Just stirring the pot.


What it Means to Be a Democrat


If Erich Segal ever decides to update what we now know to be the first
biography
of Al Gore, Jr.— usually referred
to by its original title, Love Story—
he could easily and accurately
change that novel's
most famous line to: "Being a Democrat
means never having to say you're sorry."
For although the Democrats have always
had a remarkable talent for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory,
these
defeats, if you listen to the Democratic
party apologists, are never the
Democrats' own fault and they, accordingly,
refuse to apologize for them; and
although the Democrats sell out their
own supposed constituencies on a regular
basis, it is wrong, we are told, to call the Democrats themselves to account
for
this; and even though the Democrats have never encountered a "principle"
they
were not willing to compromise or outright abandon for little or no
political
return at least, none for the people who
are actually being sold out, though
there is usually some personal political
lagniappe for the Democrat himself. we
are not to upbraid them for this: they are not
sorry about doing these things
because, quite simply, none of it is their fault.
The idea of personal responsibility is not the
only one that is foreign to so
many Democrats. The concept of simple logic escapes the average Democratic
party
hack when it comes to his irrational desire to defend the all-important
party.
Fortunately, Orwell has supplied us with a word to describe this process of
political ratiocination: doublethink.
Nothing reveals the hollowness and desperation of Democratic doublethink
more
than the frantic attempt to blame Ralph Nader for the result of the latest
presidential election— an election that, if you listen to the Democrats,
their
creature Gore both lost and at the same time didn't lose.
Obviously, you must accept the fact that Gore lost the election if you want
to
blame Nader for that loss: it makes no sense whatsoever to blame someone for
costing you an election that you actually won. So for the sake of the
blame-Nader strategy, the Democrats, provisionally, accept that Gore lost
Florida. They say the votes that went to Nader in Florida would have given
Gore
the edge in that state.
At the same time— and using, evidently, a part of their alleged brains that
could not possibly be on speaking terms with the part that makes the above
argument— the Democrats claim that Gore actually won the popular (and
therefore
the electoral) vote in Florida, but the state was stolen from him through
fraud.

