Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Dems: Looking for Love in the Wrong Places

By Bob Burnett, AlterNet. Posted November 14, 2005.


To form a coherent position on Iraq, Democrats should focus on three principles that differentiate them from the GOP: telling the truth, defending the U.S., and restoring national honor.
Advertisement

In 1980, Johnny Lee had a crossover hit with "Lookin' for Love (in all the wrong places)."

Democrats would do well to remember the first verse:

"I've spent a lifetime looking for you/Playing a fool's game, hoping to win/Telling those sweet lies and losing again."

For many of us, it has been a lifetime since the Dems presented voters with a solid alternative to the Republicans. Heading for 2006, the party of FDR needs to take a clear position on Iraq, to quit "playing a fool's game, hoping to win."

The latest CNN polls carried encouraging news for the Party. Fifty-four percent of responders indicated that they would support any Congressional candidate that opposes President Bush. The problem, of course, is that it's not always clear that a particular Democrat opposes Bush, particularly when the subject is Iraq. Because of the Dems' ambivalence about the occupation, the electorate remains wary of the Party. The public seems to understand what the GOP stands for -- strong defense, free markets, lower taxes, small government, and family values -- but are confused about the core principles of the Democrats.

In the 2004 Presidential election, the electorate didn't see much difference between the Iraq policy of George Bush and that of John Kerry. In January, Time columnist Joe Klein observed that Kerry didn't bring up Bush's authorization of the torture seen at Abu Ghraib because he was afraid that if he did, the Republicans would paint him as being weak on the war on terrorism. For similar reasons, Kerry didn't take advantage of obvious problems with Bush's war: failure to find WMDs, manipulation of intelligence data before the Congressional authorization, loss of focus on Al Qaeda, to name only a few.

The timidity of the Democrats' presidential candidate is symptomatic of a deeper problem in the Party: the obsession with short-term results. In this sense, the Dems adopted the Republican morality that winning justifies the means. Beginning in the Clinton era, democratic leaders focused on tactics rather than elaboration of the Party's unifying principles. The "Clintonista" wing of the Party continues to exert great influence and, as a result, the Dems lack a distinct morality and a clear strategy.

To form a coherent position on Iraq, Democrats would do well to ponder principles that differentiate them from the GOP. Three come to mind: telling the truth, defending the U.S., and restoring national honor.

One of the most obvious problems with the war in Iraq is that its justification relied upon misrepresentations and outright lies by President Bush and his representatives. The Administration manufactured a case for the invasion so that Republicans would have a winning issue in the 2002 Congressional elections. While this stands as a particularly egregious example of GOP immorality, it also signals their vulnerability: the electorate no longer trusts them because they are seen as liars -- a recent Washington Post poll indicates that Americans feel the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined under the Bush Administration.


Digg!

Bob Burnett is a writer and activist in Berkeley, Calif.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
perhaps we need to focus on 2006 now
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Nov 14, 2005 2:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I opposed the war before it began and there is a part of me that says we made a mess and need to find a honoralbe way to get out without just leaving a huge mess. Perhaps we can all those Arab states that like all our oil money to help the Iraqis maintain without a civil war. No one wants a civil war and I do not see anyway we can prevent one. A lot of the Arab world do not like the Shi and would come to help the Sunni. The Shi have ties to Iran and are getting help from them now. Those of you who write your comments here everyday are very smart people and you might try talking about a plan that might work. At least it would be constructive.

Many Democrats have come out against the war in the last several weeks. The article talks about restoring our honor as a nation and that means having a plan to help the Iraq to survive. It sort of like making a woman pregnant with twins and then leaving her with no one to help her and no money to pay the bills. That is a sexist remark I am sure, but I cannot think of the correct analogy.

As far as the Democrats go, it starts with the grassroots. Having all those house parties MoveOn.org plans all the time. Democratic party is also using that idea to start to build grassroots concessus of what we need to do? We need to make our needs and desires known. Many of you have great ideas that could to be developed into concrete plans. Some of you are so passionate about what you stand for, so run for office or work in someone's campaign that you can support.

This is not about how bad the Republicans are, but about how good each candidate we sponsor is. You have good questions to ask and only you can get the answers for yourself. Own your piece of the USA by putting your energy into finding the right people and then helping to support their campaigns. It takes a lot of little people to run campaign. You cannot bitch, if you are not willing to work at changing things.

