But the fault for this is not just with the Democrats.
It is also with the media, which have been appalling during the dismantling and degrading of our constitutional democracy.
And it is also with the American people who, despite all the propaganda, had access to more than enough information to be able to see what was what. But they were either too lazy to look, or too gullible to believe their "lying eyes" rather than the voice of the Propagandist, or too glad (out of the darkness in their own souls) to follow these evil leaders-- leaders who, in a phrase that I like to use, "under the sheep's clothing of a false righteousness, have let loose the wolf of their unbridled lust for self-aggrandizement."
The Bushites have exploited some real flaws in the American people.
And ultimately, if we want politicians who will do the right thing, we need to create an electorate that will vote for the good and not for the evil.
In 2002, we did not have that. I'm not sure we have it now, either. But we have a chance to try to create it.
THE CHALLENGE OF OUR MOMENT
That means doing what we can to encourage, compel, enable the Democrats to educate them.
But we must not weaken them. They are all we have.
We cannot look to the mainstream corporate media much (though there is Olbermann, and the voice of truth is speaking through more and more voices, and it is getting louder). They might follow as the wind shifts, but they do not work to shift the wind.
Nor is our movement --with all its brave and wonderful voices--going to achieve all that much in moving the consciousness of the American people.
In this divided country, we on forums such as these are mostly preaching to the choir-- which is important in many ways, but it does not move the mass of public opinion very directly.
The lever we have that COULD do the job is the Democrats with their control of Congress. That's where the next stage of the battle against the Bushites needs to be faught.
And so it is folly for us to weaken the only possible champion we have. Everybody dumps on the Democrats-- the Republicans, the Media, and even the Democrats base on the left.
That is a weakness in our movement-- that we weaken the only warrior around that COULD fight the BUshites successfully.
If we put our energy into talking about how terrible they are, we help the Bushites. If we put our energy into helping get the Democrats to move in the right direction, we can defeat these Bushites.
Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. Schmookler is also the author of such books as The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating the Good Society: A Quest to Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states.
people died. Lots of them. About 650000 to be exact.
Once when Khrushev was telling about Stalin's atrocities he got an anonymous note from the audience which asked him if that was true how did he and others let it to happen. He asked the author to reveal himself and when that did not happen he said,'You are afraid. We were afraid too.' But people died. Khrushev, of course was more honest than our Dems: he risked his very life many times. Still, the explanation though plausible is not morally acceptable.
The explanation of the fear by the person or a group of persons responsible for life and death is not morally acceptable. Those who voted for that resolution had legitimate power and means to fight against it. They were given that power by the people, by the very seats they occupied. It was their job to overcome all those fears and fight for the just cause. All the reasons Andy gives in his article are not the just reasons- those are the everyday tumults of any politics, an environment of the professional politician. They blew it. They knew where it was going. The Congress mechanism, the media and all was in their disposal to rise this issue to high Heaven, to throw thorns on every corner, to raise cane on every step, to declare an emergency situation, in short- to fight. They might lose. But it would be a real fight and there still was a chance for the people not to die. People died. Lots of them. Their blood is on the hands of those who had means to stop that carnage and they washed their hands and let it go. The Electorate has nothing to do with that particular aspect. Our Electorate sent those people to Congress to do their job. They did not do it. People died. End of the story.
by
Mark Sashine (54 articles, 19 quicklinks, 251 diaries, 3598 comments)
on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 12:10:52 PM
I entirely agree that it is not morally acceptable. I myself have NEVER given myself permission to do chicken out of doing what I knew to be right. And for almost forty years, I have been paying a steep price in almost every "currency" you can imagine. And I would not have done it any differently. Cowardice in the face of power that should be opposed is not morally acceptable.
But that is hardly the end of the story. The reality is that most people do not stand up to Stalin, or to the Miller Gang in High Noon, or even to the powers that be with your average American institutional employer.
Therefore we need to be able to judge the stories of those who are not among the few brave and righteous folks.
On the thread for this piece today on my own website, one reader challenged me, asking why the cowardice of the Dems makes them any better than the power-lust of the Bushites.