So in Gore, the Democrats have a Schroedinger's cat of a candidate: he's
both
dead and not-dead; he both won the election and lost it: same election; same
candidate; same opponents: two different, mutually exclusive outcomes
wholeheartedly believed in by the Democratic doublethinkers. These Democrats
evidently believe in all manner of simultaneous parallel universes, but,
sadly,
have difficulty dealing with the physical and logical laws of this actual
one.
The Democrats claim that the election was stolen from Gore by chicanery, if
not
outright fraud, in Florida— they claim that Gore, in fact, actually won
Florida.
The merit of this claim was apparent from the beginning and its strength
grows
daily— but it is undermined by the mutually exclusive claim that Gore lost
Florida because of Nader (or Buchanan or any other third-party candidate).
When
the votes that were ignored in Florida are finally counted— and they will
be— it
will in all likelihood be established as incontrovertible fact that Gore won
in
Florida. Advancing this argument, and this argument alone, would be a
winning
long-term strategy for the Democrats. After all, it's not as though the
Republicans don't already have a history of fixing presidential elections.
Anyone remember Watergate? For good reason, people do not have a hard time
believing that the Republicans would rig an election.
But the Democrats make no apologies for undermining themselves in this way.
Remember: being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry. And
lining up
as many excuses as possible, even if they contradict each other and make
those
who advance them look outright simple, is part of the great Democratic
tradition. After all, the point here, if you are this type of Democrat, is
not
to win (Gore did eventually concede, telling the minority voters whose votes
were not counted that he and his "principles" had decided that their votes
were
unimportant after all) or even to be right (these Democrats evidently lack
the
capacity to tell a reasonable and convincing argument from an irrational and
moronic one)— the point is to find someone else to blame. That is an end in
itself if you are a Democratic party hack— and the more people you find to
blame, the better. If you have to sacrifice simple logic to line up more
potential candidates for blame, well...goodbye logic, then.
What you won't hear— at least not from these Democrats— is that Gore lost
because he was unable to carry his own home state, Tennessee; or the
traditionally Democratic state of West Virginia; or Arkansas; or New
Hampshire;
you won't hear that if he had managed to tread water in any one of these
states—
all of which Clinton won in 1996— Florida simply would not have mattered.
(In
only one of these states— New Hampshire— could votes that went to Nader have
made a difference in the outcome, but only if the Nader votes went to Gore
at a
rate Gore people had no plausible reason to expect. But Gore people, being
Democrats, are unconcerned with reason or plausibility, so we hear— and can
expect to keep hearing— claims that Nader cost Gore New Hampshire, too. Sure
the
claim is false, but truth is not the point. The point is to shift blame, to
divert the eye, to perform an act of political legerdemain.)
What you also won't hear is that responsibility for the 5-4 Supreme Court
vote
that gave the election to Bush can be laid, at least in part, at the feet of
the
very Democrats who are now crying "foul." Clarence Thomas, who sided with
the
majority in the recount decision, is patently unqualified to be sitting on
the
Supreme Court, and would not be sitting today if 11 Democrats had not voted
for
him http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/1021/1021220.htm; Antonin Scalia, the
other
bugbear the Democrats like to throw at us to scare us (and who also voted
with
the majority in the decision to give the election to Bush) garnered all 47
Democrat votes, including— what's this here?— Al Gore's own!
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/992/992267.htm Now that must smart!
But then again, maybe it doesn't. Maybe the Democrats are incapable of
correctly
gauging even their own self-inflicted pain. For they not only have an
infinite
capacity for performing doublethink when necessary; as well as a seemingly
fathomless ability to find reasons to compromise principle (if Scalia was
such
an obvious Reagan-litmus-test-approved reactionary ideologue (and indeed he
was)
and threat to supposed Democrat values, might not one—just one— Democrat
have
cast a dissenting vote, just on principle? The Democrats actually had enough
votes to successfully torpedo Scalia's nomination by filibustering in the
(at
the time) Republican-controlled Senate; but evidently the party that
demanded we
all join together and vote for their creature in this past election lacked
the
internal unity— or, more likely, the integrity— to do that; and will
probably
still lack these qualities when it comes time to confirm— or not— Bush's
abysmal
cabinet appointees); but the Democrats also have an equally Orwellian talent
for
banishing inconvenient facts (such as those I've just mentioned) to the
memory
hole. They confirmed Scalia and Thomas, but you'll see Al Gore turn down six
figures in corporate soft money before you'll hear a Democrat mention this,
much
less apologize for it. It is understandable why Republicans don't apologize
for
it: Republicans think these horrendous appointees are wonderful justices.
But
the Democrats claim to recognize Scalia and Thomas for the disasters that
they
are. So why did they confirm them? This question is not even asked, much
less
answered, by the Democrats.
And the loyalty of Democratic followers seems to depend on their ability to
perform this same memory hole trick. At the very least, it is dependent upon
their not checking on the Democrats and calling them to account for the many
times when the Democrats abandon their "principles". And the party faithful,
the
hack-apologists, dutifully do this.
But those of us who are fed up with how often the Democrats lie; how often
they
blame others for their own failings; how often they compromise their
supposed
principles and rationalize the results; how often their rhetoric of being
the
party that stands up for the interests of the average citizen rather than
those
of the privileged plutocracy does not match their actions— we are tired of
banishing the Democrats' hypocritical behavior to the memory hole. For us,
these
promissory notes have come due, and the Democrats are not willing to pay up.
Morally bankrupt, the Democratic party offers us nothing more than more
promissory notes. So many of us voted for Nader, in whom we correctly saw a
candidate whose rhetoric we agreed with and whose decades-long record of
performance matched his rhetoric.
We, unlike the Democrats, actually have nothing to apologize for. And,
amazingly, I have not heard one Nader supporter blame Gore for Nader's loss;
no
Nader supporter has claimed that if Gore's votes had all just gone to Nader,
Nader would have won the election. (In many Democrats' eyes, the only thing
that
would save this never-made claim from absurdity would be if it were a
Democrat
making it.) Those of us who voted for Nader do not think any votes
"belonged" to
Nader other than the ones he actually received.
Contrast Nader supporters' attitude with that of the Democrats who argue
that
Gore's votes should include the ones that went to Gore; the ones that are
disputed; and the ones that went to Nader. That way, their candidate, who
didn't
lose, would never have lost. Or something like that.
Now remember, the Democrats don't claim that the votes that went to Nader
went
to him by mistake due to a confusing ballot, as happened with those disputed
votes for Buchanan in Florida. They claim Nader's votes— which as a matter
of
undisputed fact went, in this real world, to Nader— belong (I'm guessing by
birth-right or something similar) to Gore, on the typically psychotic
Democratic
assumption that the rules of whatever parallel universe they happen to
prefer
today ought to obtain in this actual world.
This is self-delusion of colossal proportions, comparable in imbecility to
the
Republican (and Democratic) belief that if you give more money to the rich,
they
will be sure to pass the lion's share of it on to the classes below them. It
might even surpass the idiocy of that Democrat-and-Republican-shared
trickle-down fairy tale.
Of course, what lies at the heart of the Democrats'— and their creatures'—
attacks on Nader and those who voted for Nader is a profound contempt for
genuine democracy. Nader opened up a prospect of genuine opposition to
Republican cruelty that the Democrats themselves are unwilling to face.
Nader's
candidacy threw the Republicanism of the Democrats into sharper relief. And
the
reason the Democrats' attacks on Nader have been so vicious is precisely
because
they are based on numerous demonstrable falsehoods. The Democrats know
finesse
won't work when you have nothing with which to finesse. So the strategy
becomes:
break out the lies and proclaim them loudly.
The main falsehood goes roughly thus: Nader and the Democrats stand for
essentially the same principles and have virtually identical stances on most
of
the important issues; but since Nader had no chance of winning the election,