There was an item about the Ohio election last week where all the polls going into the election showed one set of numbers (against the Republican type ideas) but came out with a completely different set of numbers after the election. If we are going to change things we need to get these machines fix so there is a paper trail.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time to refocus. Enough is enough.
Posted by: jlohman on Nov 14, 2005 3:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats have said enough on the war, and too late. Most of them voted for it and are now turning on it. Given what we know now, I oppose the war. But at the time we went in we had strong reason to believe it necessary and I supported it. Seventeen UN resolutions plus what now turns out to be faulty intelligence. If we are going to hang Bush, it should be on manipulating the intelligence, if it turns out he actually did. He also did not win the peace, let looters walk away with the treasures and failed to put the Iraqi people to work, which would have better occupied them.

But if the Dems plan to make the war their election issue, it would be a big mistake. Most people are like me; they supported the war then and oppose it now. We’d like to find a way out without losing face. Many of us will not vote against the Republicans for this reason, but we will for other reasons.

But we will vote FOR the Democrats if we see a party that wants to clean up our corrupt political system and fights hard to do it. We are tired of cronyism and special interests running the country to fit the needs of their wallet. The Dems must put on a totally new hat. They must oppose the current electoral system that is funded by private interests. But they’ve been as guilty as the R’s when it comes to taking corporate money. They must push through the full public financing of campaigns bill (H.R. 3641) proposed by U.S. Rep John Tierney (D-MA). They must make this their number one issue. Put all others aside. Fix the moneyed electoral system and all of the other societal issues will get fixed in the years immediately following. If the public is educated on why that is so important to bringing integrity back to Washington the next government will be run by the Dems. If not, they will remain on the outside looking in.

Jack Lohman
www.WiCleanElections.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Time to refocus. Enough is enough. Posted by: alternetleslie
» Physcian heal thyself Posted by: jwg
» RE: Physcian heal thyself Posted by: alternetleslie
» RE: Time to focus on reality. Posted by: Edward George
Kerry spoke out
Posted by: Marjorie G on Nov 14, 2005 5:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although you wouldn't know by the media, Kerry spoke out against the rush to war and not giving inspections time to finsih the job. He only signed on for leverage into the UN, where they hadn't wanted to go. It worked, but they wanted pre-emptive regime change. He mentioned many other times during the campaign, but an anti-war candidate was not going to be elected-and that was the purpose.

He's not a playing the margins guy, and its unfortunate more didn't see his foreign policy strength and judgment. He was pro-security at a time our many in our party was reflexively anti-war, simplistically. Our party still need to be pro-security.

Currently, he wants to bring troops home, but still provide a chance for the Iraqis to form a Constitution and some self-governance. He proposed benchmarks and remedies throughout the camapign that people never heard, all the while the administration digs us deeper in the hole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kerry spoke out Posted by: BKLN
» RE: Kerry spoke out Posted by: ShaSpirit
Bully A and Bully B
Posted by: ggmurray on Nov 14, 2005 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing the Democrats are weak on is exactly *how* to leave Iraq. We had good and not-so-good intentions going in. There was what was promoted as the reason, and there were the behind-the-scenes manipulations of ‘evidence’ we are just now learning about.

How do you say “We’re sorry, we made a terrible mistake” to the Iraqis and to the American people? Can we even say it? To my mind that would be the honest thing to do – and then to work out a withdrawal plan with the elected Iraq officials. There has been so much bad stuff done by our government. Where do you even begin to make things right?

One way to think about big situations – like a war between two countries – is to humanize it, bring it down to human scale. Think of it as two bullies fighting.

Bully A decides to invade Bully B’s home, and does. Later Bully A finds out that his reasons for trashing Bully B’s home were based on wrong information. A judge brings them together to work out a settlement. What would that settlement be like? What would be an honorable way for Bully A to proceed?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bully A and Bully B Posted by: Lincoln fan
Another crossover hit: "Take Your Party and Shove It"
Posted by: LeslieGem on Nov 14, 2005 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrates have just as much blood on their hands as the Republicans. Anyone who watched The Daily Show and Now with Bill Moyers (before they ran him off PBS) knew that the intelligence was being manipulated. Now the Dem's are wringing their hands and saying "But they lied to me! They lied to me! Otherwise, I never would have voted for this!" Come on.