And I replied:
"Is it really difficult to discern what crucial difference there is between someone who goes along with evil for fear of being killed (figuratively speaking, in this case) and someone who gladly does evil because that is what is in his heart to do?
"The latter will do evil even when there is an easy and viable choice to do good. The former will do good when the choice to do good is easy and viable.
"One might well prefer having someone who will do good even at great personal cost. That's why we celebrate heroes.
"But if heroes are indeed rare, we should not be surprised when we find ourselves compelled to choose between the more decent but cowardly and the downright evil."
End of story suggests an end to thinking, once that moral condemnation of yours has been handed down. An end to thinking would mean being disabled from choosing among such options as we all-too-often, and regrettably, have.
Being thus disabled is not morally acceptable, because the story of the world's unfolding goes on, and those who refuse to make the best of the material that is at hand unwittingly contribute to that story's unfoldingly badly.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments)
on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 2:44:33 PM
It's a matter of seeing them as the most important tool that we have for defeating the fascist forces that have lately taken over this country.
This is a contest of power. The Bushite forces are not going to be defeated by mere words, nor by any third party movement. Nor is America remotely ripe for revolution. If they are to be defeated, they will be defeated by legally constituted authority-- the Congress, the Courts, the voters choosing among the two main parties.
I cannot see any other routes to victory over the Bushites.
If I am coming down hard on the leftist refusal to face what seems to me to be reality, on their preference for purity over actual results, it is because I am dedicated to doing everything I can to seeing that we marshall our forces effectively to save our constitutional democracy, and I therefore wish to disabuse people of what I regard as illusions that dissipate our powers.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments)
on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 7:39:23 PM
It's the Democrats war to deal with now. They can either shut it down or follow Bush's folly like their predecessors.
I don't believe there are any viable excuses for past behavior. The Dems joined the Republicans in rushing the country into a war that has had tragic consequences both in the US and Iraq.
With power comes responsibility. The Dems must bring an end to our national shame.
by
Kathlyn Stone (42 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 665 comments)
on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 3:57:23 PM
would you really give a shit why the Dems voted as they did?
I wouldn't. And I WOULD be planning to take Bush out, personally.
The door has always been open for people to speak out. That's why 10 million people marched in the streets, even elementary school children opposed the war, many knowledgeable writers, such as Scott Ritter, told us how stupid it was. Hans Blix said there were no WMDs and Hussein was willing to give him more time. Only George and Dick were in a hurry, and a few hundred limp noodles posing as politicians simply went along for the bloody, unfathomably costly ride.
The only question now is whether we'll support the real leaders and do everything in our power to cut off war funding in the April vote, which would bring the troops home promptly. It's time to get phone numbers taped to computers, get letters rolling, and stop this fatal hemmoraging of both our country and Iraq.
If anyone is still not sure who the leaders are, may I suggest you start with this one who spoke out even in 2002? (My apologies for the redundancy if you've seen my similar comment elsewhere.) Why is it that this one person had the spine to stand up when others didn't? Simple enough, he thinks things through, then backs his thoughts with actions.
It is this same bona fide leader who is pushing to cut off war funding bring the troops home NOW.
Are we ready to support him this time? Or will we keep bullshitting ourselves about political games, as we remain as blind as ever?
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 74 quicklinks, 123 diaries, 746 comments)
on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 7:16:31 PM
To those here who have made strong note of the terrible consequences of this war:
Whatever are the evils that have been done, are we not obliged to ask ourselves, By what means are we most likely to succeed in stopping future evils from being committed?
And if the answer to that question, as I believe, that 1)it is essential to wrest power from the Bushite regime and the forces behind it, and 2) the opposition party, as sorry as it is, is the best available instrument for achieving that, then even some of the people who, out of cowardice, acquiesced in evil may well be altogether necessary for the achievement of our essential goal.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments)
on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 7:52:36 PM
Which is why we need to get behind Dennis Kucinich, and make it clear that HE IS THE ONE who has the potential to transform the Democratic Party into what it claims to be.
