Here’s another interesting juxtaposition: Glenn Greenwald’s post about how the otherwise alarming Ron Paul is attracting support, money and excitement thanks to his emphatic pro-Constitution and antiwar positions; and David Sirota’s post on how Mike Huckabee and John Edwards are running as anti-corruption, anti-oligarchy, anti-economic-inequality populists.
[Warning: Paragraph composed entirely of questions to follow. You may want to avert your eyes.]
I don’t like any of Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee’s other positions, but how strange is it that two Republican candidates are offering stronger antiwar, pro-rule-of-law, populist messages than the two front-running Democrats and the entire party leadership? How did this happen? Shouldn’t all of those messages be core elements of the Democratic brand? Could it be that we’re seeing a People Party/Money Party divide instead of a Republican/Democrat divide? Is it even possible for Republicans to belong to the People Party? Maybe Huckabee belongs to the Grassroots Theocrat Party instead?
Here’s an ethical and strategic question to consider: If Paul and/or Huckabee (or some other fundamentalist candidate backed by the We-Hate-Rudy Religious Right) decides to make a third-party run, should Democrats and progressives help them get on the ballot, like Republicans and conservatives did for Nader? It’s underhanded but not illegal, and it would be chock full o’ poetic justice.
Finally, a comment on populism’s upside that I couldn’t integrate gracefully into the rest of the post: When done right, like in John Edwards’ great New Hampshire speech, it reminds people who are struggling of why they’re struggling. They’re not struggling because of the blacks or the gays or the immigrants or the women’s lib, they’re struggling because the rich and powerful have rigged the system for their own benefit. This would be a very powerful message for the Democratic party, if they cared to use it.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Eli!!!
Matt!!!
Got lucky once more!
Ron Paul sounds good but is bad news.
It’s definitely all about the money. ::sigh::
P’takh on the rich and powerful. Good post, Eli!
Eli, I’m like three seconds into this video and lmao!
AZ Matt @ 3
Ron Paul scares me because he knows just what to say to hit a certain segment of the population. Kind of reminds me of Perot in 1992, but more frightening.
Eli!
Liss @ 4
Corporate money is like an anchor dragging the Democratic party down. The main thing they have going for them is that it’s dragging the Republicans down faster (along with crazy fundamentalists and warmongers).
Excellent post, Eli!
That was a very beautifully put and elegant framing of the absolutely necessary turnabout from Left/Right to people/money.
We the people, at a planetary level, are the only collective force capable of setting the money-ego-politics straight, by honoring that which is inherently whole and sane about humanity. Including our collective desire for an inhabitable planet and TRUE PEACE.
People value cooperation and tolerance
Money values profit
Ego values power
Ego devalues the heart
People know better. People are sick of the superficial and the dark and the ego-driven fool.
Here is to all of us, dropping our past politics and stepping up to the collective human need to establish sanity, and peace, and wisdom on our planet, and for our species gone awry.
One species.
One people.
No differences.
Dayam, a very good question…
“I don’t like any of Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee’s other positions, but how strange is it that two Republican candidates are offering stronger antiwar, pro-rule-of-law, populist messages than the two front-running Democrats and the entire party leadership?”
Inquiring minds want to know… 8-(
RP requires a whipping boy or three. He is preaching hate essentially. When it is someone elses fault it is easy to get people all worked up. Tancredo and Huckabee aren’t much different – blame the brown man is what they are about.
We the people @ 11
One People, One Planet…
Here’s another interesting juxtaposition:
Say It’s So, Joe
Vice President Lieberman?
by William Kristol
Comedy gold — Kristol must be having kittens…
AZ Matt @ 13
That’s the strange thing about populism and immigration. I think the Huckabee strain is more nativist, where the corporations are using immigrants and foreigners to disempower honest hardworking Americans.
But really, it’s not the immigrants who are the problem.
neokneme @ 15
I would totally be trying to angle the Republican nominee towards Lieberman.
Today I was going across the American River in Rancho Cordova. On the bridge abutment was a homemade Ron Paul sign that had the word “love” interlaced with the word elect. But love was inverted. Weird. There certainly are a ton of people out there who are very enthusiastic about Mr. Paul. Unfortunately, many think he is going to be their conquering hero.
Bush Plays Video Game
marymccurnin @ 18
Have you seen the one I snapped on Labor Day, outside the John Edwards rally?
Millineryman @ 19
He’s totally been in the shit, and understands how scary and intense war is.
So the Dem leadership seems to have forgotten that it was the get out the vote efforts of the left that got them into power. As Karl reminds us, it’s in the math and if the leadership thinks they can demoralize the left and still win they will be in for a big surprise. What a bunch of fools. Sorry for the random rant.
Eli @ 20
It’s like a cult!
Millineryman @ 19
Dana needs to quit shooting her blond mouth off. I apologize to all blonds in advance.
So far I’ve seen more Ron Paul yard signs and bumper stickers then anyone else.
should Democrats and progressives help them get on the ballot, like Republicans and conservatives did for Nader?
ABSOLUTELY
But they won’t. Hell, they wouldn’t even pony up a million or so to recall Schwarzenegger out here in California, preferring instead to spend 45 million on Angiledes. We could have had 45 recalls for that amount of money, surely one of them would have been successful. The Democrats just don’t seem to have the desire to fight with every weapon at their disposal…
Eli @ 21
From a cocaine induced haze while AWOL in the States.
realworld @ 22
It’s a huge pet peeve of mine. The appeal-to-the-center-which-is-really-the-right strategy is suicidal.
Even *if* you succeed in appealing to independents/moderates/undecideds, they’re not going to be fired up like the base, so their numbers are going to be diluted by low turnout.
What Rove understands, and the Democratic leadership doesn’t, is that turnout is a force multiplier.
If I had a million to spend, you can bet I would mount a recall.
Rusty Austin @ 26
Like, say, filibustering Mukasey.
Eli @ 20
I have also seen a lot of Ron Paul signs, more signs than Clinton signs if you except staged rallies (although I admit that may reflect where I happen to live). I think the Greenwald analysis is the best, Ron Paul represents a reasoned opposition to Washington politics as usual, something the Democrats simply are not providing.
Eli @ 20
‘Tower of Strength?’ Whew, their Koolaid must be spiked with a little extra kick…
I am tired of trying to figure out why the dems need to get anger stoking management.
Eli @ 30
absolutely, hopefully this whole Iraq funding thing will come to a head in the next few weeks, but I ain’t counting on it…
Eli @ 28
Amen.
Eli @ 17
Reading between the lines, it sounds like Billy the K. thinks Rude_E need not apply for Pres.
I do not support Ron Paul because he is too Conservative, in the classical definition. But he is against the War? Why do Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support the war?
I think they are controlled by Converse-Infosys.
Rusty Austin @ 34
I think it’ll be a repeat of the last “showdown”. They might pass a good bill, and then Dubya’ll veto it and start posturing about how the Democrats are endangering the troops, and they’ll cave. They don’t know how to fight the “Democrats are endangering the troops!” meme, and they won’t listen to our suggestions.
Has anyone seen what’s on TNT tonight?
