to use? Seems you are preaching an Orwellian, good is bad and bad is good. So before you start throwing insults at me for pointing out where you are wrong again. Why don't you explain to us how first Bush is aggressive and second how the US (based on voting and polls) has chosen to be aggressive. You cannot divorce the two, especially after this recent election.


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What Democrats have done?

To be supportive of them, one could say they have learned an important lesson. The big knock on them this election was the lack of issue-driven ideas. Many pointed out that although they denigrated GOP ideas and initiatives, they offered nothing of their own. Now a week after the election, every Democrat I've heard has agreed to the need to turn back to the issues, agree on directions and party philosophy, and work to get things passed in partnership with the Republicans.

On the negative side, you can talk about speculative strategies that totally backfired on them. Because they held off holding hearings on so many judicial nominees, they will now have no actual input on who is confirmed. Because they withheld the honest partnership that Bush offered them, there is little gratitude nor need to accept eleventh hour concerns now.

The GOP has always been nicer than the Democrats admitted. Afterall, Civil rights was a GOP initiative pushed through in the sixties in spite of Democrat opposition, yet for the past four decades the Democrats have worked to make the targets of civil rights abuse believe it was Republicans who caused their problems instead of honestly working to provide solutions. Through the seventies, eighties, and early nineties, it was the Democrats who had their hands out to the business community for bankrolling them, yet the accusation that the political right was in bed with big business was their mantra.

As people worried about a safety net failing, the GOP worked to solve the causes of the failure, while the Democrats campaigned to call the GOP reckless and called for more taxes to shore up what they knew was failing.

All these little ploys are up for reevaluation - and some good may come out of it - even with a self-admitted liberal like Pelosi driving it. The party needs to be healed, and to do that they will need to show the American public some productive outcomes. To do that they will have to work with the GOP and not just against them.

I hope it happens.


Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the explanation, Ev. I am still having a hard time understanding exactly what you are advocating, but what you have said *does* change my earlier impression that you were looking for excuses to criticize Bush. You seem instead to be advocating some principle, but I still don't grasp what it is. Are there any earlier threads or links you could point me to, where you have illuminated your argument on the war and the principles behind your position? I hate to do to you what I did to RedSkull, twist your arm to make you repeat something that you already explained in my absence, but if you can point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.

More questions: do you consider Israel's pre-emptive strike in 1967 to have been justified? What about the "third invasion" in Ender's Game? What about what we just did in Afghanistan? What are the moral differences, and what has changed in the last 3 months?

Thanks,

Pete

[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 10, 2002).]


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KenBean
Member
Member # 603

 - posted      Profile for KenBean   Email KenBean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi back, Folks

Uhhh...........what WmLambert said.

Wm:
Drop in more often!

Best regards
Ken Bean


Posts: 1539 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1