 |
|
Add to My Group
|
October 28, 2006 at 20:43:15
DEMOCRATS suck, yeah, but are still not equivalent to REPUBLICANS by Stephen S. Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
I'm the last one to have anything positive to say about the incompetent and spineless Democrats. Those are just charges. That party has been woefully inadequate as the standard bearer for either liberals or progressives. If you were to equate the Democrats with a bad case of red-hot blistering Herpes, I would not argue.
But that doesn't mean that you can safely stay home on November 7th or cast a token vote for an admittedly better candidate from a better party who has much less chance of beating the Republican challenger, because, even though the Democrats are herpes, the Republicans are the political equivalent of AIDS, a far more lethal infection.
Ralph Nader convinced much of America of that false equivalency of the two major parties in 2000, probably enough to cost Gore the White House. Did that matter? It's not hard to see now that he could not have been more wrong. Notwithstanding all of the Democrats' flaws, America would have been infinitely better off with Gore in 2000 or even by 2004 with Kerry. I think that after you consider the following argument, you'll agree that it is not an exaggeration to equate the Republican Party to a lethal case of AIDS compared with the burning blisters of their political counterpart. Yeah, both are bad, but if you had to choose one, it would be easy.
Of course the following are only speculations, but I have no doubt that they are all or mostly correct:
Al Gore would NOT have invaded Iraq. He would not have ceased hunting Bin Laden nor diverted America's military away from that effort, NOR the National Guard from defending America's cities.
He would NOT have cut corporate taxes or the taxes of the wealthiest Americans, NOR would he likely have promoted cutting back the inheritance tax on huge fortunes. He would NOT have spoon-fed no-bid contracts to the corrupt Halliburton corporation and he would NOT have been lax in the pursuit of the Enron criminals who probably wouldn't have been so flagrant without family friends in the White House where they were invited to set energy policy with Cheney.
Gore would not have insulted America's allies and in so doing isolate the U.S. NOR would he likely have flouted the Geneva Convention. He would NOT have instituted a policy of torture for the military NOR set up gulags in Guantanamo. He would NOT have suspended habeas corpus nor would he likely authorize illegal wiretaps against American citizens. He would NOT have led an assault on the Constitution's separation of powers NOR of its separation of church and state. Gore would not have hired Rumsfeld or Rice, both abject failures at foreign affairs. He would NOT have authorized construction of that ridiculous, offensive and embarrassing wall along the Mexican border.
Gore's administration would NOT have outed Valerie Plame NOR endangered the lives of other CIA operatives thus compromising their ability to collect important intelligence. NOR would Gore have fabricated or cherry-picked intelligence. He would NOT have been nearly as secretive with the voters or the press corps, NOR made the government as opaque as it is now.
Gore would NOT have signed the USA PATRIOT Act. He would NOT have made men like John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales U.S. Attorneys General. He would NOT have nominated people like Priscilla Owens or William Pryor for lifetime seats on the US Courts of Appeals, and you would never have heard of the name of John Bolton. NOR would Gore have nominated women-unfriendly Supreme Court justices who now threaten to revoke women's reproductive rights.
Gore would NOT have politicized gay civil union or stem cell research, nor would he have intervened with Terry Schiavo's right to die. He would NOT have quietly condoned the implementation of Diebold's and its competitors' paperless electronic ballot boxes. NOR would he have turned a blind eye on Florida's and Ohio's voter intimidation and disenfranchisement shenanigans.
Gore would NOT have flouted the Kyoto accords. He would NOT have signed the Clean Air or Clear Skies acts. Nor drilled in Alaskan preserves for oil. And Gore would NOT have gutted FEMA and replaced its competent staff with incompetents. And he would not have let the people of New Orleans languish for most of a week before taking action.
There's more, especially if you're a 911 conspiracy advocate as many of us are. Maybe 911 would never have happened. Maybe its investigatory commission would not have been resisted nor its recommendations ignored. And I haven't even broached all of the likely differences in the national budget if Bush and the Neocons had been kept out of the White House, particularly with regard to the underfunding of human services and the bloated and wasteful defense and war expenditures.
Still think that there's not a dimes worth of difference?
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 7 comments |
|
But Gore trusted the Republicans.