the
votes that went to him should have gone to the candidate whose positions on
these issues are the same as Nader's but who had an actual chance of
winning—
that is, to Al Gore.
But the fact remains that if you are opposed to the death penalty, you might
just as well have wasted your vote on Bush as on Go both are rabid
proponents
of state-sponsored killing. Only Nader is opposed. If you are in favor of
reforming the political system to eliminate the influence of big money—
which
for the most part means the influence of corporations who donate millions to
both major parties— you might just as well have wasted your vote on Bush as
on
Gore. Only Nader favored real reform that puts the political process back in
the
hands of the people. If you thought welfare "reform" had thrown too many
innocent children and other poor people out on the streets, further
immiserating
them, and without making any attempt even to account, much less provide, for
them, you might just as well have wasted your vote on Bush as on Gore. Only
Nader was in favor of saving welfare and helping the poor. Only Nader
opposed
NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO, based on their predicted and now demonstrated
effect
of encouraging the export of jobs to whatever country has the lowest wages,
lowest environmental standards, lowest labor standards, and worst human
rights
standards— ensuring both that the country that loses those jobs is worse
off,
and that the country that gains them is no better off and, indeed,
frequently
worse off as well.
Gore not only favors these pro-business "trade agreements" (as of course
does
Bush)— his and Clinton's administration foisted them on us. No Republican
president, despite the Republicans' best efforts, could deliver the disaster
that is NAFTA. Clinton and Gore openly celebrate the fact that only they
could
deliver NAFTA because they had the ability to bring the needed Democrat
votes to
this distinctly Republican-smelling favor-the-rich "trade agreement".
Clinton
and Gore— and the Democrats in general— openly celebrate their rightward
shift
on such major issues— welfare "reform"; social security; the selling out of
the
American worker; "get-tough-on-crime" legislation— and then claim that the
only
candidate who offered genuine alternatives to these disastrous policies—
Ralph
Nader— was stealing "their" votes.
If adopting the other candidate's positions on issues is "vote stealing",
then
the Democrats have been stealing votes from the Republicans for over eight
years. Is it any wonder, then, that nearly half the electorate, given the
choice
between a real Republican (Bush) and a Republican-in-Democrat's-clothing
(Gore)
chose the former? Bush may be an abysmal candidate, but at least he's more
honest about his awfulness than Gore is about his own.
Nader gave those of us who are opposed to capital punishment; opposed to
corporate welfare; opposed to the unbridled corporate internationalism of
NAFTA
and the WTO; in favor of a clean environment; in favor of social programs
that
would alleviate poverty and thereby reduce crime— Nader gave us someone to
vote
for, rather than leaving us with no other choice than the "lesser of two
evils."
(And it is a real coin toss as to which of these two lessers is more evil.)
Gore
favors judicial killing; Gore's records on the environment looks good only
in
comparison to Bush's, and even then, Bush is at times more
environmentally-friendly than Gore (Gore was the first Congressperson to
seek,
and get, a waiver against the EPA's endangered species act: thanks to Gore,
foes
of the environment have been getting them ever since and with far more
ease);
Gore favors NAFTA, the WTO, GATT; Gore favors such costly "defense"
boondoggles
as the missile defense system (Reagan's Star Wars for the 21st century)— the
list goes on and on.
The differences between the Republicans and the Democrats are becoming
increasingly insignificant— and it ain't because the Republicans are
becoming
more progressive. Nader represents a path the Democrats could have chosen to
take rather than the one they actually did. Instead, the Democrats chose the
path to the right, the path that made the Democrats nearly as Republican as
the
Republicans, the corporate-friendly path that led them to that special room
in
the White House from which telephone calls demanding that the Democrats,
too,
get their share of soft money "donations" are made. (Calls made by Gore, of
course.)
To the Democrats' dismay, along came somebody, Nader, who has not abandoned
principles and who cannot be bought. Panic! The Democrats might be able to
convince those who aren't already too fed up to bother voting that they are
marginally better than Bush, but they know they can't do that when it comes
to
Nader. Hence the dirty tricks, the attacks, the threats— hence, in short,
the
more complete adoption of the Republican playbook...including the adoption
of
Nixon's "Enemies List," at the top of which, now, is Ralph Nader's name.
To be sure, there are marginal differences between Gore and Bush on some
issues;
and in most cases (though not all), it is Gore who is slightly more
progressive.
But the differences are largely insignificant— the difference between
someone
who would shoot the poor in the head and hope they die quickly and someone
who
is content to inflict any old kind of wound, painful or not...as long as it
is
fatal.
A test of the actual substantive differences between the Republicans and the
Democrats is being compiled even now, as I write this. Bush's controllers
are
already sedulously constructing a scenario to test Democratic resolve, a
test
comparable to testing a snowball's survival chances in hell.
Thus we see Bush, rather than trying to unite the country around
non-partisan
(and qualified) cabinet appointees, has been making, as expected, absolutely
horrible choices for cabinet posts— Ashcroft, Whitman, Norton, Powell, as
well
as recently-withdrawn labor-exploiter and tax cheat Chavez— appointments
that
Gore, had he won, would almost certainly never have made. The Democrats, who
indisputably have the votes to block these appointments— the Senate is 50-50
(with the tie-breaker going to Cheney), but the Democrats would need a mere
41
votes for a cloture-proof filibuster— are running around as though
confirmation
were a mere formality...which it will be if they allow it to.
In all likelihood, the Democrats will allow all of these horrendous
appointees
to be confirmed, and then deny they could have done anything about it. It's
off
to the memory hole again, along with all the other previous memories of the
Democrats' pusillanimous abandonment of principle. And if Bush gets these
appointments, it surely will embolden him when it comes time to name a
Supreme
Court justice. Expect another Thomas; expect another Scalia; and expect the
Democrats to allow it to happen. To stop it would take courage; it would
take
commitment to principle; it would take daring...and there just are not
enough
Democrats who have these qualities. Bush's controllers obviously feel the
Democrats will not put up a meaningful fight; and they're probably right.
If the Democrats fail this test, and they surely will, Bush's controllers
will
undoubtedly feel free to run roughshod over the country that did not vote
for
them, mandate or no. And the Democrats will let them, just as they allowed
Reagan to do in the 1980s. (Al Gore was one of Reagan's most eager
Democratic
facilitators during the 1980s, it should be noted.)
Perhaps the saddest part for the Democratic party is that there still are
worthy
Democrats— Paul Wellstone and Jesse Jackson leap to mind as two obvious and
largely admirable examples— but the future of the Democratic party, thanks
to
the likes of Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, will belong to people
like
Jon Corzine, the just-elected freshman senator from New Jersey, who defeated
his
Republican opponent by outspending him exponentially: Corzine spent $70
million
on his campaign compared to his opponent Franks' $2 million (the previous
record
for a Senate seat was held by Michael Huffington, a Republican who spent $30
million and lost). But Corzine could afford it. He came straight from a CEO
job
on Wall Street. He's a mega-millionaire. He's business-friendly. He
certainly
would not want to have big money taken out of campaigning. In short, he'd
have
made a great Republican.
Just as Gore, Lieberman and Clinton have.
You also will not hear from the Democrats that one of the reasons they lost
this
past election has to do with the exploding prison population. The population
of
U.S. prisons has increased by about a third under Clinton/Gore (the U.S.
prison
population as a percentage of the U.S. population as a whole far exceeds all
other industrialized countries, and, indeed, almost all countries, be they
First, Second or Third World)
http://www.cjcj.org/punishingdecade/punishing.html. Prisoners— largely and
disproportionately minority; usually poor— come from a demographic that
votes
overwhelmingly Democratic. Votes from the current population of today's U.S.
prisons alone would have been enough to sweep Gore into office in what would
have passed for a landslide. But it gets worse. In 9 states— Florida,
Alabama,
Mississippi, Virginia, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming—