I voted for Nadar in 2000, and boy did I get a lot of heat for that. Then in 2004, there was a big guilt trip campaign waged on people like me, on Alternet and many other places -- people on their hands and knees, begging Nadar not to run again, etc. Now we have another guilt trip campaign being waged -- which is basically, the Democrates can keep screwing up and screwing up, because who else you gonna vote for -- The American Taliban (AKA Republicans)?

Well, I'm not buying the guilt trip.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Accountability Posted by: BKLN
» RE: Accountability Posted by: pepaw
We Had A Candidate
Posted by: the islander on Nov 14, 2005 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We had a candidate in 2004 -- the man of the people --Howard Dean. It was the Democratic party that ran him off the stage in Iowa, by the vicious editing of a video shown hundreds and hundreds of times nationwide,over one weekend. Their single intent -- to humiliate the people and Howard Dean.
We also had Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton. These people were too honest and forthright for the entrenched middle-of-the-road Democratis who were afraid to stand out in a crowd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is always amazing to watch...
Posted by: sgtmartin1 on Nov 14, 2005 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my Democratic nominees get tarred with the liberal dove label even as they espouse torturous explanations of their positions in an effort to seem kind of hawkish ("I voted for it before I voted against it.")

I agree with most of what you've said in your fine article, but I would add to it that Democrats have to have the courage of their convictions. As much as I appreciate the nuance of complex matters, the reality is the public doesn't think that way. Dubya won twice on a platform that amounted to: "I'm stupid and consistent." It obviously carried the day (we can chat about Florida 2000 on another thread).

New on EWM: Bush: “Democrats Killed Jesus, Invented Disco and Drove Me to Drink”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Start with real election reform....
Posted by: Cindy on Nov 14, 2005 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I completely agree with the points made. I am so frustrated with the majority of our parties' Republican-Light politics. Where is the backbone? Where is the support for the brave efforts of the few Dems, like John Conyers, who have continued to hammer on a critical issue for any hope of future victories, the idea of true election reform. The Dems must create a constant drumbeat and loud united effort to end the corruption and vote stealing that occurred in the past two national elections. We must restore free, fair and honest elections first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Damn right, just ask my battered ex-Senator Tom Daschle
Posted by: SDres11 on Nov 14, 2005 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now he calls for pulling out troops in Iraq. In 2002, he cried about rushing to war in Iraq but then caved in like a complete idiot to the fucking rightwingers and lost in 2002 and 2004. Of course, most of us South Dakotans never knew what to make of his leadership and had strong doubts that he would ever return to Majority leader status and since most of us were actually angry as hell that not only did Daschle put up his idiotic ads hugging Bush but also that Kerry totally wrote off our state even as he barely campaigned in Minnesota because of listening to the fucking polls, it is no wonder that Bush got a huge majority especially in 2004 despite our state being right next to Minnesota that hasn't gone Republican since 1972.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Looking for Love in too few places
Posted by: bookwoman on Nov 14, 2005 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a cradle moderate Republican from Massachusetts (yes, there are other Republicans in Massachusetts besides Mitt Romney). I have never liked George Bush. In 2000, I was a John McCain supporter who ended up voting for Al Gore. There was no way in the world I wanted "W" for a President. By 2004, I hadn't changed my mind, and, in spite of the fact that I didn't really think Kerry was a good choice for President, I voted for him. He is a nice man, but he is a bit wishy washy especially standing next to Ted Kennedy who is never wishy washy. I also resented his ducking and bobbing about his religion. If you are a practicing Christian, you should say so strongly and proudly. Very few of us agree completely with our denomination - I know many Roman Catholics who are Prochoice. However, I think he ducked the question because of the feelings of the liberals in his party. I've got news for any Democrat who is going to go that route again in 2006 or 2008. There aren't enough of them to get you elected. However, there are many others than Liberals out here who preferred not to vote Republican last time. I would imagine, judging from the drop in Bush's poll numbers, that there are many more now than in November, 2004 who wished they had preferred not to vote for him. My suggestion, to the Democrats, is stop making abortion #1. It is much better, as Senator Clinton has said, to spend more time on prevention than on making abortion rights more secure. If you pull abortion rights out of the picture, the conservative right have a big hole in their arguments. Another suggestion is that the liberals should stop making jokes about religion. I believe in God and so do the majority of the people in this country. I have heard several so called "expert" liberals dissing religion in the past months. That isn't going to win you any fans, guys.