Hint: Nancy, Steny, Rahm and Harry could take a lesson from it.
Huckabee yes, Paul no. Helping out Paul is playing with fire, as he really will peel off Dem voters. (If this could be you, I have two phrases for you: Supreme Court, and Departmental staffers. Even Hillary will end up appointing a lot of progressives into these mid-level and Assistant Secretary roles, and I think Monica Goodling and Douglas Feith have shown us that that is something that matters). Of course, as I’ve said before, we don’t want to help Paul, but we should use him as a bogeyman to the Dem leadership if they don’t do more of what we want.
On the other hand, I think none of us will be tempted by Huckabee.
Rusty Austin @ 34
Nope, the Democrats will roll over and give Bush every penny he wants, just like they did six months ago.
Professor Foland @ 40
If the Democrats nominate a strong antiwar candidate, Paul will not be a threat.
But they have to nominate a strong antiwar candidate.
Geezie Cressie Eli. I just got stuck over at your photo site. Afu***ingmazing!
Eli @ 38
What’s so galling, is we’re their Base… (Hint, Hint!)
marymccurnin @ 43
Aw, thanks, Mary.
Eli @ 42
There are no antiwar candidates among the “front runner” Democrats. The only hope of ending the war, paradoxically enough, is if a Republican wins in 2008.
I have chosen to become a mole in the republican party and I fully plan to vote for RP in the primary.
Wouldn’t getting RP on the ballot completely demoralize all the mouth breathers?!!
Oh what fun!
If nothing else, at the very least I will cancel some fool’s vote for Rudy.
C’mon, join the republican party and effect change from the inside – you know the dem “leadership” will follow the GOP’s torturing lead no matter what.
Are the dems representing your interests? I doubt it. Representing their constituents has been taken off the table.
Want to effect change in our neurotic political system?
Try gorilla politicking, it’s what all the disaffected, disregarded former democratic kids are doing.
Anger management IS the Dem leadership’s game. They are afraid of righteous anger, because who else but them becomes the target when, after sell-out after sell-out, the peasants finally erupt. Messy, messy, and all the wrong types of people might get elected.
OT – brace yourselves, Newt has gone green:
BlueMesa @ 46
The strongest antiwar Dems are Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel. The first two are probably the only ones with *any* shot. Edwards *might* be okay, but he did have that “everything’s on the table with Iran” speech.
punaise @ 49
I could throw up
Here’s an ethical and strategic question to consider: If Paul and/or Huckabee (or some other fundamentalist candidate backed by the We-Hate-Rudy Religious Right) decides to make a third-party run, should Democrats and progressives help them get on the ballot, like Republicans and conservatives did for Nader? It’s underhanded but not illegal, and it would be chock full o’ poetic justice.
This was once a conventional tactic by big city machine type pols-especially Dems. If it works, do it.
Great post Eli, cuts through all the village bullshit.
Elliott @ 51
The bitter irony is he’s right… If Big Oil stepped aside, our know-how could riddle us out this enigma…
Eli @ 50
I agree absolutely on your list. They won’t be elected, though. It’s what’s wrong with the Democratic Party in a nutshell — the candidates that most represent the majority of the base are precisely the ones that the leadership is against. You don’t find that problem in the Republican party — the candidate that the Republican voters support is the candidate that the Republican Party will support. That’s a large part of their strength, as, to be fair, it should be.
Elliott @ 51
Green bile?
The Newt green is probably mold.
marymccurnin @ 56
bile means
Joe Klein’s conscience @ 39
We’re off to see the Pollster…
BlueMesa @ 55
The Republicans embrace their base; the Democrats think theirs is an embarrassment and a liability.
But you can’t tell me that our base is anywhere *near* as mortifyingly crazy as theirs.
ccmask @ 57
This Green would work… “…create billion-dollar prizes to inspire inventors to innovate our way to a clean energy future.”
*g*
GordonM @ 59
if I only had a filibuster
Eli @ 60
Not at all. I agree with your point earlier that alienating their base is pure suicide for the Democratic Party. They did it in 2000, they did it in 2004, it looks like they are hell-bent on doing it again in 2008, with I’m afraid the same result, losing an election that by all rights they should have won easily.
now here’s a plan : Get Gore to candidate.
Not as a Dem, but as a green. Frame it as a pure political statement, as setting a sign, which is important in this media age, as testing the waters for further candidates, bla bla …
And he will win on every issue.
BlueMesa @ 63
Just to be clear, I wasn’t suggesting that you were; just a turn of phrase.
Spiritcatcher @ 64
That would be interesting. He’s probably the only person in the country who could win as a third-party candidate.
Spiritcatcher @ 64
My dream is that Gore and Bloomberg team up to run as independents. Why would anybody bother to vote for either the Democrats or the Republicans?
I don’t see Gore running as third party.
And the Dems then go and also try to embrace the GOP base.
punaise @ 68
Me neither; although he’d be a more authentic Green candidate than Nader.
Spiritcatcher @ 64
Sure, and then get Hil to pick up Juck Foe as VP on her tix. Lol!
OT but-
This is a John Edwards quote from a recent speech delivered by satellite to a conference in Israel. It really scares me.
link
Praedor Atrebates @ 69
In fairness, everyone tells them that that *is* the center.
But they should still know better.
BlueMesa @ 67
I read that and heaved a sigh, what if both parties imploded? I could go for a seismic shift in alliances.
Eli @ 66
All he would need to do is take what Edwards Kucinich and Dodd are saying, get Gore Vidal to rewrite it.. Accept no corporate campaign contributions and wear a helmet around Clinton supporters.
Eli @ 73
Inside the Beltway, it truly is the center. But only inside the Beltway.
Great post, Eli. I like the idea of gathering around Kucinich, Dodd, or Gravel for the same purpose. ;-)
Eli @ 65
Heh, if they want to commit suicide, can we at least offer them katanas so it would be a honorable Seppuku… 8~)
Seamus D @ 72
You and me both. He totally gets it on domestic policy, but he seems to have completely bought into the idea that Democrats have to prove how tough and manly they are on foreign policy.
KayInMaine @ 77
Dodd is far and away my favorite, although I wavered a bit when Edwards made that great speech, and Dodd went a little reactionary on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
BlueMesa @ 67
Fits the bubble curve — could happen. Gore wouldn’t finish the term however, and Bloomberg would preside over 36 months of recession.
Elliott @ 74
Works for me! Let’s get a real candidate who represents the true center according to the polls. You know, withdrawal from Iraq, something like Medicare-for-everyone health care, progressive taxation that has the rich paying their fair share, some reasonable immigration policy, some policy that reduces our output of greenhouse gases without bankrupting the economy. As far as I’m concerned, the Democrats are already heading to being the real “third party”!
punaise @ 68
Why, has he lost too much weight?
Eli @ 80
Mine too.
Eli @ 80
yeah, Dodd’s response seemed to be coming from a rather “entitled” point of view. Knocked me back.
Well, as a matter of fact, I’m actually going to register as a rethug this year. I’m thinkin’ I can then vote AGAINST Rube Jewisharmy PLUS if there are “problems” getting into, at, involved with the pols, I’ll likely have a ticket in.
