A Formal Adieu to the Democratic Party

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Mel Brennan, Nov 9, 2004.

  1. Mel Brennan

    Mel Brennan PLANITARCHIS' BANE

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Apr 8, 2002
    Baltimore
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    By Liam Scheff

    Earlier this year, when I heard that Kerry had gotten the Democratic Party’s appointment as their candidate, I shuddered.

    I looked at the guy – blue-blooded, marble mouthed, long-winded, and worst of all – of the opinion that politics is some kind of country club debate with his friends in Washington – and I shuddered.

    Over the next weeks, I watched him attacked for the best things he did – indicting the warmongering fools who dropped hundreds of thousands of bombs on Southeast Asia (because they might have been Communist, if we hadn’t helped them be dead).

    And I felt for the man.

    And I wondered where his rage was. His indignity. His righteous response to these warmongering cowards. Was it in a ketchup bottle? Who knows.

    I watched the debates, and knew who the smarter man was. I grew to like Kerry by increments. Then I listened to his answers about the ‘terrorists’ – “We’ll hunt them down, and kill them.”

    Over and over, like a mantra, a sell-out, a pitch to the Fox-addled, brainwashed, reactive, spoiled, comatose, Nascar aficionados who actually imagine that the United States is the most aggrieved nation in the world – and that any temper tantrum we throw – tomahawk, daisy-cutter or nuclear (excuse me, nucuuler) – is not only forgivable – it’s righteous, justified, and even Holy.

    Who was this John Kerry? The man who indicted the U.S. government for war crimes, or the drone on the boat, behind the gun, following orders, shooting villagers?

    But, maybe he had to say that to win the ‘undecideds.’ Maybe.

    Maybe not.

    Then, down to the day. The day itself. That reminder of what a Democracy might be. That fiction in which we participate.

    A vote. Once every four years. Democracy. Democracy? Or the appointment of one corporate spokesperson over another?

    Down to the day. The day is here. The day passes. The vote is in dispute.

    And the man, the blue-blood, the polite Senator from Massachusetts—- fights the good fight?

    Fights it out, lets the votes be counted, reveals the faults in the system, doesn’t give into the bullying pressure to capitulate what’s left of a democracy….????

    And then the man, without a word, without consulting the tens of thousands of college kids, moms, students, and confused idealists – and hopeful cynics – and forthcoming soldiers – and frightened non-Christians, and disgusted honest Christians – who’ve bet their time and energy – and even, horror of horrors, hope – Hope! – that this man would fight for the last vestige of Democracy in the system…

    And then the man concedes, to the least qualified, most addled, dangerous and profoundly confused person to hold office since Mad King George, Since Caligula, since Claudius, Since….you fill in the historical analogy. I’m sure it’ll fit.

    So, a few points.

    First:

    F*** John Kerry.

    Second:

    F*** the Democratic Party.

    If I want to have my opinion ignored, I’ll call my father’s second wife.

    When I want to have my vote counted, I’ll find a candidate who will count it...
     
  2. Chicago1871

    Chicago1871 Member

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Personally, I'm already tired of hearing people bitch about the election and John Kerry, but not provide any kind of "how about a third party" idea, or even play Monday-Morning Cadidate and talk about "How I would have done it." At least you're spouting a plan at that point, at least you're being a little proactive. This guy is just bitching and whining.
     
  3. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    I agree. Jesus Christ, it's not like there weren't progressives running during the primaries. Where was this guy then?
     
  4. 1953 4-2-4

    1953 4-2-4 Red Card

    Jan 11, 2004
    Cleveland
    I think what the Democrat party lacks is team-work. Too many individuals. All me me me.
     
  5. Chicago1871

    Chicago1871 Member

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Can't disagree, for the most part. The thing with that is there isn't a strong DNC leader so everyone is trying to be the 'big cheese' and it isn't working.
     
  6. IntheNet

    IntheNet New Member

    Nov 5, 2002
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Who writes this crap? The "polite Senator from Massachusetts"? Man that's pure gold-embossed crappola straight from the bull's bowels! The "blue-blood, the polite Senator from Massachusetts"... what.. you been reading Teresa's love letters?