Think about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A return to the "Sixties"?
Posted by: magistre on Nov 14, 2005 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To use a phrase I thought time had passed: The problem with the Democrats is "they're part of the establishment". That is one part of the "voting" problem in the U.S. there are only 2 parties. You're brought up beleiving you are an "either or". Thats not the way it should be and we all know it. But to be fair to the Dem's I wouldn't want to have a Multi-National Super-Conglomorate breathing down my neck either. (thats the irony of the B.A.C.,they've sold our country for "30 pices of silver")

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A return to the "Sixties"? Posted by: Lincoln fan
To regain our honor
Posted by: alternetleslie on Nov 14, 2005 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To regain honor: 1) not re-elected Bush- (with Ohio Blackwell and Deibolt, the South Dakota intimidation of Native Americans, and the difference in exit polls from the election results - we did not re-elect the Bush Regime (B.R.), 2) punish the criminal B.R. members for their crimes. Show the world we did not agree with these fascists.

This B.R. put their people in all the strategic places to checkmate us at every turn, destroyed our pretective agencies, and Bill of Rights and divided us protecting so many issues, wasting our energy and donations, and distracted us from our main goals.

If the B.R., with a ten year old pre-emptive plan to attack Iraq for oil, can cold bloodedly kill innocent Iraqis with taxpayers' weapons, then the Bush Gang (group of people who commit unlawful acts) are quite capable of sending the anthrax to the top Senate Democrat, Daschle, and Senator Leahy, and many media giants. After this intimidation, did the Senate investigate the opinions of the FBI, CIA or generals? They voted for invading Iraq and voted for the Anti-Bill of Rights Act without even reading it. The media chucked investigative reporting. Iraq is the oil competitors of Bush Dynasty's Saudi family and financial friends. As Michael Moore asks, were the headlines: Saudi's Attack U.S. or Millionaire (Osama) Attacks U.S? -- nope!! Terrorist did it. The media broadcast and printed the B.R.'s propaganda without who submitted it, and presented it as facts. The media is executing its freedom to suppress the truth.

We have to expose + punish the B.R. How do you: 1) punish people who lied to Congress, 2) crushed our Bill of Rights, (I have been in a freedom of speech pen), 3) cold bloodedly killed and wounded tens of thousands of people and destroyed their homes and property, 4) ordered an ethnic and racially profiled round up of innocent people, 5) then denied them their rights, and 6)proscribed and executed torture? While most of us do not condone execution, George W. Bush is quite a supporter of executions.
Restitution is better than mere punishment. Confiscate the fortunes of the B. R., the corporate supporters, who paid for customized legislation and our energy policy, profited from no bid contracts and war, conspirators who used fraud, intimidation, conflict of interest, and manipulation of equipment to win the elections. They must pay for the war, death and suffering, for which they are responsible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A New Party: Respect or Integrity Party
Posted by: cstriker on Nov 14, 2005 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sick of everyone blaming the Republicans or the Democrats. Those parties are done. If there are any affiliated members that have ethics, integrity, honor and the like they need to get out of those parties and work on a new one. One that focuses on those ideal.

There were facts misrepresented about why we should invade Iraq. However, everyone is focusing on just Bush and his administration. The fact remains that hundreds of Senators and Representatives on both sides of the party line voted in favor. Those people could have forced more investigation into the information provided for reasons to invade. They are just as guilty as Bush and his cronies.

Stop depending on the two major parties and look to a third option. If you have candidates that you know and trust, encourage them to join that party or form a new one.