Of course it’s not illegal. And that’s just for the primaries. The actual presidential elections, well, I can still vote my dem choice. It’s underhanded to be sure. But SOMEONE’S gotta fight fire with fire, since our democratic congress won’t do it. SOMEONE’S gotta grow some big and ruthless ones, and do something to stop this insanity, SINCE OUR SPECIALLY ELECTED 110TH WON’T. (Mandate Schmandate, Nancy and Stenny chuckled as they quietly snuck down the hall toward their next BIG DEAL with their respective lobbyist BFFs, ducking into corners and closets avoiding any opponents in their paths.)
And no one can say a word about that. I’m curious how I’ll be received down at City Hall. Where I live is a fairly backward cowboy and red community. It’ll be an interesting experience, I’m thinkin’.
And there’ll be some heavy bottle tipping the day I register, switching my affiliation. I just hope I can control the gag reflex.
siri@legitgov.org
http://www.legitgov.org
BlueMesa @ 82
*S*
CTuttle @ 12
Karl Rove?
Valley Girl @ 85
Dodd is very “presidential looking” (not a high bar after having Lunkhead in there for seven years now) and also has a commanding voice. If Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel were the top 3 right now, I would be more motivated than I am. The top 3 candidates chosen by the ROM (republican owned media) are just not doing it for me. I don’t think they ever will unless they do a 180.
Eli @ 79
Its not just that, its how angry he comes across and how much he seems to invest in the “poor Israel, its all Iran, Syria, and the Palestinian’s fault” for not leaving well enough alone.
KayInMaine @ 89
I think Edwards is the best of the three, primarily based on his understanding of the country’s structural problems, but he has negatives, and not just the blowing-up-Iran-is-still-on-the-table thing.
siri @ 86
I like the notion, but I would worry about the surge the Repugs would hype about the populace voting Repug, irregardless, that it would be for RP…
And BTW, William Kristol is not having kittens. His offspring hatch from pods.
GordonM @ 93
Oh wow, Gordon. Thanks for the update! LOL
GordonM @ 93
Invasion Of The Body Scratchers?
Eli @ 91
Then there’s the pot thing. What else?
Loo Hoo. @ 88
Rove in cahoots with DLC Dems…?
GordonM @ 96
I’m not convinced that he knows how to take or throw a punch, and I was pretty appalled at the shitty way he handled the Shakes/Marcotte situation. He just kind of hunkered down and waited for them to resign.
Eli @ 95
It’s that William F Buckley tongue thing that gives them away.
GordonM @ 99
707!
GordonM @ 96
The “journey” he’s taking on gay marriage, that’s gotten his wife and daughter there but not him.
My apologies to Cats everywhere…
CTuttle @ 97
There are times when I think Rove has to have Grima Wormtongues embedded all over the Democratic establishment, but I think the power of corporate money is an adequate explanation.
TeddySanFran @ 101
No wonder he got along so well with Cheney…
GordonM @ 93
He has NO offspring. He is still a virgin.
TeddySanFran @ 101
….and then there’s the fact that Edwards was one of the “writers” of the Patriot Act. Even though he added some “safety measures” to it, he still voted for the completed package. Back then, he was all gunho and got swept away on the waronterra bandwagon. At least Kucinich saw through the bullcrap that was spewing out of the White House at the time…
neokneme @ 81
Bah! We’re already in recession. The next President will be able to claim that he/she got us out of it. Unfortunately, Gore won’t run. I wouldn’t put it past Bloomberg to throw his hat in the ring, though.
GordonM @ 96
Heh, ‘One Toke over…’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQrNWZ4Y5tU
KayInMaine @ 106
I guess I’m Dodd all the way now. Not that that will have any impact on anything.
The more I see of the dem candidates the more interested I am in learning about Mayor Bloomberg.
the trick about Gore going for a third party would be to stay the “non-candidate”. it’s all for show, right ? who would expect him to win, (think inside the beltway here, folks…)
and there are ways to fight the recession. ugly ways. dubya already paved the way, i think … isn’t there some law out allowing to seize assets of enemies of the state ? this can be used both ways …
I’m still not over the fact that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards all sang together onstage recently, “We can’t guarantee our troops home by 2013, doo dah, doo dah! We can’t guarantee them home…all the doo dah day!”.
BlueMesa @ 107
Exactly. But that won’t be the end I’m afraid…
Eli @ 98
It’s too bad Edwards is such a poor candidate. I suspect he was much better as a trial lawyer, for some reason it just isn’t translating to a national stage. I don’t have much hope though that we’ll get through the plastic candidates to the real players like Dodd, Biden, and Kucinich.
marymccurnin @ 110
I think this kind of sentiment is why Paul’s popularity is instructive.
Not meant as a criticism of you, just lamenting the thin gruel we’ve been stuck with.
On the other hand, there’s no such thing as a perfect candidate for most people.
marymccurnin @ 105
The concept of virginity is tricky when it comes to species capable of monogenesis.
We are craving leadership
Eli @ 115
Very true.
KayInMaine @ 112
Dodd: I will get that done.
Not sure what Richardson said, but 100% withdrawal is kind of his trademark. And, of course, Kucinich and Gravel.
Consider William Jennings Bryan.
Read his wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W…..ings_Bryan
Even today he would be almost the perfect Democratic candidate.
Except. He really liked the KKK. Hated cities and immigrants. And was so pious he makes Dobson look like Dawkins.
Populist movements are typically socially conservative. Such movements’ legitimacy stems from an appeal to a national community with shared, tradional values.
Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan – If it wasn’t for the social issues, folks like these would have united right and left against the “moneyed interests” long ago.
The current situation in this country arises because a top-down movement to expend minority rights has collided with a populist sentiment.
That allows corporate democrats and corporate republicans to use social issues to divide and conquer. Ephemera like the partial birth abortion debate is used by both parties to keep the faithful in a sense of seige.
Eli, thanks for posting the Sirota piece. I posted it as a diary on Edwards website earlier tonight and posted it on another website I frequent. It was great to see it posted here.
I also ran across this interesting piece on the New Republic when I was googling earlier tonight.
Is Edwards’s Hillary Critique Sticking?
Obama’s quote about John Edwards in today’s Washington Post interview seems to be getting a little attention. It caught my eye, too. Here’s what Obama said:
Here is the rest of the piece
The article also mentions the following:
For what it’s worth, I have a piece in our forthcoming issue assessing the authenticity of Edwards’s populist shtick. (Short version: it’s pretty authentic.)
Eli @ 115
It makes you wonder if all these republicans who now support Ron Paul have been against the illegal occupation of Iraq for years now, but were never public about it, and saw a chance to finally breathe by banning behind Paul to do it? Could be. Who can figure out republicans anyways? I can’t!
punaise @ 68
But Green is his color. And his main issue…
GordonM @ 116
Funny.
My point was more a long the lines of “nobody would ever consider having sex with that pursed lipped jackass”.