P.S. I should have 2,000+ Kucinich bumper stickers in less than two weeks, for those who would like to reiterate this point as they drive around burning fossil fuels. They'll be free, on a first come, first served basis, to anyone who sends me a self-addressed stamped envelope. Donations not necessary, but even a dollar or two will go toward purchasing the next batch of them. (Daniel Geery, 1987 S. McClelland St., SLC UT 84015)
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 74 quicklinks, 123 diaries, 746 comments)
on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 8:47:31 PM
is between voting for fascists or voting for cowards?
Because we only have two parties, the Republicans are fascists, so the only party organized and powerful enough to remove fascists is the Democratic party of cowards?
Gosh, I hate to break it to you, Andy, but never in history has a coward stood up to a fascist. Cowards, by definition, don't do things like that. If the Democrats win the presidency and huge majorities in both houses, the defense-industrial complex will still tell them what to do, and because they are cowards, they will do as they're told.
The last time the Democrats had a majority in Congress, they could have blocked Bush from taking office, or at least made it a lot harder for him. But the head coward, Gore, conceded, and he ordered his colleagues in cowardice to ignore the disenfranchised Democratic voters in Florida, ignore the Democratic Congressional Black Caucus, and ignore the good of the country, so as to "avoid civil unrest." Meaning that if he stood up to Bush, he'd have to fight, and cowards never stand up to bullies.
Sure Kucinich is a good guy. But backed by a party of cowards, what do you expect him to accomplish if elected President? You're using the Cheney/Rumsfeld argument that you don't go to war with the army you want, you go with the army you have. The only problem with that argument is that you don't win any wars that way. If the army you have is understaffed and underequipped, and you want to win, you turn to unconventional warfare. Of course if all you want is multi-billion dollar no-bid defense contracts, then you never really wanted to win, as a win would cut short the war-profiteering bonanza.
I'm not buying your story about the poor timid little Democrats being scared of the big bad Republicans. Not while the Democrats have been accepting donations from the defense-industrial complex, they or members of their families own or own controlling interests in defense-industrial corporations, and their portfolios and war chests have become obscenely swollen with war profits.
The corrupt two-party system is never going to change, no matter which party is in control. Neither fascists nor cowards have any right to lead this country. This is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And the only way it can be so is if we get rid of the corrupt two-party system and elect people strong enough, courageous enough, and intelligent enough to run this country on our behalf in the manner in which we tell them to. Who did you think they were supposed to be representing, their rich daddies?
You and Rob keep saying that if things were different, if we had instant runoff voting, honest elections, and different circumstances, then maybe we could vote our consciences, because right now we have no choice but to vote for either the fascists or the cowards.
Many of us believe that we have a choice and we have been voting our consciences all along and will continue to do so. The only think you can convince us of with your snivelling, is that you don't happen to have a conscience. We do, and we aren't waiting around for things to change, we're changing them. If you can't stand up for your beliefs and principles, you'll continue to vote for representatives who can't either. And you'll keep making excuses for them, because that's how you make excuses for yourself.
Someday Andy, both you and Rob are going to leave the dark side and come over to where people are strong, free, and bold. Where people are leaders, not followers. Where people work for change instead of just wishing for it. And we're going to pretend that you were with us all along, because we're forgiving and compassionate. And we'll probably even make excuses for you to our children, so that they don't think of you with scorn and contempt. But you know and everyone else knows that there's there's no difference between the fascist Republicans and the Vichy collaborating Democrats. The former are evil, and the latter are just subservient to evil out of cowardice? It takes more than cowardice to submit to evil. It takes a total lack of conscience. Even a coward will stand up for their rights and their country when their back is to the wall.
Shame on you for telling people that they don't have a choice. Who are you to tell people what their choices are? Who are you to decide for them that the corrupt two-party system is immortal and undefeatable, so they have to limit their votes to the greater or lesser evil? In Venezuela the corrupt two-party system was defeated. It will be defeated here too, sooner or later, if it doesn't destroy us first. You are not doing yourself, your fellow citizens, your country, or the world any good by perpetuating it.
I hope that you and Rob take a clue from Rob's positive psychology. Things can be better. We can make them better. We can start by doing what we know is right, each of us, one person at a time. Just because you think that the situation is hopeless, doesn't mean you have the right to try to convince everyone else of something that negative.
