|
|
|
You don't need to be a diehard "Republican", nor a "radical right wing Conservative", nor a "fundamentalist Christian", nor an "anti-Semite", to realize what a disingenuous, dishonest, erroneous, misleading, self-serving, arrogant statement this jew made. If he's correct that 80% of "the electorate" didn't vote for the Republicans, then it logically follows that he knows that 85-90% of "the electorate" didn't vote for the Democrats, which marginalizes his position even more than he succeded in marginalizing the Republican position. Who are these radical "liberals" who constitute less than 10-15% of "the electorate" who DO support the Democrats, who believe they have the right to impose their views and "opinions" on the 86-93% of Americans who are Christians, who DISAGREE with their agenda and the Democratic Party platform? With less than 2% of Americans being feminazis, and less than 1.9% being jews, and less than 1% being sodomites, and less than 2% being "liberals" (and with jews being all of the above, plus some), it's hard to imagine that they could constitute more than 5% of the American population. It's clear that their adverse influence far exceeds their numbers.
Mark Weisbrot: 'Democrats could try telling the truth' Date: Saturday, November 09 @ 08:36:09 EST Topic: The Democrats By Mark Weisbrot, Common Dreams The Democrats' loss in both houses of Congress has prompted more than the usual debate over what went wrong. It seems clear that the most fundamental strategic error made by the Democrats was to allow President Bush to displace their issues by making Iraq dominate media coverage of the election season. It is important not to bury this lesson, as the history of this election is already being rewritten. Trent Lott, Senate Republican leader, claims a mandate for the President: "The American people said, 'Yes, we trust this man'," he said. And Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, whose surrender to President Bush helped seal his party's fate, concurred, saying that the elections have given the President "an opportunity here to enact and proceed with the plan (on Iraq) as he has articulated it." But 80 percent of the electorate did not vote for Republican candidates. So it takes quite an imagination to see this election as a mandate for anything except fixing our broken-down democracy. Back in August, things were moving in the Democrats' direction. Due to massive fraud and corporate crime, millions of older employees had lost their savings and began postponing their retirement. By a lopsided margin of 55 to 25 percent, the public said that President Bush cared more about the interests of large corporations than about ordinary working people. Democrats led Republicans on the economy, the budget, Social Security, and almost all of the biggest election issues except "national security and terrorism." Then George W. Bush discovered Iraq. The Democrats could have said, why now? How did Saddam Hussein suddenly become a national security threat just 8 weeks before the election? Or more politely, they could have told President Bush to bring this up after the election, as his father did with the first Gulf War. But they caved instead. What is most amazing about this surrender is that it is not, as in so many other cases, a result of the corruption of our politics by campaign contributions. There was no clamor from Wall Street or the Chamber of Commerce for attacking Iraq. There may be oil and gas companies that stand to profit from this war, but they give most of their political contributions to Republicans. Of course corruption is still part of the story here. Democrats could have pursued a whole set of scandals that might topple the Bush administration. The Democratic leadership has apparently decided to tread carefully in the area of corporate malfeasance for fear that some of their own luminaries might wind up on the wrong side of an investigation. Clinton's former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, for example, might have to explain some phone calls he made to Treasury last year, asking whether they were going to intervene to protect Enron's bond ratings. But the Democrats' betrayal on the war is a different story. It is the latest, and the most morally repugnant, of a series of crucial political decisions in which telling the truth would have been a much better strategy even from the standpoint of their own self-interest. When President Bush proposed his massive tax cut, with 40 percent of it going to the richest 1 percent of the country (average income: $1.1 million), they could have opposed it on the grounds of fairness. Instead they chose to complain about its effects on the federal budget deficit. They posed as the party of fiscal conservatism, making up all kinds of gross exaggerations about the effect of tax cuts on the deficit and the economy. Thus voters are increasingly left with a choice between a party whose principles favor the rich and powerful, and another that has almost no principles at all. It is no wonder that most do not bother to show up at the polls. Fixing this problem will require a major overhaul, including real campaign finance reform that puts an end to the legalized bribery of our elected officials. But in the mean time, the Democrats might want to consider a novel strategy: tell the truth once in a while, at least when it's in your favor. You can hardly do worse than you have done with your poll-driven, don't-challenge-a- president-with-high-approval-ratings, gutless capitulation. Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington D.C. (www.cepr.net) � Copyrighted 1997-2002 Reprinted from Common Dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/ views02/1108-05.htm "A pig was placed on the American center stage in November/December of the year 2000. The mainstream media painted it with lipstick, and the Democratic leadership kick stepped behind, wearing pink tutus. Were it not for the massively armed military orchestra in the pit, with weapons aimed at all who fail to applaud, the world would respond accordingly, with rotted tomatoes and cabbages, to this misplaced vaudevillian joke." - James Higdon www.TakeBackThePresidency.com |
               |
|
Modified Tuesday, November 02, 2010 Copyright @ 2010 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party |