ex-felons are ineligible to vote ever again. They lose this "right"
permanently.
(In Florida (and probably elsewhere, too), countless non-felons— people
convicted of misdemeanors as well as people who were never convicted of
anything— were incorrectly classified as ex-felons and deprived of their
right
to vote along with the actual ex-felons.) When you include the number of
ex-felons who have lost the right to vote permanently in the count of
potential
Democratic voters, the Gore "landslide" would have been even larger.
So who made it so that felons and ex-felons cannot vote? Not Ralph Nader,
though
it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Democrats— desperately seeking a
scapegoat— were to try to pin this on him, too. Was it the Republicans? Yes,
in
part. Along with the Democrats. (But do not, of course, expect to hear the
Democrats admit this last part.)
Long ago, the Democrats abandoned the philosophy that the best way to combat
crime as a social pathology was to try to prevent it before it happened.
Where
do we see the most crime? Or, to amend that, where do we see the most crime
that
actually gets prosecuted? (The answer to the question as originally posed
would
probably have to be "in the corporate boardrooms and the corridors of power
in
DC," but the U.S. has made a political decision not to punish those
criminals.
This is why Henry Kissinger and Daniel Patrick Moynihan can still be seen on
Nightline rather than as the pitcher/catcher battery for the prison's
seniors
baseball team.)
Quite simply, most crime occurs where poverty is the most extreme. It is
impossible to deny the correlation between the twin social pathologies of
poverty and crime. That poverty is one of the major causes of this crime is
virtually irrefutable— it is as close to sociological fact as anything has
ever
been. To note this is not to excuse the crime, or hand a "get out of jail
free"
card to those who commit crimes. Rather, it is to say that if the concern
for
eliminating or reducing crime is a real; if the desire to prevent poor and
minority youth from going to prison in record numbers is genuine— then
effective
steps must be taken to eliminate the conditions under which crime
flourishes.
That means attacking poverty rather than the poor themselves.
But attacking the poor themselves is easier if all you are really concerned
with
is scoring political points...or trying to prevent being scored against.
When
Bill Clinton went back to Arkansas during his 1992 campaign to oversee the
judicial killing of convicted murderer Rickey Ray Rector, he did so
explicitly
so that he would not be "Willie Hortoned" by George Bush. (It should be
noted
that the person who first made Horton a race-baiting issue in the 1988
campaign
was none other than Al Gore. W's father took it up later, after Gore
withdrew
and Dukakis became the Democratic candidate.) Clinton had to "look tough on
crime", and his chosen way of doing so was to stage a lynching of a black
man as
a media event. (Rector himself was so profoundly brain damaged that he
actually
saved some of the dessert from his last meal "for later." He had no
comprehension of what was about to happen to him.)
Poor kids from the slums do not choose to deal (or take) drugs because they
have
a genetic predisposition to do so; they do it because it is often the only
realistic avenue of escape from the conditions that surround them. It is
despair
and a lack of attainable alternatives that contribute strongly to this
behavior;
and it is an unforgiving penal system that throws the poor— and only the
poor—
in jail as soon as they are caught engaging in this criminal behavior. Use
or
deal crack in North Philadelphia and expect to be sentenced to a long
stretch in
prison by the time you reach adulthood...assuming you survive that long. But
you
can take or deal powder cocaine, drive drunk, get barely passing grades
throughout school and still get into the best colleges in the country— but
wait,
there's more!— and even become the President of the United States without
even
going through the formality of winning the election...if you're a scion of
the
family Bush.
The Democrats, noting that the Republican crime-fighting strategy of
kill-'em-all-and-let-god-sort-'em-out seemed to be a political winner,
quickly
adopted that philosophy as their own. Clinton/Gore defunded social programs
aimed at the prevention of crime to pay for programs that would increase
prisons; Clinton/Gore made sure sentences for minorities and the poor became
harsher and that discretion on the severity of the sentences was removed
from
the courtroom and made mandatory; Clinton/Gore made it next to impossible,
with
their "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act", for innocent people,
the
wrongly convicted, to appeal to the federal courts to overturn unjust
sentences.
(This act, and other Clinton/Gore "anti-crime" laws, made it possible for
the
Texas state courts to affirm that, e.g., an attorney who slept throughout
the
trial of his client was still effective counsel, and therefore it was
perfectly
legal and just for George W. Bush to have that client judicially murdered.
The
federal courts, which before Clinton/Gore would have had the authority to
overturn such a miscarriage of justice, were prevented from intervening.
Texas
justice exists in large part because Al Gore and Bill Clinton gave Bush the
go-ahead to impose it.)
When Pat Buchanan came on the Today show and agreed that those disputed
votes in
Florida were almost certainly not meant for him, and, what's more, said he
did
not want any votes that he did not earn, he showed far more principle than
Gore
supporters, who still insist that Nader's votes belong to Gore; he also
showed
more genuine principle than Gore himself did when Gore claimed the reason he
was
fighting for a hand recount in Florida was based on principle— if, Gore
declaimed, they can take votes away from me this time, who will be next?
That
was the principle he professed to be fighting for: full enfranchisement.
Let us leave aside for the moment the Gore campaign's underhanded endeavors
to
disenfranchise Ralph Nader (by colluding with the Republicans to exclude him
and
Buchanan from the debates, among other dirty and cowardly tactics) and also
to
disenfranchise all who would even think of voting for Nader— and merely
ask...where were Al Gore and his "principles" when these very same minority
voters (in Florida and other states) were having their votes discarded in
previous elections? We know this happened routinely; we know it happened
almost
exclusively to poor and minority voters. Why is it that high-minded
principle
failed to kick in for Al Gore until having those minority votes counted
would
have given him an election? Is this mere happenstance...or typical Democrat
hypocrisy? Democratic doublethinkers want you to believe it is a
coincidence—
and it has been my experience that only Democratic doublethinkers believe
that.
Everyone else sees it for the political opportunism it blatantly is.
Governor Ryan of Illinois, a Republican and formerly a proponent of capital
punishment, declared a moratorium on judicial killing in his state when it
was
made clear to him that innocent people were being convicted and nearly
killed.
During a period of time when Illinois executed 12 death row inmates, an
addition
thirteen death row inmates were found to have been wrongly convicted and
were
released after years of living under the threat of execution— some saved
almost
literally at the last minute. These last-minute reprieves notwithstanding,
some
innocent people probably were executed in Illinois and elsewhere. (Certainly
they were in Texas.) Ryan took the bold step of declaring a moratorium in
his
state, while others, Democrat and Republican alike, claimed that the release
of
the thirteen "proved the system worked." (These apologists for
state-sponsored
killing conveniently overlooked the fact that most of these people got
reprieves
due to the efforts of activists from outside the killing system.)
But Al Gore and Bill Clinton proudly and boastfully expanded the number of
federal crimes punishable by death by 60— and included some non-lethal
crimes in
this unprecedented expansion. Bill Clinton, given the opportunity to commute
the
sentence of federal death row prisoner Juan Raul Garza before leaving
office,
decided merely to postpone the execution for six months...at which point
Bush
will be in office and will be making the ultimate decision. Clinton left a
human
being's fate up to the serial-killing Texas governor whom he and Al Gore
helped
create and empower; Clinton has "progressed", in eight years, from doing his
own
killing to letting others do the dirty work.
What does it say about the state of the Democratic party when their leaders
need
to learn lessons in compassion and principled behavior from the likes of a
Republican governor (Ryan) and a perennial Nazi sympathizer like Pat
Buchanan?
What it means, in short, is that to be a Democrat increasingly means
Republicanism by other means...or, often, by the same means, only harsher
and
with less honesty about the cruelty involved. The Democrats will deny this
and
unleash their doublethink dogs on anyone who dares point it out, as Nader
did.
But they won't apologize for it. After all...being a Democrat means never
having
to say you're sorry.
Home