He didn't have to concede to them without a fight. He didn't have to forbid the Democratic Senators to sign the CBC petition to block Bush from taking office. He could have refused to certify the fraudulent Florida electoral votes. He could even have refused to vote for the war. But he didn't. He felt that Bush made the right decision and he supported it. Obviously he would have made the same decision himself. If you've done any research regarding 9/11, you know that PNAC is not a governmental organization, and that all the right-wing think tanks are privately funded. The Democrats have already pledged that they will not try to impeach Bush, even though his veto and signing statement power will let him nullify anything they try to do. But they don't really want to do anything, they just want the big corporate donations that are given to whichever party controls Congress. And they are fighting to keep the electronic voting machines that will let their Republican colleagues steal the '08 election. Read the diary I posted today about the Diebold Democrats. The Democrats have never favored, and will never favor their Democratic constituents over their Republican colleagues. While there may be some individual exceptions, as individuals they are powerless against their party leadership. Bill Kristol of PNAC said on national TV months ago that he expected a Democratic sweep in November and that it would be the best thing that could happen for the Republicans. Why? Because it will restore public confidence in easily hacked electronic voting machines sufficiently to justify their use in '08. And with the Bush signing statements and veto power, the Democrats can posture for the environment, health, fairer taxes, or anything else they want, but they cannot accomplish anything at all. The fix is in. The Republicans agreed to let the Democrats "win" if the Democrats agreed not to try to impeach Bush. The Republicans, along with their colleagues, the Diebold Democrats, will continue the war in Iraq so that more trillions of dollars can flow to Halliburton, and nothing will change. Well, maybe not nothing. The Republicans may have agreed to let the Democrats push through some small piece of legislation without a veto, just to make people think that there is hope. But I guarantee you that they will not be taxing the rich or doing anything that might hurt the profits of the oil industry. Bush won't let them. And they always concede to Bush. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Sunday, Oct 29, 2006 at 1:36:12 AM  (0+)
|
|
Of course there's another reason
that the Democrats won't oppose Bush. Take a look at the DSCC ad currently running on this and almost every other website that might attract Democrats. Whose picture do you see? Bush, right? Bush is the Democrat's biggest vote-getter and their biggest money maker. All Democratic sites run pictures of Bush when they have their fundraisers. But stop and think about it. Did you ever see a Honda ad that featured a picture of a Saab? It wouldn't really matter that the Democrats have nothing to sell except their opposition to Bush, if they had ever actually opposed Bush. If Gore and Kerry hadn't conceded to him without a fight and even smoothed his way into office in order to avoid "civil unrest." If they hadn't given him dozens of standing ovations. If they hadn't voted for everything he wanted. If they hadn't pledged not to try to impeach him. Read "Indispensible Enemies," by the late Walter Karp. The job of the Republicans is to support the right-wing agenda. The job of the Democrats is to support the Republicans by controlling the left and preventing any opposition to the right-wing agenda. They're a team. The Republicans put up the most abhorrent candidates they can find, and the Democrats win elections and concede to their Republican colleagues anyway. They couldn't have "won" without them. The Republicans throw them a bone once in a while, because they're such obedient lapdogs, but this is a one-party system, America under corporate rule, and the Republicans own all three branches of government. The White House and the Supreme Court can veto or strike down anything the Democrats try to do, and all the Democrats can do is cry about those nasty Republicans. But they won't try to impeach them. Because that's who they work for. Look at their ad again. What it is saying is, "See this guy, George Bush? Remember when Gore conceded to him? Remember when Kerry conceded to him? Go out and vote for more Democrats who will vote with and fail to oppose Bush, so that in '08 we can elect either another Republican, or a Democrat who will concede to a Republican. Either way the corporations win. Vote corporate party! Quack!" by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Sunday, Oct 29, 2006 at 1:50:14 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The Democrats are flawed you say?