Elliott @ 117
I would say we’re not craving leadership as much as authenticity. Paul is attractive, even though he’s a nut, because he’s authentic. I would say that Gore is authentic, whether you agree with him or not. Sadly, I can’t say that about any of the “front runner” Democrats or the “front runner” Republicans.
KayInMaine @ 122
Ron Paul gets more money from people in the military than anyone else.
BlueMesa @ 125
There is something about Edwards that is inauthentic. And I have an Edwards bumper sticker on my auto.
BlueMesa @ 125
Rudy’s authentic. Bat sh-t insane crazy authentic. Why do you think a lot of fundies support him?
marymccurnin @ 127
Recall that in 2000, there was something inauthentic about Gore, too.
Joe Klein’s conscience @ 128
you made me shudder, really
It is interesting to note that some Americans,
today in 2007, are grappling with many of the same issues which compelled the founders of this nation to take action some two-hundred-thirty-odd years ago.
Of course we have a considerable advantage; we know which of their ’solutions’ did not work. We even know why.
What to do about it still vexes.
The political parties today extant are likely NOT the solution.
Therefore; What will we dare to do about it?
Eli, once again a most thought provoking post.
AZ Matt @ 13
is that true? could you please direct me to a youtube or something to show me what you mean?
siri @ 86
Careful. Both sides can play that game.
marymccurnin @ 127
What do you think is inauthentic about him?
Joe Klein’s conscience @ 128
Do they? Apart from Pat Robertson (who IS crazy), who else? The fundies I know turned away in disgust when Guiliani came out pro choice.
Patty Morlan @ 121
The Sirota analysis, and Pach’s variant on it, are both very satisfying explanations of what’s going on, and why large chunks of the Democrats frequently ally themselves with Republicans on completely unprogressive policies.
peanutbutter @ 135
boy was that endorsement bizarro world or what!?
GordonM @ 129
I have the same problem with Gore. I remember his voting record. I respect his work on global warming though. And he is brilliant.
(But he does sort of give me the creeps. This is a secret. Don’t tell anybody I said so)
GordonM @ 129
I never saw that.
I read about it, but I didn’t see it.
And all the places I read about it praised Bush for his authenticity…
Which I could never see.
The sad fact is that Bush has made everyone else (save perhaps Rudy) look much better.
Even his dad looks good by comparison.
GordonM @ 126
Really? I didn’t know that. Huh.
marymccurnin @ 105
BlueMesa @ 125
now transfer this to election day … forget all the media frenzy and get down into the booth. all a candidate needs is : a) his name on the ballot, b) name recognition, c) something to speak for him at the moment of the decision. and it’s always been about authenticity. Dubya being the most fun candidate to have a beer with was about authenticity (which was the only thing going for him at that time). but that times are over. even your republican brother in law has to notice rising gas prices and has friends he don’t visit anymore cos they’re funny since they’ve been over in Iraq. all you need in the booth is a *choice*.
Loo Hoo. @ 123
Yes, it would make perfect sense for Gore to run as an independent. After all, what has the Democratic Party ever done for him other than ridicule him and try to get him to compromise his principles? But he won’t do it, he has decided his life is better spent in other directions than politics.
David W. Bartoo @ 131
The parties are not the solution, but they’re not the problem, either. The problem is the unregulated media, and the electoral system itself. Neither are easy to reform, although the Democrats should at least have a motivation to roll back media consolidation.
Unfortunately, the current electoral system benefits *incumbents*, and they’re the ones in charge, by definition.
Elliott @ 130
You know his whole history as NYC mayor, right?
At this point we in this home will remain Democrats. But that could change not too long after Jan., 2009. Or before. We shall see. It’s day to day now.
marymccurnin @ 138
Is it because of their support of NAFTA?
Joe Klein’s conscience @ 145
I’ve got a good sense of it, but if you’re referring to something specific, would you mind being explicit for me, please?
GordonM @ 126
I haven’t seen an update lately, but at one point Ron Paul was getting more money from people in the military than everyone else.
Seamus D @ 72
no so recent – january. he’s got a ton of push back since then and has changed his rhetoric. the question to me, is the new edwards how he will govern.
Joe Klein’s conscience @ 134
My assessment is emotional except for the Iran war problem. I think part of it is his affectation. Gore does the same thing to me. It may be my prejudice towards southerners. This is insanity on my part since I was born in NC, grew up in NOLA and married a boy from TN. Or maybe this is why. Perhaps Edwards comes across better in person.
TeddySanFran @ 149
It’s true:
http://thespinfactor.com/thetr…..ns-for-q2/
Well, I’m done for the night. Have a good night everyone! ;-)
Eli, again, a really great thought provoking post. We need that so badly right now too! I see way too many people online complaining about Nancy & Harry (rightfully so most days) when we all should be hashing out ideas and framing the debate to move our country forward. We’ve always been the “experts” on this.
Nite nite.
selise @ 132
Try this:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2…..faces.html
mack @ 139
My take on 2000 is that Gore is, by nature, squeaky clean. And for 8 years he was intimately associated with someone who really only came to life when he was in trouble – so he courted trouble, to keep himself on his toes. And that made Gore uncomfortable, having to make excuses, unable to say things with real conviction.
A truly professional politician is never authentic. They’re just good at faking it. That puts real people, who have gotten splattered with mud, at a real disadvantage. They can’t fake it.
KayInMaine @ 153
Thanks, Kay! G’nite!
nite Kay
I want out of Iraq. I want restoration of the rule of law. I want health care for everyone. I want much better schools. I want leadership that really cares about Mother Earth. And I don’t care what political party that comes from.
Eli @ 136
By the way I agree with you that this would be a VERY powerful issue for the Democrats.
It was so strange tonight. I read the Sirota piece and then watched that idiot Chris Matthews do his dog and pony show that passes these days as political programming. What a difference. I can hardly wait to read the next Sirota piece!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 158
Hurray OKK!!!
marymccurnin @ 151
Edwards is great in person. That guy has the best eye contact of any candidate I’ve ever seen. He’s not looking around for some VIP while he talks with you. He gives you his undivided attention. It blew us all away.
Eli @ 144
Perhaps, Eli, but the ‘reforms’ you mention must, by definition, go ‘through’ only with the ‘okay’ of those same ‘*incumbents*’ or the ones who replace them. Where do you see ANY willingness on the part of the ‘power’brokers within either party to even allow serious consideration of these ‘reforms’? Somewhere down the ‘road’, perhaps? Maybe after New York state changes its state motto to: ‘Live free or Diebold’?
Joe Klein’s conscience @ 147
Yes. I hate NAFTA. I am weary of Big Business.
Money does not make the world go round. Community makes the world go round.
marymccurnin @ 33
I’ll give’em anger stoking lessons….
GordonM @ 129
He was over handled. And then there was NAFTA.
and “as things fell apart no one paid much attention…”
Kermit tried to teach us what is important. We have not listened. Thanks for the great video
peanutbutter @ 154
i’m sorry – i missed the link where he is “preaching hate”
David W. Bartoo @ 162
It’s a catch-22. As long as the majority of our government is elected with the help of corporate money, there will be no reform. As long as there is no reform, the majority of our government will be elected with corporate money.
I think our best hope is:
A) Progressive netroots have enough financial and GOTV clout to get reform-minded progressives into the majority, or
B) Democratic/progressive messaging that’s effective enough to overcome money deficit and hostile media.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 158
Then for sure you don’t want any of the “front runner” Democratic candidates, who have spoken and voted repeatedly against everything you stand for. Don’t give up, vote for what you believe!
Don’t know if this has been mentioned here but Pelosi and Reid have lost their fucking minds
cahuenga @ 170
WTFFFFFFF!!!!
They are brain damaged. They are compromised neurologically. They are stupid.
Eli @ 168
Eli, I agree, of course, but ‘B’ is the crux.
How many ‘cycles’ until the ‘Democratic…’
um, ‘gets it’? Sometime post HRC? Or even later?
Booman Rawks…
“The details are unimportant, it’s all about the symbolism.
[Steny] Hoyer was toe-to-toe with the much shorter Joe Baca , D-Calif., chairman of the Hispanic caucus. According to one Hispanic Democrat, Hoyer jabbed his finger at Baca and yelled, “How dare you destroy this party? This will be the worst loss in 10 years.”
That same Hispanic lawmaker reported that Pelosi said, “You see this on the board? This is against me, this is against me personally.”
Is it me, or is Steny Hoyer starting to lose his cool. He looked like a complete and total idiot on Tuesday when the Republicans PUNKED him on the Cheney impeachment vote. He’s going around providing right wing talking points about how the Iraq surge is working. [Reminder]:
(Reuters) – Seven U.S. personnel were killed in Iraq on Monday, the U.S. military said, making 2007 the deadliest year for U.S. forces in the country.
Nevertheless, Hoyer stands by the decision to invade Iraq.
“Removal of Saddam Hussein was an appropriate policy,” Hoyer said at a breakfast meeting with reporters Thursday sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. “I still believe that.”
But he added that he would not have voted for it if he had known “how incompetently it would be executed.”
Steny Hoyer is quickly alienating virtually everyone on the left. It’s a good thing he gives money to so many Democrats. That’s the only reason anyone pretends to like the fucktard.”
http://www.boomantribune.com/s…..152025/767
David W. Bartoo @ 172
One of the most frustrating things about the Democrats is that they have this incredible open-source resource at their disposal, just *dying* to help them. Brilliant legal minds, strategic minds, messaging minds, and they want nothing to do with them. Just an occasional pat on the head in hopes of garnering support.
It’s the “crap in the stable” as Immanentize put it, way back when…
Why must it be populism or power? Shouldn’t George Bush and his record be the easy opponents in the world? Doesn’t his demonstrable lack of competence or humanity make nonsense of the idea that irritating or “going against his will” will have negative consequences at the polls or on Wall Street?
Partly, the problem is lack of courage in a Congress and party cowed by the relentless brutality of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. (Apart from conventional niceties, George Bush doesn’t really enter into it.) And, cowed by their own hunger for power and revenge, mistakenly choosing not to “rock the boat” until they retake power.
Partly, the problem is the Democratic Machine running against the GOP machine. And the DM’s unwillingness to dissipate its power by competing with its own populist wing – and arguably, its emotional and intellectual heart.
In fact, the DM is running against the Democrat’s populist wing as much as the GOP machine. Which is why quite a few of the DM’s encumbents shouldn’t have their public employment contracts renewed.
Everybody has their own list. Pelosi is now on my list, along with Hoyer and Murtha and a string of others. They wouldn’t change much about what Bush has done, except possibly do it more competently.
Will they vociferously investigate the string of wrongs perpetuated by this regime? Will they help rebuild the federal bureaucracies that Bush has so energetically dismantled and culled of their talent? Will they put our money where their mouths are to do it? Will they clawback a portion of the power ceded by the GOP to the White House? And will they use the power they’ve never lost by exercising oversight over the White House regardless of whose president?
um……..”Rube Jewisharmy”?
What does that mean?
Have a good night everyone. I am on my way to my aunty’s place for the night. She lives just a few blocks from here. And my squeeze is in Tahlequah with the people. She’ll be home tomorrow night. And then once again, all will be as it should be.
cahuenga @ 170
How much money did exon and the coal company give them?
exon = exxon
Oklahoma kiddo @ 177
Uh oh, she had to commune to get over her ire? Aloha, OKK!
earlofhuntingdon @ 176
Running against Bush is an excellent strategy for 2008, but probably not very effective after that – especially if the Democrats have been in charge for the previous four years.
Eli @ 174
Eli, and this will change…how? The general consensus here, appears to be that we will complain, brilliantly, and strategically well with powerful messaging capacity, and receive a cuff not a pat, and then, all meekly line up to vote for whomever ‘the’ anointed candidate might be (as if there were some ‘real’ question as to ‘whom’ that might be). What is the ‘problem’ and ‘who’ is it that has ‘it’?
SnarKassandra @ 178
They get their very own oil wells in Iraq, for their service in support of Iraq/Iran Genocide.
marymccurnin @ 151
I have some of the same gut reaction … I just don’t believe Edwards is sincere in his “two Americas” speeches. Maybe that’s just prejudice from having seen too many “southern preachers” in my time, but I don’t think so. I think we’re seeing a capable person who just isn’t being honest about who he is. It’s too bad. I think he could be a good candidate but he has to lose this facade, it just won’t hold up to the glare of a national election.
Eli @ 182
I disagree. Bush isn’t running in 2008. Running against him is a good way to lose.
David W. Bartoo @ 182
If we had a solid answer to that, we’d be doing it. Right now the strategy is to keep exposing and pressuring bad Dems, and promoting and helping good ones. Eventually we will have our own power base of friendly politicians, and enough of a track record getting people elected that more Dems will want to do business with us.
At least, that’s how I see it going down. But we need to have success getting progressives elected, and we have to somehow prevent RahmCo. from stealing the credit.
Here’s the way Issa thinks of the dems, and I’m sure he’s speaking for the party:
A Democrat proposal to limit National Intelligence activities was derailed by a Republican amendment to the proposal which stated simply, “Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization … from attacking the United States or any United States person.”
BlueMesa @ 184
The Republicans will simply use OUR talking points. We sit here day after day trashing our own candidates because they are not perfect. Take a good look at the Republican candidates and see which you prefer. We don’t need to do this. There are many good things that our people are talking about. I am amazed that so many here think that Gore would just automatically win. I have serious doubts about that because he isn’t perfect either.
David W. Bartoo @ 183
Hm. Let’s theorize that even the Democratic leadership understands money, even if they can’t admit that loud in- or outside the beltway. Now if we blogging lefties would raise the next 100k for RON PAUL, will Nancy and Harry believe we’re pissed ?
Eli @ 174
The Democrats had a ready made strategy given to them after the November 2006 elections. Investigate the Bush Administration and resist its efforts to stay in Iraq. If they followed this they would have dominated the last two years of the Bush Administration and set themselves up to sweep the 2008 elections. They didn’t need to win on every issue but they needed to put up meaningful opposition. And, of course, they needed to keep their lines of communication open with their base and the 60-70% of the American electorate that backed them on investigation and ending the war.
Instead they turned their backs on us and have orchestrated one cave-in after another. Doing precisely what we and most Americans did not want. It is like they want to fail.
It reminds of all the goodwill that Bush had after 9/11 which he proceeded to squander. Isn’t this exactly what the Democrats are doing?
BlueMesa @ 185
You can run against the rubberstampers who enabled him and gave him everything he wanted.
Eli @ 174
Why do they not want the help? Why are they so top down? Is it because we have no where else to go?
And this from Issa:
Democrats Pull Plan to Restrict Surveillance of Terrorists
A Democrat proposal to limit National Intelligence activities was derailed by a Republican amendment to the proposal which stated simply, “Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization … from attacking the United States or any United States person.”
cahuenga @ 170
can someone please tell me truthfully that this is false report?
TRex is upstairs with a boozehound pinata!
Joe Klein’s conscience @ 193
They don’t want to do what we want them to do. Although I’m still kind of hazy on why they’re so clueless on messaging. Whatever their faults, I’m pretty sure they really *do* want to get elected.
Eli @ 192
You mean the Democrats? Clinton at least voted for just about everything Bush has done.
BlueMesa @ 198
Well, the ones running against the rubberstampers wouldn’t have been in office. But I agree that the piss-poor Democratic performance has a terrible effect on the credibility of Democratic challengers.
I agree with the point that we are NOT looking for “leadership” in the melodramatic mold sold by Bush and his would be GOP successors. We want authenticity. We want street smarts, but not someone so smart they’ve forgotten to tell the truth or do the right thing from time to time.
My preference is Edwards. Hillary is the epitome of the machine politician. I accept that corporate money has its place; I think Hillary, like Feinstein and possibly Pelosi, think it has the only place. I disagree. It’s just easier to raise and can be done behind closed doors.
Hugh @ 191
my bold.
yes. what a thought provoking analogy.
earlofhuntingdon @ 200
I don’t want corporations to be shut out of the political process completely; we need them. I just want them to be one of many voices.
Eli @ 187
Appears to me that getting progressives elected
is only part of the solution. How do we keep them ‘progressive’ in the money bowl we cannot even influence,let alone ‘control’? If it is not RahmCo. don’t you suspect it will be some other ’strategist-handler’? The Democrat’s current ‘leadership’ does not trust either the ‘people’ or democracy itself; we are the victims of a self-serving elite who care not a whit for the Constitution or the plight of the nation, except as it benefits themselves. Perhaps you see this differently?
selise @ 201
Great way to end the discussion. Thanks, Eli, for an intelligent thread!
selise @ 201
Same root cause, too: misidentifying your enemy.
David W. Bartoo @ 203
Progressives and netroots have to be a vital part of getting candidates elected *and* re-elected. If sleazy pseudo-progressives like Carney think they can rootstrap themselves into office, then they will, and we’ll get screwed.
Eli @ 206
Simply out of a perverse curiosity, Eli, how many ‘progressives’ have we discovered are not?
Perhaps you have some handle on this?
David W. Bartoo @ 207
Carney was a huge phony. McNerney, not so huge, but disappointing. A lot of people thought Pelosi was progressive before she became Speaker. Who knows, maybe she was.
There were also a lot of more moderate candidates we supported in red/purple states and districts, who turned out to be more conservative than we hoped.
Hell, even Whitehouse voted for retroactive immunity, and Sherrod Brown voted for MCA.
To be fair, it is pretty hard to change the status quo. Given the approval ratings for the leadership of our government, the disconnect is unlikely to persist much longer. The Titanic did sink but the first class passengers did survive.
It is possible to imagine ways to “make things better” but that usually entails making things worse. If things get worse by themselves (e.g. recession) well, that’s how we pivot and re-program the “machine”.
Don’t worry — it’s money, the old gray mare, which ain’t what it used to be… On the other hand Life is much more precious. It is the one thing progressives have some respect for.
Bush is the opponent for ‘08. His policies, his team, his deficit, his corruption. He’s the elephant in the living room that the GOP want to ignore and the Dems aren’t quite sure about how politely to point out how big those droppings are.
The opportunity is not literally to run against George, but those desperate to continue his policies – more Gitmos, more surveillance, more debt – his staffing, his priorities. To run against those unwilling to admit what a mess he’s creating and what it will take to start rebuilding.
That has to be done from the perspective of a positive framework and message, which defines what the Dems are about, not just what they want to replace. That’s also essential to keeping things positive. A running litany of Bush’s problems, unrelieved by aspiration adn hope, would quickly discourage or bore the electorate.
Yes, we need corporations and their money and their talent. But as part of a team of voices and funders. There is great common ground. To take one example, most business, states and cities realize that a “sane” version of govt organized universal healthcare system would relieve them of considerable financial and management burdens and enhance their employees’ lives and, therefore, productivity. There are lots of others.
Eli @ 208
So, as well as electing and re-electing the good ones, the ‘bad’ ones rightfully(!) deserve our continuing attentions then?
Again, Eli, I appreciate that capacity of yours to encourage serious, continuing debate.
It hones our skills and our instincts.
earlofhuntingdon @ 210
Well said. The 2008 campaign could boil down to “Do you want more of the same?”
David W. Bartoo @ 211
All bad politicians deserve our attention, regardless of party. McNerney, to his credit, returned to FDL to defend and explain himself. I think Carney pretty much told Howie to go fuck himself.
earlofhuntingdon @ 210
It would be helpful if Corporations were to have a lessened legal ’status’ being seen not as ‘persons’ fictitious or otherwise, but merely as business ‘interests’ conceived for the financial protection of their ‘owners’.
That would lessen both their power and their
death-grip on democracy and go a long way to improving the ‘game’ of ‘economics’.
CTuttle @ 12
Look at history…think the period from 1880-1939 or so. There are numerous examples of such “populist”, “Constitutionalist”, States Rights Parties that were isolationist. They supported major revisions of the economy from Government assisted systems to business (when it wasn’t run by NYC Jews, Catholics or other “furriners”).
One was called the Ku Klux Klan.
cinnamonape @ 215
Excellent point of comparison, one that deserves more exposure. Given our society’s lack of historical sensitivity, all educational efforts of this nature can only be helpful. Might even get people to read more history and ponder its meaning relative to the present. Could even provoke nuance.
It would be helpful if Corporations were to have a lessened legal ’status’ being seen not as ‘persons’ fictitious or otherwise, but merely as business ‘interests’ conceived for the financial protection of their ‘owners’.
That would lessen both their power and their
death-grip on democracy and go a long way to improving the ‘game’ of ‘economics’.
One of the disturbing trends is the increasing use of the term “stakeholder” to bolster the legitimacy of profiteers in matters of great significance to the citizenry at large. It suggests an equivalence of interests where none should exist.
SunnyNobility @ 217
Truly, well said!
Valley Girl @ 85
Hi Eli, I am sort of new here….I have been reading a while and had to comment.
Eli said:
I don’t like any of Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee’s other positions, but how strange is it that two Republican candidates are offering stronger antiwar, pro-rule-of-law, populist messages than the two front-running Democrats and the entire party leadership?