I have posted all of the Senators and Representatives that voted in favor of the war. We should all try to prevent these people from ever attaining an office again. They are all guilty of leading us into an unethical, unwinnable war.

uwannano.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some good points here
Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian on Nov 14, 2005 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in Iowa the Democratic presidential candidates will begin stumping for the '08 caucuses in just a few months (good lord! it never seems to end out here. . .talk about a "permanent campaign!") I intend to make it very clear to any candidate looking for my vote that I will not support any wishy-washy, right-of-center, DLC BS artist (including Iowa governor Tom Vilsak); these spineless morons are the reason the GOP (Greedy Old Pr***s) are in control of the entire US government!

Democrats (and I've been a registered D since I was 18 in 1976) need to do several things in order to get back on track (if that's even possible now):

1) Enforce some freakin' party discipline! The DINOs who actually voted for the draconian bankruptcy legislation and other poison pills for the working class and the poor need to be punished, disciplined or (in extremis) even drummed out of the party! I realize that in a small-d democratic party there can be legitimate differences of opinion about issues, but on some issues (economic justice, civil rights, and (I believe) the war) a clear line needs to be drawn over which a party-member-in-good-standing may not cross and still call themselves a Democrat.

2) A new Contract With America; the party needs to come out (as the GOP did in 1994) with a clear, concise statement of what it intends to do if given power. This new CWA should place a strong emphasis on energy independence, health-care for all, issues of economic justice (including raising the minimum wage) ending the !@#$%^&*ing war in Iraq and restoring sanity and respect to American foreign policy.

3) Understand that just because most people don't describe themselves as "liberal" they certainly aren't in favor of the GOP's radical agenda. Eric Alterman had an excellent series of columns in "The Nation" recently on this topic. A wide majority in this country actually take positions that are routinely demonized by the GOP and its right-wing media allies. The Democrats just roll over and play dead, try to move the party even further to the right of center, whoring for the 3 or 4 per cent of moderate voters (ie, idiots) while ignoring the 60 per cent of disaffected voters who really would support a "liberal" agenda (so long as it wasn't called "liberal").

Well, that's all I can think of for now (My blood sugar's getting low; guess it's time for lunch!). More (much more!) later!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Some good points here Posted by: ShaSpirit
Judith
Posted by: judith6355 on Nov 14, 2005 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I heard Kerry denounce the misuse of pre-war intellegence, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, torture at Abu Graib and the failure to focus on Bin Laden--as well as the failure of the US to secure weapons dumps in Iraq--at a campaign appearance in Rochester, MN in late October. Sure, Kerry should have gone at the Bush administration over the war much earlier in the campaing, such as at the Democratic Convention. But toward the end of the campaign, he was savaging the administration over how we got into the war and the incompetant way it was being run. I'm getting frustrated at what I think is a consistent misrepresentation of Kerry's campaign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dean was a better choice
Posted by: cstriker on Nov 14, 2005 11:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would someone explain to me how Dean got pushed out in favor of Kerry in the first place. Was it because he went "WAAAHOOOO" on national television? If this is how we choose candidates, it's no wonder we are in the situation we are in. Stop making it a popularity and appearance contest and start making it about the truely better candidate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The whole truth
Posted by: Edward George on Nov 14, 2005 1:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most important part of telling the truth is to quit assuming that the public is a bunch of sheep who will meekly believe anything we say. Quit propagandizing by spouting oratorical conclusions with no evidence. "Iraq is a quagmire" (and unwinable) is propaganda. Lets start by providing the evidence for this conclusion.

1. We can defend ourselves from criminals, including terrorists, but there will always be fanatics and any "war on terrorism" is fundamentally unwinnable. (And it is insane to think our little nation of 294 million people can defeat all 1.3 billion Muslims.) The very term is a propaganda slogan and can only mean an intent for the administration to have permanent "war powers".

2. We do not and never will have enough troops to permanently garrison and police ever community in Iraq. The insurgents always know just where we are and are not and we generally do not know where they are because they can hide in the population.

3. There is no evidence that the majority that encompasses Iraq's oil resources will ever find a way to bring the oilless minority into a peaceful union.

4. There is no evidence that the number of insurgents is decreasing and there is lots of evidence that their skills are improving.

5. Our presence is itself a destablizing factor. There is no evidence that their chance of success in evolving a way to survive and join the world's nations would be decreased if we left.