You enumerate some of the deficiencies of the Democrats. There are even more than that. So what? What is your point? That the Democrats are substandard? Why spend time on that? The question is not whether the Democrats have flaws or not. That is conceded right from the beginning. You merely elaborated on what is already stipulated and not being debated. The question is whether any strategy other than voting for the Democrat can produce a better result. Well, can it? I am assuming that the neocons intend to make America a fascist state and that it is in transition now. It is possible that it is too late to prevent that in which case it doesn't matter what we do except whether we leave or stay, and if we stay, whether we resist or comply. So, assuming that it is not too late (if it is, the game is lost), that some course of action or another can mitigate or prevent that fascist fate for America, what could it be, and how long can we wait to implement it before it is too late, before a problem that can be remedied becomes one that cannot? It is unwise to assume that we have more than a few months, years at most, before we have a full-blown dictatorship that cannot be affected with ballots. In fact, if votes still matter, this will probably be the last election about which that can be said, 2008 at the outside. What do you have or what can you assemble quickly that is more likely than the Democrats to beat the Republicans? If you can offer a viable alternative to the Democrats that we like better, we'd be just as thrilled as you. You have until next week. It is conceded that the Democrats may be in cahoots with the Republicans and may be no better that them. I don't trust them either. But if that is true, the game is also already lost since you don't have another way to stop the neocons from achieving their goals if the Democrats won't do it. So, you must proceed as if the Democrats will stop the Republicans even if that turns out to be untrue because no other course of action has a better chance of preventing full-blown fascism. Consider these words I posted elsewhere: "You don't have time to pave the path necessary to develop a viable third party and alternative candidates before the neocons completely disempower you and convert you from citizen to subject. Hear this: You need the stop the nation's rightward sprint NOW, assuming that it isn't already too late. You need to be more concerned that you aren't eliminated from the political process than about long term plans for perfecting it right now. "If you can reverse some of the damage, fine, do so. But not if it means a minute's delay in stopping or slowing the neocons forward progress, because they if they haven't already, they are very close to extricating us from the decision-making process altogether. That is, since you MAY have at most one real vote left, it had better have an immediate impact. You don 't have the time to right the wrongs of the past. It will take more time to develop the structures necessary to do so than you have if you don't do something effective immediately. You had better derail the neocons NOW, this election, and do nothing that jeopardizes the attainment of that goal. Your long-term goal can be to elect the best candidate, but your short-term goal needs to be to avoid electing the worst if your long term goal is to matter at all." Now tell me again what's wrong with the Democrats? Just kidding. What difference does it make? Why is it worth spending time talking about the deficiencies of the Democrats? They are either the same or better. You cannot be worse off with them, just as bad off or better. So what is your point, and what do you propose we do (and when) to stop the neocons, if the neocons are not already unstoppable? I say vote Democratic on November 7th and I haven't heard a better plan yet or a good argument to that one. Do you disagree? If so, do you have a better action plan? How much time should we spend analyzing the Democrats some more? Tick tick tick. by Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Sunday, Oct 29, 2006 at 12:05:39 PM (0+)
|
|
If it were possible for a Democratic Congress
to accomplish any real change, I'd agree with you. But since they will not oppose Bush, and Bush can veto or nullify anything they want to do, they are nothing but fascist collaborators. When you say that we MAY have one real vote left, it tells me that you don't give a damn about democracy. You're not signed up to be a pollwatcher. You don't read blackboxvoting.org and bradblog.com every day. You haven't read "Hacked," or any of the dozens of other books explaining why there can be no basis for confidence in electronic voting machines, and you're not familiar with the HUNDREDS of documented cases where these machines have miscounted votes. So when the Democrats "win" you'll think that they system worked, which is precisely why the Republicans intend to let the Democrats "win." They need to restore voter confidence in the hackable voting machines that will let them pass the nullification and veto power of a dictatorship on to another Republican in '08. And you and the rest of the Diebold Democrats who haven't been paying attention or don't understand the problem, are going to help them. It doesn't matter who you vote for. If the Republicans want the Democrats to "win" this time, which according to Bill Kristol, they do, the Democrats will "win" even if nobody votes for them. That leaves the Republicans in power for two more years, which is worth trillions of dollars in defense contracts to them and their cronies, and enables them to install another Republican president in '08. This isn't Democrats against Republicans. This is what Eisenhower warned us about: the military-industrial complex against democracy itself. Which side are you on, Yaybob? I'm on the side of democracy. I've taken the ACLU pledge not to vote for any pro-war candidates. And if you think the ACLU are dangerous liberals, it shows what kind of "Democrat" you are. Do you know what a shell game is, Yaybob? The conman hides a pea under one of three shells, and asks people to bet money which one it is under. He has a partner, called a shill, who wagers several times and wins every time. So when the marks watching see this, they think they too have a chance of winning. But when they bet, the conman makes sure that the pea isn't under ANY of the shells. They don't have a chance. It takes a real sucker to fall for a game like that. But as long as there are shills like you, there will be new suckers born every moment. Wise up, guy. The game is rigged and you CAN'T win. How many more years and how many more trillions of dollars will it take for you to figure it out? Or are you the shill who is in on the game and getting paid to help the conman fool the suckers? by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 6:01:43 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: It never ends.
