Then your 2 steps ahead of me, and I live in a very liberal area (bay area).Originally Posted by AndrewLoweWatson
Then your 2 steps ahead of me, and I live in a very liberal area (bay area).
It seems like we're trying to decide if we want the crack-head, or the arsonist to park our car... there are shamefully few honest politicians on the planet, and the miniscule percentage of them that there are are so insignifigant so as to be non-exisent! There is not a solution to this countries ills to be found within the current set of choices we have to vote for (my humble opinion). I do not know what the overall answer to adressing these issues is, so I just try to watch which way the wind blows and stay stocked up on bottled water, shotgun-shells, and tuna!
Good one, hehe....But call me naive but I dont think the situation is that bad on the Democratic side where there seems to be a lot of good guys who wanna look out for the American people.It seems like we're trying to decide if we want the crack-head, or the arsonist to park our car
So then what you're saying is that you believe that if we get the demies back in, that the following will happen:
- The truth about 9/11 will come out in its entirety, including the footage of what hit the pentagon?
- The Olklahoma City bombing video footage showing from a total of thirteen angles irrefutably that there was a second (govt sponsored) bomber.
(Note, I don't live in the US, so don't vote there - but my point is general. I could change the names of the parties to Irish ones, but that would confuse a lot of people I suspect)
No doubt there are many good and generally honest Democrats in the Party (and there are no doubt decent and honest republicans in the Rep Party too!).
But A) whether they are 'honest' or not isnt really an issue for me - its their politics - I vote on politics and not on personal integrity. That is to say, you could have the most honest Republican in the world running for office, but there is no way in Hell I would vote for them - because Republican politics are repulsive to me. It's a bit different for Democrats - I would vote for McKinney and possibly (depending on the record of the person) for someone aligned with the Progressive Democrats of America / Progressive Caucus. I would never vote for anyone allied with the Democratic Leadership Council (roughly equivilent to New Labour in Britain - ie neo-liberalist, "humanitarian interventionist" etc).
Which brings me to point B) Leadership, specifically in the Democratic Party. While recognising that there are many democrats in the party who would have somewhat similar broad political views as myself - the big problem is that these people are not in the leadership of the party. Certainly not on a national or state level (I don't know about the county/city level). And the way American politics has developed over the last century - they never will be. The democrats rely almost as much on Big Donations and Business Lobby Groups as the Republicans do. And these groups (understandably form their point of view) do not want people like me anywhere near the reigns of power - and what they fear even more is an extension of democracy into places like the workplace, environmental regulation, and heaven forbid business regulation (these are some aspects of what I view as REAL democracy - people controlling their own communities, workplaces, etc). And this is why Howard Dean (who in my humble opinion was a moderate, when compared with the vicioulsy pro-war John Kerry, not someone from the 'far left' at all) was 'unelectable' - or we were reliably informed that he was. And of course, this is why the Democratic campaign against Ralph Nader (not perfect by any means, but he would have got my vote) was so vicious - not because he was a 'threat' to Kerry, but because he was raising political ideas that John Kerry/John Edwards/DLCers would not touch with a fofty foot pole. That, incidently, is the reason I supported Nader running in 2004 (and 2000, and if he runs again in 2008 I will support him still). If the DLC was confident in their policies and politics they would have engaged publicly with Nader in town-hall debates, would have lobbied vigoursly to have Nader (and others) included in the [stage managed] 'Presidental debates' - afterall they Democratic Party, going by their name anyway, you would presume that they believe in 'democracy' and 'diversity of opinion' and not in hiding and shafting Nader as best they could. But they were afraid of Nader - again not because they thought he was a real threat - or even that he would win the election - but they were afraid of his ideas getting a wider platform. And if you ask me, a big factor in the collapse of teh nati-war movement over the past two years has been that during the 04 election, the progressive forces in the democratic party (who also operate in the Anti-War Movement) subjugated themselves to largely uncritical support of a pro-war candidate (Kerry).
Well that's just my two-cents from across the Atlantic.
Let's face it, that would be political suicide.
And intersting article Patridge. Good insight into policits.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote