Here's a Difference Between Dems and Repubs
Last night 60 Minutes had a story on how the Bush administration has censored and altered what James Hansen, the government's leading scientist on climate change, can say about global warming. In the course of the interview, Hansen claimed that the Clinton administration wanted him to play up the dangers of global warming, whereas the Bush administration actively changes his reports to read that global warming is not occurring. Hansen gives us 10 years before global warming hits a tipping point from which we cannot turn back.
Ok so both the parties lie. I'll take the democrats lies thank you. And it does make a difference.
Rewriting The Science - CBS News: "Politically, Hansen calls himself an independent and he’s had trouble with both parties. He says, from time to time, the Clinton administration wanted to hear warming was worse that it was. But Hansen refused to spin the science that way. "
posted by Victor Laszlo @ 3/20/2006
10 comments
10 Comments:
Vic,
I like the Bush administration's lies less than the Dems' lies in some areas too.
However, am I jumping to conclusions here, or are you implying something that is related to a more longstanding discussion we've had on this forum?
The fact of the matter is that the Dems ARE part of the culture of corruption. The revolving door between lobbyists, corporate entities, and legislators is a very real phenomenon for Dems. Clinton's administration was full of defense industry hacks, and the defense industry is full of Clinton administration officials. Clinton enacted welfare reform that no Republican could have gotten away with at the time.
So what's the point? In a general sense, are the Dems preferable to the Repubs? I think so. However, when you have Hillary jumping up and down rabble rousing on Iran, and the Dems indiscriminantly using anti-Arab sentiment for political expediency re: the UAE ports deal, and you have the Dems running away from Feingold's call for censure, and when you have the power-broker Dems avoiding any real stance on Iraq, etc., etc., I think you need to call them on their shit.
Do you disagree?
We definitely need to call them on that, and they are despicable, but there's always going to be some amount of corruption in government. The point is not to lose sight of the big picture. Defeating the repubs is important enough to have to hold your nose at some things. If it takes some Rove-like machinations from our side to do it, so be it. The mobilize the poor strategy is not going to work in this country. Not for a long time, if ever. We may not have that long.
"The mobilize the poor strategy is not going to work in this country. Not for a long time, if ever. We may not have that long."
How do you know this? When was the last time it was tried? And in case you haven't noticed, disregarding the fact that it is a victory of questionable merit even when you succeed, Dems using weakly implemented Rove-like methodology isn't a wining strategy. And neither is running from the center. Gore ran from the center, and he came very close. Kerry ran from farther to the right, and he lost by a greater margain.
How comfortable will you be pulling the lever for Casey, Vic?
" If it takes some Rove-like machinations from our side to do it, so be it."
Where is your proof that "Rove-like machinations" are working? My sense is that when Dems try to copy Rove's tactics is just blows up in their faces. Did the Dems gain any ground from jumping on the ports deal with "Arabs" that they wouldn't have gotten had they simply let the Repubs self-destruct? I don't see any. Do they gain any advantage to fear-mongering with Iran that wouldn't have been more than compensated for had they formulated a more realistic platform re: Iran? Their jumping ont the Iraq bandwagon has come back to bite them in the ass, and undermined the legitimate criticism of the war that came from someone like Dean all along.
I think the progressive movement of the early 20th century is your historical example. Either that or Robespierre, and you know how that turned out.
I'm comfortable with Casey over Santorum.
Rove is working for them. We just need someone as good as Rove on our side.
I'd be for a multi-pronged attack--organize the base as well as use all the tricks in the playbook. The ports deal has hurt Bush--have you seen his approval ratings lately?
"I think the progressive movement of the early 20th century is your historical example."
Ok, now that is a joke, right? You aren't seriously suggesting that we use the early 20th example as a framwork for prediciting likely outcomes in today's political arena.
"I'm comfortable with Casey over Santorum."
I'm not comfortable with a anti-choice, pro-war, anti-national healthcare, anti-stem cell research, pro Alito candidate under any circumstances. The fact that I'll probably vote for the bastard doesn't mean that I'll be comfortable doing so.
"The ports deal has hurt Bush--have you seen his approval ratings lately?"