    Man get a life already... he lost!

    IntheNet
     
  7. Chicago1871

    Chicago1871 Member

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What does any of what you just said have to do with the article? Stop with the knee-jerk reactions for 5 seconds, read, and respond appropriately. I know it's a big step, but try it, you might like it.
     
  8. IntheNet

    IntheNet New Member

    Nov 5, 2002
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    OK...Chicago... I agree with this part:

    "First:

    F*** John Kerry.

    Second:

    F*** the Democratic Party."


    Happy now?

    IntheNet
     
  9. Chicago1871

    Chicago1871 Member

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's all I ask. :p
     
  10. Iceblink

    Iceblink Member

    Oct 11, 1999
    Chicago
    Club:
    Ipswich Town FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Some of this is true. There are too many independent minds, all thinking for themselves.

    They need to be more like the republicans... a borg-like hive mind.

    "WE ARE REPUBLICANS! YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!"

    I think what the Republican party lacks is a sense of individualism. Too much group-think. All us us us.
     
  11. Attacking Minded

    Attacking Minded New Member

    Jun 22, 2002
    All thinking "for" themselves or all thinking "of" themselves? Thinking about their own self righteous sanctity? Are they so unwilling to compromise on what they believe because everything they believe is so important or because they think so much of what they think.

    I'd like to see one of these leftists who indulged themselves in conspiracy theories go to an AIDS patient dying of AIDS and tell them, "I'm sorry that you don’t have healthcare but I had to stand up for your right for your partner to visit."
     
  12. Garcia

    Garcia Member

    Dec 14, 1999
    Castro Castro
    You and Chicago forgot to add the part where the Dems all decided that it was a good thing for the party to have a candidate pretty much selected after a couple of primaries. Oh yea, and run against Bush's record the whole way.

    But look on the bright side. I hear that rep. Kucinich has yet to officially drop out of the race. Keep up the good fight, Dennis! :D
     
  13. btousley

    btousley New Member

    Jul 12, 1999
    they should change these red dots and green dots to red dots and blue dots ....

    on to this post ..... until the Dems can find a candidate that is attractive to most of the midwest and the south - (lesson learned with Clinton and Carter) - they are hosed. Every time they propose a candidate from the bleeding heart upper northeast (can you say Kerry and Dukakis?) they lose. The lesson is obvious to 52% of us .... I guess it just has not sunk in those bluebies yet.
     
  14. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Every time = two in a row.

    Interesting.
     
  15. CosmosKramer

    CosmosKramer Member

    Sep 24, 2000
    Yokohama
    Club:
    Yokohama F Marinos
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Republicans would love everyone to believe that Clinton won in '92 and '96 only because he pulled the party to the center - as they would like nothing more than to see the Democrats erupt into a civil war and impulsively move further right.

    Fact is, Clinton never won a majority of the electorate. The red states he managed to grab were mostly because Ross Perot took votes away from GHWB and Dole.

    Clinton lost votes in '96 from his base after he signed the Defense of Marriage act. He didn't gain any conservative votes by doing this, conservatives just kept moving even further right. Dole in '96 received more "values" voters than even GWB did in 2000.

    Al Gore, who was left of Clinton on most things (supported gay partnership rights for example) won the majority of the popular vote in 2000 and, as we all know, would have won if Nader didn't eat into his base.
     
  16. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    It appears that the author of this rant is a sore loser who is grasping at straws and yelling fire where there's not even smoke. Senator Kerry did the right thing and the honorable thing by conceding when it was obvious that there was no chance that he could win the election.

    Having said that, there is one observation which I agree with. I didn't know much about Senator Kerry before this election cycle began. But at one point during the campaign I saw for the first time a clip of the young Kerry testifying in congress about attrocities in Vietnam. Leaving aside the contentious issue about whether he was right or wrong, I was struck by the marked differences between that passionate young man and the calculating politician to whom I was introduced during the campaign. Senator Kerry is a different person than he was in his youth. Whether his change was for the better or for the worse, I don't know. But I respect more the people who are passionate about what they believe, right or wrong.
     