Maybe things really are hopeless. Maybe we won't be able to make things better. But some of us are going to die knowing that at least we tried, and some are going to die knowing that they were afraid to stick their necks out. You have a choice. And so does everyone else. It is a precious gift and not to be discarded lightly. Use it well.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 12:01:53 AM
"Gosh, I hate to break it to you, Andy, but never in history has a coward stood up to a fascist."
I suppose that's true by definition, since someone who stands up to someone else might thereby prove himself not a coward. But other than the tautological way it's true, I'm not sure just how thoroughly you've researched the history of the defeat of fascists.
Chamberlain's England, and the isolationist America across the ocean, did defeat the fascists. Chamberlain's leadership of his party shifted to Churchill. The isolationism of America was turned around by FDR and Pearl Harbor.
The party that was cowardly in 2002 will take over the COngress this week. We'll see if they've learned anything, and if they've developed any more spine, in the interim.
If you're banking on some other scenario --Venezuela-like, or otherwise-- could you spell out just how you envision that playing out?
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 12:30:22 AM
Andy, you may think that "Chamberlain's England, and the isolationist America across the ocean, did defeat the fascists. Chamberlain's leadership of his party shifted to Churchill. The isolationism of America was turned around by FDR and Pearl Harbor."
What actually happened was that the U.S. and British industrialists like Henry Ford and Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, who had been financing Hitler, arranged for many of the top Nazis to be brought over here in Operation Paperclip, and they have been helping to shape U.S. policy ever since. Nazi war criminals were placed in strategic positions within the military-industrial complex and helped it take over this country.
The U.S. was never actually anti-fascist. It was always anti-Communist. We didn't enter the war to help England or to fight Nazi Germany, we entered the war to keep Germany from being taken over by the Soviet Union. We never bombed U.S. factories in Nazi Germany, and we used the atomic bombs on Japan instead of on Germany. We wouldn't let Jews seek refuge here, and General Patton treated the displaced persons in his camps almost as badly as the Nazis had.
Read some of Charles Higham's books, like "Trading With the Enemy," and do a little research about Operation Paperclip.
I know some American anti-fascists who went to Spain with the Abraham Lincoln Brigade to fight Franco, or went to prison in Portugal. The U.S. labeled them "premature anti-fascists" but after the U.S. entered WWII, the label was not removed from them, they were never de-blacklisted, and our government considers them subversives to this day because they fought fascism.
Take a look at our foreign policy since WWII and notice how many fascist governments we've installed and supported, and how we have always opposed with violence and assassinations the slightest tendency towards socialism. Take a close look at the difference between the way our State Department treats fascists and anti-fascists. At the same time that we are supposedly engaged in a war on terror, we are protecting known terrorist Luis Posada Corriles. The Cuban Five are still in jail for attempting to monitor U.S. terrorism against Cuba where we tried hundreds of times to assassinate Castro. Sure he nationalized the Mafia's hotels and casinos in Cuba. He also introduced universal literacy, national health care, and many other things that our fascist government doesn't want us to know about. And he did it on a small, impoverished island despite our embargoes.
An interesting sidelight is that fascism is supposed to be more efficient than Communism. The trains running on time and all that rot. Well compare New Orleans after Katrina to how Castro evacuated over a million people when a hurricane hit Cuba and didn't lose a single life.
Listen to Marjorie Cohn, the President of the National Lawyers Guild, talk about the huge detention camps that Bush has built all over this country. Take a close look at the pictures of some of them online, the windowless buildings, the railroad lines, and compare them to the Nazi camps.
Yes, I am banking on Venezuela. The cooperative, humanitarian model is going to win out over fascism, unless fascists destroy the world first. When Lise Meitner, the mother of the bomb, and Albert Einstein decided to give the secret of nuclear fission to the U.S., they knew it was a fascist country much too power-hungry to refuse such a gift. They knew it would be developed and used. They were great geniuses (well, Einstein may have gotten a lot of his ideas from his wife, but Meitner was a great genius), and they knew it was the only way to stop the endless cycle of violence.