He lost support from Republicans on that issue. The Dems already hate his ass. Do you think his drop in popularity amoung Republicans has anything to do with Hillary or any other Dem criticizing him on that issue? Get real. He lost on that issue, just like he lost popularity on Harriet Myers - because the Republicans jumped all over his ass.
The only thing that Hillary did by bloviating on the issue was make everyone even more convinced of what a complete hypocrite she is. She would have been better off had she only talked about the issue as an example of cronyism and how out of touch Bush is, instead of trying to outflank the Republicans on security issues. Do you really think ANYONE bought that?
Using the Rove-machine fear-mongering just won't work for the Dems. It will only strengthen the Republicans' hands. Look at how well Kerry's whole militaristic approach worked. Not too well, I'd say.
I'll just say, that one time in my teens I met Casey. And boy am I glad I don't live in PA now.
I like where this is going and I think that Dumpling has a point about the poor. How do we enfranchise people when the old method of using a solid manufacturing base is evaporating? This is the issue that requires the most creativity, not in terms of politics, but in terms of real economic planning. Is it through education with an eye toward service oriented jobs (high tech, creative, etc.) or is there another way beside simple subsidies, which never work because they are the first things that get cut. What then are the options? Education without direction only works as a career for a very small number of people. And where is the next leap in new jobs coming from, what base? Take all the urban, rural planning and it still does not address the root of the 20th century successes (which I agree with Lazlo, were significant). If you look at the migration of black people from the south to the northern cities and into manufacturing, the movement of European imigrants into the same system, those things caused the rise of the suburbs and bedroom communities. Where is the new game changer. If you figure that out, then you can sell it to a party, Dems or otherwise. Until we get that, we are at the whim of whomever is in office and I don't believe any of them will back a program that addresses the disenfranchised poor.
"I think the progressive movement of the early 20th century is your historical example."
Ok, now that is a joke, right? You aren't seriously suggesting that we use the early 20th example as a framwork for prediciting likely outcomes in today's political arena.
In referring to the progressive movement of the early 20th century I was trying to answer your question, "When was the last time it (mobilizing the poor) was tried?"
From Wikipedia:
Progressives dominated left-wing American politics from the 1890s to the 1920s. Today the term refers to movements on the left ranging from liberal to social democrat.
Early in the 20th century, progressives worked to reform the political process in the US. In several states, they succeeded in reducing the power of political bosses by instituting presidential primaries and non-partisan elections. They exposed corruption, and established public control of the existing monopolies over public resources, such as water and gas works. They were the driving force behind the reform and regulation of child labor, the institution of public education, and the right of women to vote. Their efforts contributed to the writing and ratification of the 17th Amendment (the direct election of senators) in 1913, and the 19th Amendment (right of women to vote in federal elections) in 1920. They sought to improve transportation for the public. They also pressured state legislatures to raise the property tax in order to spend more money on schools, parks and other public facilities. They usually worked at the state level to make changes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Movement
If you think it's a joke to use this framework for predicting political outcomes in today's environment then it sounds like you are making my point that this strategy is not going to work. I'd like to see it work. Note how even when successful it was on the state level.
Great points Libby E. The loss of the manufacturing base does complicate using labor and populist economics as a way to "franchise" voters.
But the "living wage" issue still jumps out to me as a primary plank, as does a real grassroots effort at voter registration. And as an educator, I think that job training, apprenticeship programs, and real educational reform through vocational programs would also be effective.
And Vic - also good points. Maybe I was being a tad flippant? But perhaps the McGovern and Dukakis campaigns are an even more recent depressing examples? I think that Dukakis' was a weak personality, ala Gore and Kerry - but McGovern's platform wasn't that far from what I'd advocate, and he lost in a total landslide.
Ok, I give up. Hillary for prez. And let's hope the Dems hire Machiavelli to run the campaign.
Great points Libby E. The loss of the manufacturing base does complicate using labor and populist economics as a way to "franchise" voters.
To be fair, that was the Impenetrable One. I just made a flip comment about Casey. But if you want to say that's a great comment I won't stop you.
Post a Comment
<< Home