I wonder how you feel about these positions…
I compared to the front runner which is Hillary, I guess.
Please let me know about your feelings.
Thanks.
MILITARY COMMISSIONS. RP NO…..HC YES
PATRIOT ACT 1.. RP NO ……….HC YES
PATRIOT ACT 2. .RP NO ……….HC YES.
IRAQ WAR.. .RP NO………HC YES
WAR WITH IRAN. .RP NO………HC YES.
WIRETAPPING. .RP NO………HC YES
INCREASED AID TO ISRAEL. RP NO…..HC. YES
EMINENT DOMAIN..RP..NO………HC.. NV
NAFTA………RP..NO………..HC..YES
CAFTA………RP..NO………..HC..YES
IMF………..RP..NO………..HC..YES
WORLD BANK….RP..NO………..HC..YES
WTO………..RP..NO………..HC..YES
NORTH AMERICAN UNION..RP..NO…HC..?
NATIONAL ID….RP..NO……….HC..YES
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT DRIVERS ……LICENSE..RP..NO……….HC..YES
SunnyNobility @ 217
And a truly Orwellian bit of “in-your-face” it would seem.
We don’t have enough money to tempt senators, and barely enough to affect congressional races. We have to start with this proposition. I think one solution is to start with more progressive candidates at lower levels, and let them begin the slow process of teaching the people who elected them how government can work for the people instead of the money. I hope we can change the zeitgeist, cause we sure can’t buy that change.
masaccio @ 222
Sober, unvarnished truth. Politicians do have the obligation to educate, not pontificate.
Do you suppose that impeachment might have had an educational value?
rockyb @ 220
Well, my premise was basically that the Democratic frontrunners are disappointing, so if you’re expecting me to defend Hillary’s shitty votes, it’s not going to happen.
(Disappointing, and that Paul & Huckabee are filling some of the “position vacuum”)
newtonusr @ 221
Indeed.
hucksterbee supports the war and everything else Shrubco plus he tried to demean Michael Moore by calling him fat
he’s an ass
No.
That was not my question.
You said:
“I don’t like any of Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee’s other positions,”.
And I wanted to know what you think about his positions on these issues….Hillary was already included when I pated this, you can exclude the Hillary votes….
Im just looking for your positions on these items, is all.
masaccio @ 222
Well, I’m hopeful that we can at least move the needle on congressional candidates, possibly in non-monetary ways (i.e., the Macaca feeding frenzy).
But I agree that we need lots of progressives at the lower levels, more so that we have a neverending bench of strong candidates working their way up the food chain.
Yes, impeachment is a teaching moment. But. Our Democratic incumbents don’t need the netroots, and they don’t have to respond to our demands. They aren’t going to do anything that might affect their ability to get reelected, regardless of the reasons we put forward. They get reelected by voters of both parties as long as they are not controversial. They don’t need our money or our ideas. We are going to have start all over again and get a better group of Democrats.
SunnyNobility @ 226
This assault upon and deliberate Orwellian misuse of language goes back, of course, directly to ‘the Great Communicator’ and has enjoyed increasing favor in Bushspeak circles.
Its consequence will linger, both subtly and blatantly for years, if not decades and needs to be consistently and deliberately pointed out as SunnyNobility has done with such delicious precision.
rockyb @ 228
Well, most of those are variations on war and Constitution issues. Of the ones that aren’t:
Increased aid to Israel: I’m neutral.
Eminent domain: Agree.
NAFTA/CAFTA: Agree.
IMF/World Bank/WTO: Not sure what the votes were for.
North American Union: I don’t think *anyone* is seriously pushing that.
National ID: Depends on how it’s implemented.
Illegal Immigrant Driver’s Licenses: Disagree.
Isn’t he also hugely anti-immigrant, anti-government-programs, and wants to put us on the gold standard? That’s some of the stuff I take issue with.
rockyb @ 228
rockyb,
I hope that Eli will respond. Many will look at your list and not think about ‘position vacuum’ but rather that RP’s votes are closer to their own sensibilities than are HRC’s. I am curious, are you a Paul supporter?
Eli @ 232
Eli, how would you like to see an National I.D.
implemented?
David W. Bartoo @ 234
If driver’s licenses and IDs were issued at the federal level instead of the state level, I wouldn’t have a problem with that, provided that the rest of the process remained essentially the same.
I.e., voluntary, relatively cheap and convenient to obtain/renew, and not something that cops or Feds will stop you on the street and demand to see.
David, the genius in this crap is anyone who calls it gets raised eyebrows or accusations of nit-picking – at best.
Thanks for the kind words. Tonight’s conversations haven’t been cheering.
Eli @ 235
So then, in our ’security-crazed’ society, what purpose would such an ID serve? If it were coupled to sweeping and meaningful electoral reform, not merely as ‘voter ID’ but part of genuine and honest empowerment of democracy, then I could see its value. Otherwise what use has it beyond ‘enforcement’ and or coercion?
David W. Bartoo @ 237
Hell, I’m still not entirely sure just what purpose a “national ID” is supposed to serve that a state-issued ID can’t.
I don’t have a problem with it in principle, I just don’t like the idea of it being either mandatory, or used as an impediment to voting.
SunnyNobility @ 236
SunnyNobility; Indeed I know what you mean.
However, we continue to point these things out for our own amusement, if not the edification of others. These are un-cheerful, grim times, but I’m glad that you are willing, nonetheless, to speak to truth and thereby honor the meaning and power of words. There are still yet many who value and appreciate
such acts and the courage (and humor) which attend them.
If Paul and/or Huckabee (or some other fundamentalist candidate backed by the We-Hate-Rudy Religious Right) decides to make a third-party run, should Democrats and progressives help them get on the ballot, like Republicans and conservatives did for Nader?
Simple Answer: Yes.
OK, Thanks, Im outta here.
Eli @ 238
Without clear purpose, I do have problems with it in principle. I am quite unclear as to how it relates positively to the founding principles of this nation, in fact, given the current state of affairs, I am firmly convinced it does not. Thanks Eli, for being willing to continue this conversation.
I have to go to bed….I just like to hear different positions…
Some of the above were ideas and also actual votes….
Thanks for the responses…
Gotta go to sleep.
Bye
rockyb @ 243
Good Night, rockyb.
rockyb @ 243
Night!
BTW:
Thom Hartman called for the Gold standard to be introduced, yesterday on his show…
He also said to get out of the IMF, WTO, World Bank NAFTA and CAFTA…
Another note I heard tonight on Johns show….:
Pakistan went under martial law under the same number as written in the “Presidential Directives”…
Thats right it was the same number
“51″.
This was reported by a listener that heard this on a late night talk show…They are checking to see if it is true….
He said it was amazing that Pakistan would have the same number “51″ as Bushs’ “PD-#51″ for placing the country under martial law…
This has not been confirmed, they are checking, but it was reported by an Air America listener, though he did sound young(like 25)
FYI
David W. Bartoo @ 242
Admittedly not a subject I’m superfamiliar with. Found this anti-Real ID site here, and it looks like there’s plenty to worry about.