Really long speed-driven jag mercifully snipped

Dude, crystal meth and word processors are a bad mix.
WS

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Just stirring the pot.


What it Means to Be a Democrat

(snip an amazing amount of blather)

But you're not a neo-conservative. Lol. Sure. I'm beginning
to see why peolpe call you "Duh-Mikey".

"bernard spilman" wrote in message
. com...
Really long speed-driven jag mercifully snipped

Dude, crystal meth and word processors are a bad mix.
WS


I'll have to take your word for it. Are you speaking from experience?

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
link.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:

Just stirring the pot.


What it Means to Be a Democrat

(snip an amazing amount of blather)

But you're not a neo-conservative. Lol. Sure. I'm beginning
to see why peolpe call you "Duh-Mikey".

No, I'm not. And what is it they call you?

"bernard spilman" wrote in message
. com...
Really long speed-driven jag mercifully snipped

Dude, crystal meth and word processors are a bad mix.
WS


Absence of relevant comment noted.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
link.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:


Just stirring the pot.


What it Means to Be a Democrat

(snip an amazing amount of blather)

But you're not a neo-conservative. Lol. Sure. I'm beginning
to see why peolpe call you "Duh-Mikey".


No, I'm not. And what is it they call you?

"stirring the pot" Lol.

I checked your news postings archives from when Clinton was
in office - you had NOTHING good to say. But Bush - he's
your man.

You talk like a Neo-Con, you look like a Neo-Con, and
you react like a Neo-Con.

Quack quack quack.

It took you TWO replys to say nothing!?
BTW: You don't think I read any of that ****, do you?
WS

"bernard spilman" wrote in message
om...
It took you TWO replys to say nothing!?
BTW: You don't think I read any of that ****, do you?
WS

I think it's what you live for.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
k.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
link.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:


Just stirring the pot.


What it Means to Be a Democrat

(snip an amazing amount of blather)

But you're not a neo-conservative. Lol. Sure. I'm beginning
to see why peolpe call you "Duh-Mikey".


No, I'm not. And what is it they call you?

"stirring the pot" Lol.

I checked your news postings archives from when Clinton was
in office - you had NOTHING good to say.

Incompetence noted.

True there wasn't much, but then Clinton was one of the most complete
assholes to ever hold office.

I did however say that I thought it was good that he lifted the ban on fetal
tissue research. There may have been one or 2 others I don't recall.

But Bush - he's
your man.

He's a better man and has done some things I like and some I don't.

You talk like a Neo-Con, you look like a Neo-Con, and
you react like a Neo-Con.

Quack quack quack.

Is that the sound of the wind blowing through your ears.

If you'd have been paying attention you'd see that I have had criticism of
Bush, but I cut him more slack since he's doing the right things about
terrorism and National Security that were basically cut off at the knees
during Clinton.

I am adamantly opposed to any sort of subsidy for anything at all, so the
farm bill really sucked, IMO. I see no reason for government to be involved
in education at the federal level. I do support states using vouchers as
long as they are going to be involved in education.

I have on more than one occasion stated emphatically that the only purpose
that government should serve is the protection of individual liberty. It is
after all what our constitution was written for, to limit the power of
government and ever political party that's had any power has sought to
expand the power of government and it's cost. Once you leave the realm of
economic policy there is very little I have in common with the GOP. The far
right wing is just as scary to me as the far left wing of the Democrats.

I have real issues with the fact that the GOP always claims to be for
smaller government but the bill for government continues to rise.

Every solid Republican I've ever spoken with has thought I go to far.

Naturally the Libertarian idea scares the **** out of the leftists, since it
would leave them essentially powerless.

If you think supporting Gay Marriage,legalizing drugs, forcing the
government to sell of all it's holdings not needed for other than official
business, (parks, forests, etc.)abandoning government healthcare, rescinding
the income tax and property tax, removal of all victimless crime laws, and
going back to the original intent of the founding fathers makes me a
neo-con, then I think you're deluded.

Wow... you are either a plagarist... or have way to much time or your
hands... this is painfully long - and easily summated into a few
sentences at best.

So I'll leave it at this... snip a few names and paste a few others
and your title reads 'What if means to be A Republican." And it works!
After all non ever admit error, and none ever said "I'm sorry"... For
example... Did Bush 1 admit he was wrong in his campaign approach -
when it counted!... did he apologize to his supporters for blowing it
against whom your pundits often refer to as the worst president ever?
Thats gotta sting.