If it were possible for a Democratic Congress to accomplish any real change, I'd agree with you. But since they will not oppose Bush, and Bush can veto or nullify anything they want to do, they are nothing but fascist collaborators. Why do you keep making the same tired point that has been conceded and settled in the opening paragraphs of the article article? All that we need out of the Democrats for there to be a massive improvement over the present situation is for them to do nothing. That would be a welcome change from the rush to fascism at breakneck speed. And they just might be up to that task. Or not. But I like your idea better. Let's NOT find out which it is. Keep the Republicans in power since it's possible that the Democrats were fully complicit. A good way to do that is to vote for the Republican. If you don't want to do that, just stay home or vote for one of his competitors from a third party that has no chance of winning. Let's see how that works out. When you say that we MAY have one real vote left, it tells me that you don't give a damn about democracy. Nice read. You're not signed up to be a pollwatcher. You don't read blackboxvoting.org and bradblog.com every day. You haven't read "Hacked," or any of the dozens of other books explaining why there can be no basis for confidence in electronic voting machines, and you're not familiar with the HUNDREDS of documented cases where these machines have miscounted votes. Are we in the same universe? Did you think my comment about having no longer having a vote or else that being the case very soon indicated confidence in the polling procedure? How can we have a conversation under these circumstances? So when the Democrats "win" you'll think that the system worked, which is precisely why the Republicans intend to let the Democrats "win." They need to restore voter confidence in the hackable voting machines that will let them pass the nullification and veto power of a dictatorship on to another Republican in '08. And you and the rest of the Diebold Democrats who haven't been paying attention or don't understand the problem, are going to help them. Another good read. Yeah, that's my plan. If the Democrats regain control of one house of Congress, our work is done. The reason that I think that is because I'm a Diebold Democrat, whatever that means. Nobody is as enthusiastic about Diebold as we Diebold Democrats. Nobody but you has been paying attention or understands the problem. It must be lonely. It doesn't matter who you vote for. That well may be true. If so, the game is already lost and there is nothing left to discuss except where to move to, is there? You need to focus on the slim hope that your vote MAY be counted and MAY matter, not that it might not. This isn't Democrats against Republicans. This is what Eisenhower warned us about: the military-industrial complex against democracy itself. Which side are you on, Yaybob? I'm on the side of democracy. You're not very good at recruiting converts to your viewpoint, are you? Actually, I'm on my family's side. And we have lost confidence in the confused and disorganized American left (people like you) to come together, think clearly, and mount an effective resistance to fascism. I've taken the ACLU pledge not to vote for any pro-war candidates. And if you think the ACLU are dangerous liberals, it shows what kind of "Democrat" you are." How far do propose to go in defining me and then attacking your fantasy? I'm not a Democrat at all as I have plainly indicated repeatedly but to no avail. Didn't you just mock me for suggesting that you MIGHT still have one vote left, maybe? So what use is your pledge? But as long as there are shills like you, there will be new suckers born every moment. Wise up, guy. The game is rigged and you CAN'T win. How many more years and how many more trillions of dollars will it take for you to figure it out? Or are you the shill who is in on the game and getting paid to help the conman fool the suckers? Oops! I've been found out! Yeah, I'm a shill working for the fascists and I'm trying to trick you, but you're just too smart for that. Another good read, Einstein. You know what, I don't care about you or what happens to you. You're not my friend and I'm not on your side. Do whatever you want. I don't have a stake in this anymore, anyway. My mistake for getting involved. I don't need this crap. For every liberal American that I encounter that I like, there are five like this. And as I sample the American liberal contingent in conversations like these that I have been having on similar web sites for the last two years, I'm finding more and more that the people that I am worrying about are really not my friends and that there really isn't as much that is worthwhile left here to fight for as I had once thought. What the hell am I fighting for? A memory that doesn't really exist anymore? Sir, you win. Good luck with your country. by Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 7:41:03 AM (0+)
|
|
"Democrats suck, yeah, but are still not equivalent to Repub
