The Democrats Are the Problem

[Michael Tee]

from Counterpunch today - -

http://www.counterpunch.com/whitney07212008.html

Obama promising to move the war from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Here you supposedly see the real "choices" being offered via the electoral process to the American people:  War in Afghanistan or War in Iraq.  Pick one.

Is anyone going to argue that the system is not seriously broken?  This is the ultimate consequence of money in politics.  The richest party, the War Party, buys both sides in the election.  The opponents of the War Party have nowhere to go. 

I've always voted before, but if this were my only choice, I wouldn't vote.  It's a farce.  Anyone who votes in this election is not only a sucker, but he or she is assisting and enabling those behind the farce.

[BT]

Unfortunately the peace party boxed themselves in by backing the Good War in Afghanistan and presumably Pakistan.

[Michael Tee]

<<Unfortunately the peace party boxed themselves in by backing the Good War in Afghanistan and presumably Pakistan. >>

Sure they did, but you should look behind that.  WHY did they box themselves in?

To the extent that the Democratic Party harbours any left-of-centre political opinion to the right of Dennis Kucinich, it's either already sold out to the War Party on foreign policy or - - and this is the exact same phenomenon that David Halberstam noted in The Best and the Brightest, his account of the origins of the Vietnam War - - it's been terrified of appearing "soft" on the enemy of the day - - "soft on communism" then, soft on "terrorism" now. 

The Republican Party has consistently been able to outflank the Democrats on the right by appealing to two basic American emotions - - fear and rage.  Anyone who glorifies in violent destruction of other human beings, who worships the military and all the violence, high-tech and low-tech, that it's able to inflict on others, and anyone who shivers in their boots thinking of sinister, dark-skinned people filled with evil, has a home in the Republican Party.  (As well as the relatively sane and normal, if empathy-impaired, fiscal conservatives and others, of course)

The Democrats, of course, allow the Republicans to get away with this shit because they are lazy or cowardly.  Too lazy to make the case against war and militarism, too cowardly to fight the Republicans and their macho trademarks, they fall into a "me-too" trap even though it costs them election after election.  Their problem is salesmanship - - they just can't figure out the delivery vehicle for their messages.  It's true, their message seems more nuanced and complex than the Republican message (It's us or them, you're either for us or against us) but isn't that what LEADERSHIP is all about?  If they can't lead the people in the right direction, they don't deserve to govern.   I never saw inspirational leadership in the Democratic Party since Bobby died.  It's too bad.

[BT]

The Democrats, of course, allow the Republicans to get away with this shit because they are lazy or cowardly. 

The Democrats have no choice. The american people are a violent group. And they don't like to be talked down to, they have been trained to dislike the rich and elite.

[Michael Tee]

<<The Democrats have no choice. The american people are a violent group.>>

That's where LEADERSHIP comes in.  They'd better find a way to get the American people to smarten up.

<< And they don't like to be talked down to . . . >>

Yeah, they're stupid too.  I noticed.

<< they have been trained to dislike the rich and elite.>>

That's good.  It means they'll vote Obama in a landslide.  McCain's the son and grandson of admirals, he's got eight homes compared to Obama's one, and his wife's money puts him WAAAAAY out of Obama's league.  He's descended from slave-owners (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._McCain,_Sr. for an account of the family background of the grandfather) and Obama is an African-American married to a  descendant of slaves.

But this is very funny - - McCain is running against an "elitist."  This is hilarious.

[BT]

Once again you twist my words. We were talking about the dem party not Obama and we were talking about the GOP's appeal to the angry ones. Not McCain. I could care less about McCain's money, but you prove my point about $ envy. And McCain's forebears my have owned slave, but did they import them like Kerry's did (a man who also married well, twice if i recall)

[Cynthia]

Money can't always solve the problems that we face in life-even at the highest level.   There has to be  intelligence, compassion and common sense to go along with that wad of cash .

Bush had his share of money, prestige and a family name, but did he have the the 'other'?

[Michael Tee]

<<Once again you twist my words. We were talking about the dem party not Obama and we were talking about the GOP's appeal to the angry ones.>>

Here's what YOU were talking about:  <<The Democrats have no choice. The american people are a violent group. >>

You were talking about the Democratic Party AND about the American people.

And then you spoke again about the American people:  <<And they don't like to be talked down to, they have been trained to dislike the rich and elite.>>  That your reference was to the American people here was clear from the fact that the sentence followed immediately after a sentence that referred exclusively to the American people; here it is, again, in context:  <<The american people are a violent group. And they don't like to be talked down to, they have been trained to dislike the rich and elite.>>

To recap, you spoke of the Democratic Party and you spoke of the American people.  Not once in the post that I responded to did you speak about the GOP appeal to the American people or anyone else.  So how exactly did I "twist your words?"  I merely concluded from what you said about American hatred of the rich and the elite that this would be good news for Obama.  Am I not allowed to extrapolate from things you say and apply them to related current subjects?

[BT]

Quote
The Democrats, of course, allow the Republicans to get away with this shit because they are lazy or cowardly. 

That was my entry into the thread. Not the word Republicans?

[BT]

There has to be  intelligence, compassion and common sense to go along with that wad of cash .

Bush had his share of money, prestige and a family name, but did he have the the 'other'?

Are you saying Bush does not have compassion, intelligence or common sense?

Because i can provide evidence that he does.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Are you saying Bush does not have compassion, intelligence or common sense?
Because i can provide evidence that he does.

Go, on.

I double-dog dare you.

==============
But the important thing is that he is an incompetent, shallow, lying, stubborn warmongering asshole.

And easily the very worst president ever, unless you count Jefferson Davis.

[Plane]

The Democrats, of course, allow the Republicans to get away with this shit because they are lazy or cowardly. 

The Democrats have no choice. The American people are a violent group. And they don't like to be talked down to, they have been trained to dislike the rich and elite.

How far is that from being class conscious?

[Michael Tee]

BT sez:

Quote
The Democrats, of course, allow the Republicans to get away with this shit because they are lazy or cowardly.

That was my entry into the thread. Not the word Republicans?
==========================================================================

Sorry, BT, one of us is very confused.  The words you just quoted were MY post and MY words, they were not your "entry into the thread."   Maybe you meant it was the point at which you entered the thread?

But if that's what you meant, I still have to ask, how did I twist your words?   Which particular words of yours do you say I "twisted" and how exactly were they twisted?

[BT]

It must be you who is confused.

Note it wasn't i who call dems stupid it was you who called GOPsters stupid. Talking down to them if you will.

Although you did claim the dems were ineffective, amd i have no quattel with that statement.

[Michael Tee]

<<It must be you who is confused.>>

I don't think so, but you still haven't answered my question:  which words of yours did I "twist" and how exactly did I "twist" them?