I think you are a bitter individual... or just drunk... but as it
stands free speech is one of the corner stones of our society and with
that I'll support your rights, I might even choose to fight for
them... but I think your cronie Dud-ya (and cetainly his FCC) thinks
I'm wrong... and I won't apologize, because I don't have to! that's
something we are all afforded in this country, something I think you
would gladly cast aside for you silly king-of-the hill BS.

J-

"dourmaj" wrote in message
om...
Wow... you are either a plagarist... or have way to much time or your
hands... this is painfully long - and easily summated into a few
sentences at best.

So I'll leave it at this... snip a few names and paste a few others
and your title reads 'What if means to be A Republican." And it works!
After all non ever admit error, and none ever said "I'm sorry"... For
example... Did Bush 1 admit he was wrong in his campaign approach -
when it counted!... did he apologize to his supporters for blowing it
against whom your pundits often refer to as the worst president ever?
Thats gotta sting.

I don't thin saying he's sorry would do anything more than give the
Democrats another sound bite to use against him.
I don't see what Bush has done that he shoulod apologize for with respect to
the war on terror. He's taken the fight to where it belongs, there may have
been some miscalculations but they are all still in an effor to do the right
thing. He makes decisions and sticks by them. I applaud thatin any man,
even if I disagree with the decision. It's called leadership.

I think you are a bitter individual... or just drunk... but as it
stands free speech is one of the corner stones of our society and with
that I'll support your rights, I might even choose to fight for
them... but I think your cronie Dud-ya (and cetainly his FCC) thinks
I'm wrong...

I'm not on the FCC's side in their battle over indecency.

and I won't apologize, because I don't have to! that's
something we are all afforded in this country, something I think you
would gladly cast aside for you silly king-of-the hill BS.

J-
I'm not after king of the hill, I'm simply pointing out some of the
hypocrisy of the Democrats. Look at the post on what it takes to be a
Republican, is it any better?

Since I belong to neither part I like to poke holes in the stuffed shirts on
both sides.

I didn't write the "What it takes" piece, I believe a Democrat did.

Here's the home page it came from
http://www.eclipse.net/~tgardnet/index.html

Since I belong to neither part I like to poke holes in the stuffed shirts on
both sides.

I didn't write the "What it takes" piece, I believe a Democrat did.


Oh give me a break! There is hypocrisy on both sides in droves... and
that you side with or against Bush doesn't legitimize nor justify what
you say...

Everone knows the original "what it takes" piece, and few really care
who wrote it, but you wrote this manifesto... so don't duck the
response!

Few "responsible" democrats or republicans would argue that a measure
of response against terrorism wasn't called for after 9/11; but it
takes a SMART democrat or republican to get the job done right... and
those are in short supply these days... Bush can throw an opening
pitch but he hasn't the slightest clue how to finish the game, and his
advisors are more interested in private business than justice, which
is the ultimate crime in my view... I'm not going to tell you how I
think YOU should think, but if you THINK your safer your living a pipe
dream! There is a big hole in downtown NYC in case you need a
reminder!

Grow a spine and call a spade a spade... a real republican wouldn't
stand for the type of garbage thats being pushed on the party or the
country... nor should a democrat for that matter.

J-

"dourmaj" wrote in message
om...

Since I belong to neither part I like to poke holes in the stuffed
shirts on
both sides.

I didn't write the "What it takes" piece, I believe a Democrat did.


Oh give me a break! There is hypocrisy on both sides in droves... and
that you side with or against Bush doesn't legitimize nor justify what
you say...

Everone knows the original "what it takes" piece, and few really care
who wrote it, but you wrote this manifesto... so don't duck the
response!

Perhaps if you checked with the link I posted you could see where it came
from. Of course, this will make you look like an idiot.

Few "responsible" democrats or republicans would argue that a measure
of response against terrorism wasn't called for after 9/11; but it
takes a SMART democrat or republican to get the job done right... and
those are in short supply these days... Bush can throw an opening
pitch but he hasn't the slightest clue how to finish the game, and his
advisors are more interested in private business than justice, which
is the ultimate crime in my view... I'm not going to tell you how I
think YOU should think, but if you THINK your safer your living a pipe
dream! There is a big hole in downtown NYC in case you need a
reminder!

Grow a spine and call a spade a spade... a real republican wouldn't
stand for the type of garbage thats being pushed on the party or the
country... nor should a democrat for that matter.

J


I wouldn't know, I'm not a real Republican or a real Democrat.

I didn't write the "What it takes" piece, I believe a Democrat did.

Everone knows the original "what it takes" piece, and few really care
who wrote it, but you wrote this manifesto... so don't duck the
response!

Perhaps if you checked with the link I posted you could see where it came
from. Of course, this will make you look like an idiot.


Nice try... despite the "link(s)" that seem to go nowhere, the 'title'
shows up in many places: nightly news, congressional speeches (and
rebukes), multiple rec.something.nothing newsgroups - and likewise in
numerous cross-posts... its been used for years... So I say again...
you either have a lot of extra time, or are a plagarist... if this
commentary is not yours then simply cite who wrote it, post it
appropriately, and moderate objectively.

But when people need their "pots stirred" they read a newspaper, or
watch Bill O'Reilly, or whatever. When we want to see what people
think about a particular piece of audio equipment we go to a store, or
ask a question in rec.audio.opinion. But you don't go to a political
debate (at any level) and say what do you think of a particular new
trend in audio design, nor do you go to an audio store and say I'd
like to take up your time discussing why I think we need a three or
more party system that works fairly! But thats a matter of common
sense, and like I implied before... its a free country.

I wouldn't know, I'm not a real Republican or a real Democrat.

Regarless of whether or not you are a political pseudo-nihilist, YOU
posted it, not to mention cross posting it in a rec.audio newsgroup
(who looks like an idiot?)... so again, don't try to duck the
response(s).