The U.S. started unjustified wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is overextended, and there is no end in sight. Bush wants to nuke Iran, thinking that it would save his Presidency, when the only thing it would accomplish is to set off a nuclear holocaust that would destroy the world. But like the guy who gets so angry because his wife and kids won't obey him that he kills them and then shoots himself, Bush knows only the patriarchal/hierarchical/fascist way of thinking. Just like in Viet Nam where they said that sometimes they have to destroy a village to save it, Bush thinks that he has to control the world even if the only way to do that is to destroy it.
The Bolivarians operate from a different model. A cooperative, egalitarian model. That's the only chance the world has of surviving. If the world survives it will be because their democratic model of society wins out. If the neoliberal (fascist) model wins out, the world will be destroyed.
If you're banking on the world's biggest debtor nation, the nation with the most enemies in the world, the nation with the largest prison system in the world, and the only developed nation without a national health care plan, to win, I suggest you start hedging your bets. Like Michael Franti sings, "You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace."
--Mark
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 8:36:21 AM
Because other than locking and loading, I don't see that we have much choice. We have this despicable two party system, at the moment, like it or not. I would like to see that change in my lifetime, but that is not reality now.
Yes, I do believe that many of the votes that came after 9/11 were cowardly on the part of the Democrats. Of course, I can say that, since no anthrax missives came my way.
I agree with you, Andrew, on much of what you say.
We seem to get the leaders we deserve. We allowed two men to assume the highest offices in the land, who were not elected by the people of this country, with barely a peep of dissent.
Admittedly, many of us were not fooled for one minute by the excuses for going to war in Iraq. So far we have been called traitors, terrorist appeasers (and, of course, the good old standbys from the days of yore; dirty stinkin' Hippies and communists). Quite a few well-known people have suggested that we should all be locked up for dissent, until this endless war on an extreme emotion (terror) is over.
I read just yesterday that there is a Right-wing radio thug, who is literally calling for the assassination of half of Congress (meaning the Democrats) and he isn't just blowing off steam. He is as serious as a heart attack. He even has a time line, as to when this mass murder should happen. The FBI knows about it, but is doing little about it. Does anyone have to guess what would happen to any one of us who called for the assassination of the entire Bush administration?
The Bushites and their slack-jawed supporters are some of the scariest people I have ever seen. I will readily admit that they scare the hell out of me. But I can also promise that I will not shut up until they shut me up.
I will also give the Democrats a chance, because they are all we have, besides ourselves. If we want them to be successful, we have to support them, by hammering the media and making useful suggestions. We can also fill the National Mall in March and refuse to leave until there is Restoration, Truth and Accountability, and our troops come home.
2007 is going to be the year of the protest, not that we haven't been protesting for years now. This year, if we have massive numbers, we will not be ignored, as in the past.
In the meantime, we have the Net. If we show courage, maybe our leaders will show some too.
by
wintefire6 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 5:22:28 AM
on one of the election integrity lists that I subscribe to.
An election integrity activist described how he had spoken with one of the top female Democrats in Congress, and explained the importance of honest elections.
The response was along the lines of, "I agree with you. Now go out and drum up enough popular support to make me do it."
But that's just a way of politely getting rid of somebody. Polls showing that most Americans want Bush impeached haven't convinced Democrats in Congress impeach him. Polls showing that most Americans oppose the illegal occupation of Iraq haven't stopped Democrats from voting to continue to fund it. It doesn't matter how much popular support you round up (92% of Americans want honest elections, and I have to presume the other 8% are, or are employed by politicians), the Democrats and Republicans in Congress represent the military-industrial complex, not their constituents.
Supporting them is foolish. If Republicans had voted for the war and Democrats against it, we could support Democrats without acting against our own best interests. If Republicans had voted for the Patriot Acts and Democrats had voted against them, we could support Democrats without acting against our own best interests. But when both parties, with a few exceptions on each side, have similar voting records, you can't say that the Democrats are all we have so we have to support them. We don't have them and we'd be fools to support them. We have a corrupt two-party system that acts in unison to further the neoliberal agenda.
The only way to change things is to withhold support from those who do not represent us. We can continue to lobby them and try to push them to represent us, but until and unless they actually do, any support you give them just makes them think that they can ignore what you say and continue to take you for granted.
