[lbo-talk] Eat shit and die, was United against a Pro-War De

R rhisiart at charter.net
Fri Sep 24 01:38:13 PDT 2004


At 09:10 AM 9/23/2004, you wrote:


>to be against war is to admit the people have a say in their own destiny.
>
>R
>---------
>
>While all the anti-Demo rag is accurate, you would think that since
>they are handed the election on a silver plater, that would take it,
>given they have no conscious, no scruples, no idea what or why they
>are in office. I mean realpolitik offers them a free ticket and they
>don't take it? What's with that?
>
>CG
>
>Sure I remember the Fulbright committee handing LBJ a blank check. But
>we've all been around that block many many times since. I mean it was
>only forty years ago...

i assume you're asking about the democrats? they aren't really handed the election. they have to earn it. they live in a sheltered, beltway world where life is easy if you please the right people. they, to use the cliche, are out of touch with america. they expect to be given what they want, not earn it. if it's not easy, they sink in the polls the way al gore did. and if they must stand on their own two legs, they give up the way al gore did.

the republicans are taking it. and doing so quite handily, by any means necessary. should the dems try to pick up the platter, the repubs will smack it from their hands, and probably smack them in the process. dirty but effective when dealing with cowards.

the dems consistently moved to the right over the years because it looked easier. they've abandoned their constituencies from the center to the left. they've reached the point where they simply don't have the ability to differentiate themselves from republicans when push comes to shove -- and large segments of the public knows it. the two parties are deeply in collusion (with minor democrat exceptions throwing crumbs to liberal supporters for PR purposes). take a look at how kerry and edwards can't or won't disentangle themselves from their earlier support for the iraq war, for example. and the failed results of NAFTA, which kerry voted for.

those running the party like the status quo; and get angry at anyone who disturbs it and them. they spend their energies fighting nader rather than shrub. they're a moribund, failed party. clinton's "victory" over old bush was largely due to ross perot; his re-election, bob dole.

as michael moore said, "we cannot leave this election to the democrats to screw it up." what's the choice? without the support of the democratic party, young people are going door to door to raise money so they can move to swing states and campaign for the defeat of shrub, not the election of kerry per se. this is one more example of grass roots democracy that has nothing to do with the democratic party. hopefully, we will soon see the end of the democrats.

R


>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list