J-

dourman wrote in a thread about "What it means to be a Democrat":

snip of non-audio-related political folderol

I would suggest that people contribute to a thread entitled "What It Means To
Be An Audiophile"

or - if that proves to be too threatening because it's perilously on-topic and
therefore open to abuse - here's a few other suggestions for threads:

(1) Favorite Songs of Democrats (and of course, recommended LP or CD versions)

(2) Favorite Songs of Republicans (and of course, recommended LP or CD
versions)

(3) Favorite Songs of George Bush

(4) Favorite Songs of John Kerry

(5) Favorite Songs of Ralph Nader

(6) Favorite Audio Equipment (Speakers, Sources, etc.) of ________________
(fill in the blank with any of the above mentioned luminaries or parties.

"At Least" that way the thread might be audio related.



Bruce J. Richman

"dourmaj" wrote in message
om...
I didn't write the "What it takes" piece, I believe a Democrat did.

Everone knows the original "what it takes" piece, and few really care
who wrote it, but you wrote this manifesto... so don't duck the
response!

Perhaps if you checked with the link I posted you could see where it
came
from. Of course, this will make you look like an idiot.


Nice try... despite the "link(s)" that seem to go nowhere, the 'title'
shows up in many places: nightly news, congressional speeches (and
rebukes), multiple rec.something.nothing newsgroups - and likewise in
numerous cross-posts... its been used for years... So I say again...
you either have a lot of extra time, or are a plagarist... if this
commentary is not yours then simply cite who wrote it,

I can't cite who wrote it since they author is not listed.

post it
appropriately, and moderate objectively.



You can say it til hell freezes over, it won't change the fact that I
didn't write it. If you followed the link I posted it goes to a page where
one of the names you can't miss is Noam Chomsky. I don't know about you but
most people don't consider him to be a rabid conservative.

Halfway down the page you find this:

Political Dissent and Dissidents
a.. NEW!! What it means to be a Democrat!
b.. Free Lori! Lori Berenson is an American citizen who has been held as a
political prisoner in Peru for four years in conditions that are universally
recognized as inhumane. She was convicted in a blatantly unfair trial, and
is being punished because of her concern for the poor and oppressed of Peru
and, indeed, of the world. Visit this site and learn what you can do to help
her re-gain her freedom and be re-united with her family.
Lori's family is right now in the midst of a focused effort to get
President Clinton to intervene on Lori's behalf, as he is obliged to do by
law.

a.. My assessment of Lori's case is here. (Spanish translation available
here.)
b.. Who is the real criminal?
c.. My 5/5/00 op/ed in the Times of Trenton.
d.. August 2000 developments (the new "trial" dodge)
e.. Article in the Nation ("The Lori Berenson Papers") and my response
f.. My 10/12/00 op/ed in the Star Ledger
g.. Secondary Victims 12/5/01
c.. Mumia Abu-Jamal: "The principal that the state judicial system should
be granted the right to kill has been rejected and condemned in most of the
world. The time is long past for the United States to become part of this
moral universe. The free resort to the death penalty, in accord with growing
practice here, is simply an outrage -- heightened further by the ways it is
implemented, targeting juveniles, the mentally retarded, and those too
disadvantaged to resist tainted and dubious judicial proceedings,
overwhelmingly the poor and oppressed minorities. The case of Mumia
Abu-Jamal has come to symbolize these crimes of state, and rightly so. More
than ample reason has been presented to call for a new trial in this
particular case, and to follow Mumia's honorable and courageous lead in
challenging the entire system of judicial murder: the shameful mode of it's
application, and more deeply, the very principle." -Noam Chomsky
Amnesty's report on the Mumia case -calls for a new trial (a fair one this
time)
NEW Mumia and the R2K Protests - Crashing the Executioners' Ball. Can you
tell the difference between Republican Presidential candidate George Dubya
Bush and Democratic Philly DA Lynne Abraham? Me either.
d.. McSpotlight: This was the longest trial of any kind in UK history, in
which a poor, helpless billion-dollar corporation was forced to bring two
indigent British activists to trial for libelling McDonald's by making such
controversial claims as "Greasy fried food is bad for your health." The
defendants were forced to act as their own lawyers yet prevailed nonetheless
against McDonald's, which spent millions to prosecute the McLibel 2.
e.. Leonard Peltier
f.. The Silencing of an American Dissident
Propaganda: Recognizing It; Combating It
a.. FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting): The organization that,
among other things, not only called
Does this seem like it might be from the right wing to you?

But when people need their "pots stirred" they read a newspaper, or
watch Bill O'Reilly, or whatever. When we want to see what people
think about a particular piece of audio equipment we go to a store, or
ask a question in rec.audio.opinion. But you don't go to a political
debate (at any level) and say what do you think of a particular new
trend in audio design, nor do you go to an audio store and say I'd
like to take up your time discussing why I think we need a three or
more party system that works fairly! But thats a matter of common
sense, and like I implied before... its a free country.

I wouldn't know, I'm not a real Republican or a real Democrat.

Regarless of whether or not you are a political pseudo-nihilist, YOU
posted it, not to mention cross posting it in a rec.audio newsgroup
(who looks like an idiot?)... so again, don't try to duck the
response(s).

J-

I'm not trying to duck anything, I posted what I thought was a very
revealing piece by someone from the left.

Here's more from the page that the link takes you to.

a.. Mumia Abu-Jamal: "The principal that the state judicial system should be
granted the right to kill has been rejected and condemned in most of the
world. The time is long past for the United States to become part of this
moral universe. The free resort to the death penalty, in accord with growing
practice here, is simply an outrage -- heightened further by the ways it is
implemented, targeting juveniles, the mentally retarded, and those too
disadvantaged to resist tainted and dubious judicial proceedings,
overwhelmingly the poor and oppressed minorities. The case of Mumia
Abu-Jamal has come to symbolize these crimes of state, and rightly so. More
than ample reason has been presented to call for a new trial in this
particular case, and to follow Mumia's honorable and courageous lead in
challenging the entire system of judicial murder: the shameful mode of it's
application, and more deeply, the very principle." -Noam Chomsky
Amnesty's report on the Mumia case -calls for a new trial (a fair one this
time)
NEW Mumia and the R2K Protests - Crashing the Executioners' Ball. Can you
tell the difference between Republican Presidential candidate George Dubya
Bush and Democratic Philly DA Lynne Abraham? Me either.
a.. McSpotlight: This was the longest trial of any kind in UK history, in
which a poor, helpless billion-dollar corporation was forced to bring two
indigent British activists to trial for libelling McDonald's by making such
controversial claims as "Greasy fried food is bad for your health." The
defendants were forced to act as their own lawyers yet prevailed nonetheless
against McDonald's, which spent millions to prosecute the McLibel 2.
a..
a..
Again, I ask you does this seem like a bunch of right wing zealots?