Possible RFID tracking, increased emphasis on citizenship checks in the application process.
And if the ID card is proof of citizenship, then anyone hispanic or foreign-looking could potentially be stopped and asked to show their card to prove they’re not an illegal (or terrorist).
Eli @ 247
A can of worms we should resist opening for some time to come. Eli, I’m heading for bed,
always enjoy your thoughts and ideas and have particularly enjoyed this evening. Good Night and may we have good news and good tidings on the morrow, which, for me is already here.
Night, David.
I am not a bircher…I did find this a few days ago when people were saying Paul was a bircher,
I wanted to know who they were….Instead I got side tracked with this….It was from 04 before elections, I think….I thought it was interesting…
http://video.google.com/videop…..&q=ron paul brushfires&total=8&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5
I live in Ron Pauls district and I seem to be leaning to him….
At least with him I not only get the whole truth, I also get the past truths, as well.I have been wondering for years what was happeing….I have found out, and it is, lets say, disappointing, to say the least….I feel he and Dennis Kucinich have more in common then people let on and they both speak very highly of each other.
Something Ron Does not often do, (because it wastes taxpayers time and money to do so!!!!!)
now Im going to sleep…Had to brush my teeth
:)
Eli @ 238
State ID and Driver License databases are all, already, integrated into a centralized law enforcement database, aren’t they. Of course having one isn’t “mandatory” but unless you have a Passport or tote your Birth Certificate around with you and have some other bunch of id try to get anything done.
To vote you have to initially document your citizenship status. Usually you carry it over each time you vote and re-register. But if your registration lapses expect to have to re-esatblish your citizenship by documentation.
I do know some folks that essentially live “off the grid” in terms of having documentation. But they can’t do very much on their own. They can’t rent an apartment (they sublet), drive (legally), or even work some jobs. They can’t get credit, go to college, get financial aid, etc. Many of them eventually break-down and get the ID they need to survive.
So ID may not be technically mandatory but it is de facto a requirement to participate in manyof the things we take for granted. And once you have ID you are in the informatics matrix.
And if you are arrested and don’t have identifiaction ON YOU…you are entering a Twilight Zone!
It’s too bad Edwards is such a poor candidate. I suspect he was much better as a trial lawyer, for some reason it just isn’t translating to a national stage. I don’t have much hope though that we’ll get through the plastic candidates to the real players like Dodd, Biden, and Kucinich.
-
I disagree, Dodd Biden and Kucinich are not “real” candidates. Dodd and Biden are super insiders in at least Dodd’s case going back generations. They are both a bit scary rich, and coming from a state like Conn that is super rich.
I did like Dodd at the last debate. Biden is a bit scary and I like his one liners but thats about it.
When it comes down to it I guess the real point is that top to bottom they are full of warts and we do not know where they are telling the truth and were they are full of crap.
It will be interesting when the Dems win in 2008 – it could potentially be the first election where the persons own party actually keeps tabs on what the people in power are doing (with the help of the internet).
Well if anything good happens for people the bad guys will probably just kill them all anyway.
The real problem is you can’t turn your back on any one of these nuts for a second or they are off transfering 3 Trillion in wealth or some such punk move.
Finally, a comment on populism’s upside that I couldn’t integrate gracefully into the rest of the post: When done right, like in John Edwards’ great New Hampshire speech, it reminds people who are struggling of why they’re struggling. They’re not struggling because of the blacks or the gays or the immigrants or the women’s lib, they’re struggling because the rich and powerful have rigged the system for their own benefit. This would be a very powerful message for the Democratic party, if they cared to use it.
Eli, this is SUCH a powerful point. I was trying to make part of it in a comment on a diary of Jane’s the other day, but I only got the first part: I was attempting to explain my understanding of why folks might feel anger on the immigration issue, on a basis other than racism.
However, I never got to your MOST powerful point [and as a die-hard Edwards supporter, I should have]: that individuals’ anger at their own situation while completely justified, should NOT be directed at those who could be their allies, but should be directed where it belongs, at the corporate shills and others who’ve engineered it this way.
[I do have to give myself credit for pointing out that the “Americans won’t do these jobs” meme that the corporate types love to spout REALLY should be rephrased “Americans won’t do these jobs at the wages offered.” We could then proceed to a discussion [that the corporations don’t want] about what it would look like to pay wages sufficient to attract non-immigrants to these jobs.
In any case, thank you very much for this analysis and for bringing it here.
Eli, this is SUCH a powerful point. I was trying to make part of it in a comment on a diary of Jane’s the other day, but I only got the first part: I was attempting to explain my understanding of why folks might feel anger on the immigration issue, on a basis other than racism.
However, I never got to your MOST powerful point [and as a die-hard Edwards supporter, I should have]: that individuals’ anger at their own situation while completely justified, should NOT be directed at those who could be their allies, but should be directed where it belongs, at the corporate shills and others who’ve engineered it this way.
[I do have to give myself credit for pointing out that the “Americans won’t do these jobs” meme that the corporate types love to spout REALLY should be rephrased “Americans won’t do these jobs at the wages offered.” We could then proceed to a discussion [that the corporations don’t want] about what it would look like to pay wages sufficient to attract non-immigrants to these jobs.
In any case, thank you very much for this analysis and for bringing it here.
Democrats and progressives should ALWAYS support getting third parties and candidates on the ballot….. and the reason WHY has nothing to do with winning an election – we MUST do this because we BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY!
And that means we support anyone who wants to organize a party and get a candidate on the ballot, because having only two parties is not only not good for our country, it does NOT REFLECT the complexity of American life.
THE MORE VOICES THE BETTER.
A third-party bid from Paul would hurt a Hillary campaign more than a Giuliani campaign. You’ll have two activist, muscular hawks (though only one is batshit insane) against a strong voice against the Iraq war. Independents would vote for Paul in large numbers, I’m afraid.
Huckabee would hurt the Republicans more, but he’d also take some votes that would otherwise go to Hillary, because Giuliani would be seen as the vote for continuity, while those who want a change would have two choices.
Seamus D @ 72
Are the things he said true?
If they are, and given all the other great intelligent things he’s said, why would you be afraid to have him lead — even on very tough issues like the Middle East?
Eli @ 91
Edwards has no ‘problems’ except those you imagine or make up. His ‘keeping everything on the table’ is standard US boilerplate and has been forever.
If you want to say he’s a war-monger then you’re gonna have to show your work because I’m not buying into this crap about how he gets domestic policy but not foreign policy. He’s spent a lot more time talking about domestic policy because that’s what the electorate wants to hear about most.
If you recall, all his foreign policy speeches sound better than the other candidates, except for this ‘on the table’ talk with regard to Iran. I say, trust him.
“the rich and powerful have rigged the system for their own benefit. This would be a very powerful message for the Democratic party, if they cared to use it.” -Eli
The Democratic party *IS* using that argument.
THEY ARE MAKING IT *TO* THE RICH AND POWERFUL.
AND LO AND FUCKING BEHOLD, IT IS INDEED A VERY POWERFUL MESSAGE FOR THE PARTY.
For us… not so much.