Politicals parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. They have no Constitutional right to exist. They have no more right than any other corporations to choose our candidates for us. We have a corporate-run government instead of government of, by, and for the people. We're the people, not the entities incorporated as political parties. And the only way we're going to break their stranglehold on U.S. politics is if we withdraw our support from them.
Many people have compared Democrats to abused wives who cannot leave their batterers. The analogy is apt. And saying that he's all you have, that you love him, that someday he might change, that you don't know what you'd do without him, and all the rest, is just going to get you killed. Get out, while you can. Take the kids and head for the nearest shelter. He doesn't love you, he just wants to control you. Nothing you do or say will ever change him. Wake up!
--Mark
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 9:02:23 AM
that Andy sincerely thinks that currently the one and only force which has a chance to take power from the Bushist junta are the Dems- they still are the only organizationally reasonable alternative. There are no others. In that mirror and I agree, it is a pretty correct assessment) all our noises about 'giving Dems a chance' or 'not believing them' do not matter; there are no choices except the one between villains and cowards as mymark said so correctly too. So, reality dictates that we have what we have and we better support the lesser of evils. This aspect I support: we live here, there is no other place to go and Dems are surely the only force so far that politically is available. That is all true. But that does not mean that we here have to engage ourselves in giving them a blank check on every atrocity they have committed so far, to build a support philosophy for them, so that we keep our eyes wide shut. If the message is that we need them- fine. When they do what they have to do we, hopefully use the time and means to bring in the real people and we certainly must not condone or forgive those who did an abomination. So,if Andy talks a political strategy- I am all for it. If Andy wants to sell me the Dems as the potential force of good- No, thank you. I have no illusions about anyone of them. The Elephant is mean and prone to madness. The Donkey roars in an ugly way and tries to hit you with his hind legs. Both are nuts.
by
Mark Sashine (54 articles, 19 quicklinks, 251 diaries, 3598 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 12:35:31 PM
It seems that we are reaching some meeting of minds.
For which, let me assure you that I agree that our alliance with the Dems "does not mean that we here have to engage ourselves in giving them a blank check..." for sins committed either in the past or in the future.
What it does mean is that we ought to conduct ourselves --including in our criticisms-- in a way that does not weaken them and thereby strengthen the Bushites. Because in this political system, power is pretty much a zero-sum game: the weaker the Dems, the stronger the Bushites, and likewise with the converse, the stronger the Dems the weaker the Bushites.
So it is a matter of our both strengthening them and moving them in the right direction. Those should be our goals. Whatever achieves those also helps to achieve the larger goal of wresting power from the Bushite forces.
Someone on another site, in response to this piece, argued for a big March on Washington. I wholeheartedly endorse such a grassroots measure. I'd love to see a massive assemblage at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial, this one not being about King's Dream but about Bush's Nightmare.
It should fortify the Dems for taking on the crimes and lies of the BUshites, it should capture the attention of the media, and it should help mobilize more of the American public behind the cause of wresting power from, and discrediting, those fascist forces that have given us this terrible regime.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 1:00:32 PM
Orin Hatch VS Ted Patrick Leahy, Ginsberg VS Scalia
Andy,
I always enjoy your articles. I probably do not agree with everything you write, but I have never found anyone I agree with all the time about everything. Don't worry about these who seem to attack your positions. Your argument is solid, and your reasoning is logical.
I do not know where they come from or why they take the positions they do. As far as I can tell, they think there is nothing good about the United States and that the United States is more evil than the USSR, Nazi Germany and the Islamic countries all put together; yet, no people has ever been so free for so long; no people has corrected glaring mistakes and evils so steadily.
Churchill said something to the effect that democracy is the worst form of government imaginable, but it is the best one the world has had at any time. As far as the difference between Democrats and Republicans go? If they cannot see a difference between Patrick Leahy and Orin Hatch, I doubt if you and I will ever make them see it.
Phil
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments)
on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 8:19:45 PM
Andrew, I agree with you on one point: The Dems. buckled for reasons similar to why most employees, rather than stand up to exploitive and abusive power, remain silent and complicit in the workplace: They wanted to keep their jobs.