(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message ...
dourman wrote in a thread about "What it means to be a Democrat":

snip of non-audio-related political folderol

If you are referring to me its dourmaj....

I would suggest that people contribute to a thread entitled "What It Means To
Be An Audiophile"

or - if that proves to be too threatening because it's perilously on-topic and
therefore open to abuse - here's a few other suggestions for threads:

(1) Favorite Songs of Democrats (and of course, recommended LP or CD versions)

(2) Favorite Songs of Republicans (and of course, recommended LP or CD
versions)

(3) Favorite Songs of George Bush

(4) Favorite Songs of John Kerry

(5) Favorite Songs of Ralph Nader

(6) Favorite Audio Equipment (Speakers, Sources, etc.) of ________________
(fill in the blank with any of the above mentioned luminaries or parties.

"At Least" that way the thread might be audio related.

I couldn't agree more, and it may even lead to some more "pleasant"
discussions among among the politically polarized readers of these
groups...

J-

dourmaj wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message
...
dourman wrote in a thread about "What it means to be a Democrat":

snip of non-audio-related political folderol

If you are referring to me its dourmaj....


I stand corrected. Sorry for the slight typographical error.


I would suggest that people contribute to a thread entitled "What It Means
To
Be An Audiophile"

or - if that proves to be too threatening because it's perilously on-topic
and
therefore open to abuse - here's a few other suggestions for threads:

(1) Favorite Songs of Democrats (and of course, recommended LP or CD
versions)

(2) Favorite Songs of Republicans (and of course, recommended LP or CD
versions)

(3) Favorite Songs of George Bush

(4) Favorite Songs of John Kerry

(5) Favorite Songs of Ralph Nader

(6) Favorite Audio Equipment (Speakers, Sources, etc.) of ________________
(fill in the blank with any of the above mentioned luminaries or parties.

"At Least" that way the thread might be audio related.

I couldn't agree more, and it may even lead to some more "pleasant"
discussions among among the politically polarized readers of these
groups...

J-



Thank you for your support. Feel free to chip in with some suggestions.




Bruce J. Richman

You can say it til hell freezes over, it won't change the fact that I
didn't write it. If you followed the link I posted it goes to a page where
one of the names you can't miss is Noam Chomsky. I don't know about you but
most people don't consider him to be a rabid conservative.

What the "hell" are you talking about... Noam Chomsky is one of the
most prolific writers of philosophy and linguistics ever... I'm sure
you could dig up a critic or supporter to defend your points... but
these threads are now like confetti streaming in the wind,
directionless, and without point or purpose...

Halfway down the page you find this:

snip

Again, I ask you does this seem like a bunch of right wing zealots?

....it is whatever you want it to be... and that you post it as a means
to defend your own ego

I think you have become the new 'Ronin' of the rec.audio world...
enjoy!

J-

"dourmaj" wrote in message
om...
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message
...
dourman wrote in a thread about "What it means to be a Democrat":

snip of non-audio-related political folderol

If you are referring to me its dourmaj....

I would suggest that people contribute to a thread entitled "What It
Means To
Be An Audiophile"

or - if that proves to be too threatening because it's perilously
on-topic and
therefore open to abuse - here's a few other suggestions for threads:

(1) Favorite Songs of Democrats (and of course, recommended LP or CD
versions)

(2) Favorite Songs of Republicans (and of course, recommended LP or CD
versions)

(3) Favorite Songs of George Bush

(4) Favorite Songs of John Kerry

(5) Favorite Songs of Ralph Nader

(6) Favorite Audio Equipment (Speakers, Sources, etc.) of
________________
(fill in the blank with any of the above mentioned luminaries or
parties.

"At Least" that way the thread might be audio related.

I couldn't agree more, and it may even lead to some more "pleasant"
discussions among among the politically polarized readers of these
groups...

J-

Speaking as one who loves great audio and who has observed this NG for about
9 years, I can absolutely guarantee, that a change to audio only discussion
would not bring the vitriol level down.

When I first started posting here, there were almost no off topic
conversations about politics. The place was still a flame war playground.
Audiophiles, it seems are snotty and belligerent, no matter what they
discuss.

Throw into that people like Middius, who has made about 1 on topic post a
year, and you have essentially the same situation you have now.

The big thing used to be discussions on ABX comparisons and how many people,
if they were only interested in good reproduction, could save hundreds, if
not thousands of dollars by not believing hype. It seems that the idea that
there was no mystery in audio design and that well designed Solid state
equipment tends to sound indistinguishable from other well designed Solid
State equipment.

The idea that people didn't have to shell out megabucks for amps, tuners, CD
players, and preamps was considered blasphemy to some here. If anything,
this place was nastier than it is now.

"At Least" that way the thread might be audio related.

I couldn't agree more, and it may even lead to some more "pleasant"
discussions among among the politically polarized readers of these
groups...

J-

Speaking as one who loves great audio and who has observed this NG for about
9 years, I can absolutely guarantee, that a change to audio only discussion
would not bring the vitriol level down.


Yeah but neither does an open door policy on discussion topics...
especially when politics is the epicenter of the debate...

snip - no offense

The idea that people didn't have to shell out megabucks for amps, tuners, CD
players, and preamps was considered blasphemy to some here. If anything,
this place was nastier than it is now.

I'll second that...

dourmaj wrote:

Yeah but neither does an open door policy on discussion topics...
especially when politics is the epicenter of the debate...

I'd restate the last phrase to say:

....especially when politics is the sphincter of the debate...