Mark Smith, your comments are silly in the extreme. Yaybob, if there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans, if that is your position and the position of the ACLU, you are being almost as silly. To think there is no difference between Al Gore, John Kerry and W is silly. To think that the Democrats have subpoena power without chairpersonships in either the House or Senate is silly. If you do not think the swearing of an oath to tell the truth is not important, just ask Bill Clinton who swore a lie that murder two million sperm. To think there is no power in subpoenas is silly. To think that there were 2,000 subpoenas while Clinton was President and 5 while W has been president does not make a difference is silly. Put these reactionary right wingers to the oath and lets us see who will be willing to lie under oath and go to jail and who will squeal like a stuck pig to save their own skin. Do not forget the lessons of Watergate. Do you not think the appointing of judges to the Court is not important? To think there is no difference in SC Judge Samuel Alito and SC Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg is silly. To think that there is no difference between SC Chief Justice Roberts or SC Judge Anotonin Scalia or SC Judge Clarence Thomas and SC Judge Ginsburg is silly. To think that Bush and crowd will not be held accountable along with Haliburton by Dennis Kucinich is silly. Remember, Rep. Kucinich will be the chair of the most important committee in the House of Representatives. I would hate to be Bush Haliburton and crew and face him. I am against the war and was before it ever started; however, to make this war the "be-all" is silly. There are some good people who will be far to the right of you. That should not be the only important thing. Will they honestly seek truth and justice is better test. It is this search that must determine the Bush fate and not vitriolic emotionalism. The Iraq War is one thing among many things: national health insurance single pay policy, no privatization of Social Security, funding Medicaid and Medicare, public education, torture, use of nuclear weapons which some say Bush intends to do against Iran (see Scott Ritter) are just as and maybe more important than the war. I may disagree with a candidate on two or three of these issues, but agree on the majority. If the Republicans win this razor thin election, we lose on every single one of them. I would vote for the turn coat Zell Miller gladly, if it meant the Democrats would get control of Congressional Committees. Mark, you and Yahbob, you may not be silly; you may be undercover radical neo-cons just doing typical neo-con work just one week before the election by discouraging large election turn out to defeat the Republicans. Yahbob, if I am misreading, I am sorry. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 11:37:41 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: To pratliff94
"Yaybob, if there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans, if that is your position and the position of the ACLU, you are being almost as silly. " Those were Mark's words, not mine. He wrote, "I've taken the ACLU pledge not to vote for any pro-war candidates. And if you think the ACLU are dangerous liberals, it shows what kind of "Democrat" you are." My words, besides the article itself, include: "The question is whether any strategy other than voting for the Democrat can produce a better result." "If you can offer a viable alternative to the Democrats ... we'd be just as thrilled as you." "It is conceded that the Democrats ... may be no better that them. But ... you must proceed as if the Democrats will stop the Republicans ... because no other course of action has a better chance of preventing full-blown fascism." Frankly, I'm confused that you would think that I was saying that there was no difference between the parties when I was saying that you need to vote Democratic and hope that there is a difference. "Mark, you and Yahbob, you may not be silly; you may be undercover radical neo-cons just doing typical neo-con work just one week before the election by discouraging large election turn out to defeat the Republicans. Yahbob, if I am misreading, I am sorry." Yes you are, but your apology is not necessary. I have been encouraging people to get out and vote, and to vote for the Democrat. I am the author of the article above. What made you wonder if I was a mole? I agree that Mark may be working for the enemy, however. I only say that because he, like Ardee (this article originally appeared as a comment under another OpEdNews story at http://snipurl.com/10om5 where Ardee also posted), repeatedly refuses to address the point that there is no time to implement their third party plan. Because they are saying the same thing and are both dodging my main point that they need a plan that they can implement in one week, I question their sincerity. It's kinder than questioning whether they understood the simple English that they both are deftly avoiding. Two things that Mark says, both in the following sentence, make me think that he is an impostor: "And if you think the ACLU are dangerous liberals, it shows what kind of "Democrat" you are. Who but a conservative thinks of the ACLU as dangerous liberals? I have never once seen anything like that coming from a liberal. We don't speak to one another like that. And who but a conservative refers to liberals as Democrats? They have been trained by Rush Limbaugh's crowd to conceive of 'liberal Democrat' as one word. Most of self-respecting liberals I know worth a whit distance themselves from the Democrats. Remember, these are my words: "I'm the last one to have anything positive to say about the incompetent and spineless Democrats. Those are just charges. That party has been woefully inadequate as the standard bearer for either liberals or progressives. If you were to equate the Democrats with a bad case of red-hot blistering Herpes, I would not argue." by Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 1:19:02 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