There are some other things we need to start leveling about; for example:

1. The most common form of rape is "legal" date rape, as in get her drunk first. It is vicious insanity to not provide "morning after" pills. A blob of a few cells is not a human. However, with pictures of inside pregnant women's wombs showing smiling and kicking things that look just like babies we can not defend an unlimited right to destroy what those pictures show.

2. We defend full rights for gays that come out of the closet with dignity and pride without praising those who come out jumping up and down and screaming for the same reason we don't applaud advertising cars and carpets with naked women.

3. Fanatic belief in the infallibility of "free markets" and totally unrestrained capitalism is a religion and should be treated as one. (Any science can only be a theory and is subject to continuous challenge, test and revision.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Any Oncologist can tell you:
Posted by: AdamSelene11726 on Nov 14, 2005 3:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's no 'positive alternative' to Cancer.

They cut the tumor out.

You get poisoned with with drugs and radiation.

There's pain, disfigurement, disability, and enormous financial hardship -- you're never really 'the same" afterwards

But, if you're lucky, and only AFTER you've put all that behind you, you get to do something with the years you've taken back.

The alternative to all that suffering is -- do do nothing. The Cancer grows. You suffer. You die. But, sooner.


Thirty three years ago, the "Cancer on the Presidency" metasticized.

From from the ugly little Nixon wart sprang Gingrich, Norquist, Robertson, Dobson, Cheney, and all the other tumors and lesions of the Republican ascendency.

Democrats don't need an elaborate "Program" to improve on that.

Just cut out the Cancer while there is still time and see what's left that's still healthy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Criminal Consipiracy
Posted by: Maryanne on Nov 14, 2005 4:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is an excellent article in The Nation today (11/14) by Elizabeth de la Vega, entitled "The White House Criminal Conspiracy" relative to our entry into Iraq. It analyzes how a fraud was imposed on the American people, which is an impeachable crime.

Very worth reading!
www.the nation.com/doc/20051114/delavega

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ummm,its the Corporate-State Imperialist Policy, stupid.
Posted by: michaelo on Nov 14, 2005 4:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This constant effort to "reform" the Democrats so that they appear different from their brethren/sister co-rulers of the US's corporate state is really old.

On the one hand you have pro-war Senator and Ex-President Clinton playing the opposition card in the international arena; then "Give'm Hell Howard" (Dean) insulting a fellow Vermont politician because "he is a socialist," as if a "socialist" is illegal, un-American, or traitorous.

Whether it was John Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Bill Clinton all three 'liberals" played a combination of the "anti communist" and/or interventionist war card. (Clinton never apologized for the use of nuclear weapons in Bosnia: referred to politely as "bunker busters" precisely known as "depleted uranium munitions." The card game played by the Democrats is their "liberal" social/agenda while their hole card is a continuing imperialist presence in virtually every "third world" country and in collusion with its owner: the world corporate state. This game of keep "our" democracy safe for the privileged US population at the expense of the peoples of the world has led us to the brink of international madness.

The second game played by the Democrats: they are in a defensive fight to "save" our democracy from the right wing of the ruling class, thus, they can't put in place programs that will enhance the basic living needs of our people. Its a swindler's lie.

If the Democratic Party wants to change the danger facing the US nation let them fight, organize, mobilize, march, sit-in, protest in the cause of A GOVERNMENT THAT WILL:

1-Protect the nation and its citizens through international cooperation with anti-terrorist governments, a defense system rid of corporate corruption and greed-bloat; a foreign policy that if fair in its appropriation of goods and use of labor.

2-Provide for the economic well being of the children, infirm and the elderly.

3-Provide universal aptitude-driven educational opportunities to all citizens.

4-Provide for universal health care.

5-Require and provide employment for all capable of employment.

6-Provide adequate housing, food and clothing for those incapable of providing for themselves.

7-Provide for necessary transport.

A true "Democratic" party is based on these elementary, democratic principles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What caused the Insurgency
Posted by: mistery509 on Nov 14, 2005 5:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anyone ever asked why the Insurgents are getting stronger and more bitter and even taking their owns lives for a cause?

Could it be because Iraq was attacked? Thousands of Iraq
men, women and children were killed for no reason?

Could it be because their homes were demolished, their children fried by deadly chemicals?

Imagine for a minute if this was USA that was attached this way..
Bombs were dropped. Your children killed. All for NOTHING.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]