  17. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's not true, as has been voluuuuuuuminously documented many, many times before in these parts.

    Is this the biggest myth in contemporary US politics?

    Probably.
     
  18. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    (1) Perot was much more anti-Bush than anti-Clinton. (2) The Bushes are masters of negative politics, Perot's candidacy through a monkey wrench into their plans. I believe Bush I could have beaten Clinton head on.
     
  19. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    For Democrats, the biggest myth is that Al Gore had the election stolen. The second biggest is that Willie Horton was a low blow to Dukakis.

    But yeah, the one about Perot losing it for Bush is one of the GOP's favorite myths. Bush Sr. ran a totally listless campaign, went back on "no new taxes" and was a big weasel. (Mary Matalin ran his campaign, for anyone who respects her political savvy)
     
  20. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    She was a top advisor, but IIR "All's Fair" correctly, not the campaign manager. She might have been communications director.

    Which, now that I think about it, hardly undermines your main point. ;)
     
  21. btousley

    btousley New Member

    Jul 12, 1999
    so you are going to base your approach on being like Kennedy?

    at some point northeastern Democrats are going to have to take a serious look at why it is so difficult for them to win southern and other red states.

    First step in remediation is to realize you have a problem. Like it or not people from Georgia and Arkansas identified more with Carter and Clinton than with Kerry or Lieberman or Dean or somebody from the northern part of the I95 corridor.
     
  22. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In the aftermath of 1996, did the GOPs ask themselves why candidates from the "heartland" had such a hard time winning those massive coastal states?

    OK, Arkansas is not off the map, but why the hell should the Dems worry any more about Georgia than the GOPs worry about, I dunno, New Jersey?

    An alternative answer would be, because the conservatively biased media portray places like Georgia (home of Lester Maddox) as good and pure epitomes of American virtue, while states like Massachusetts (home of the lowest divorce rate in the nation) as a collection of amoral nutjobs.
     
  23. USAsoccer

    USAsoccer Member

    Jul 15, 1999
    Tampa, Florida
    It is sooo hard to take you seriously when you spout off about a "conservative media bias".

    For Gosh sakes man, GIVE-IT-UP!!!!!

    In a world consisting of ABCCBSNBSCNNMSNBCNYTIMESWASHINGTONPOSTLATIMES, you focus on FOX news? LOL funny! :D
     
  24. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No, I realize that the NYT employs Judith Miller, that the WaPo was pro-war, that CNN's main political analyst is Bill Schneider, and their main political presenters are Judy Woodruff and Wolf Blitzer.

    But, mostly, I realize that so far as I know, every time the issue is objectively studied, we see a conservative bias in the media.

    My favorite point on this is, if only people who agreed with the 9/11 commission about the Iraq-AQ connections had been allowed to vote, Kerry would have gotten over 2/3 of the vote. Even if you only used that criteria to exclude ignorant voters for whom security was their top issue, Kerry wins in a walk. See, if the media were liberally biased, they'd better inform the public. But they're conservatively biased, so too many voters were ignorant about Tier 1 issues, and in a way that made them more likely to be pro-Bush than pro-Kerry.

    I love making this point, becuase it makes you guys' heads explode.

    USA, here's the deal...show me non-anecdotal evidence of BEHAVIOR that shows a liberal bias in the media. I'm not aware of any, but I'm always eager to be better informed. If you divide politics into 3 parts...foreign policy, dollars and cents, and social issues, it's very, very obvious to anyone who can be objective that the media lean pretty far left* (compared to the Average American) on social issues, but lean clearly right on the other two. I honestly don't think anyone who can observe things at all objectively could come to any other conclusion.

    *Of course, part of that leaning left is not being fazed by interracial dating, or believing it's wrong to fire a person from a job for being gay, stuff like that. So alot of the depth of the left lean comes from the media simply being right. (I'm excluding more contentious social issues like busing for school integration, abortion, gay marriage. If you only included these types of issues, the left lean isn't as pronounced.)
     
  25. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Or I could have just kept right on topic...in your observation, how often do the news media portray Massachusetts as out of touch with mainstream American values, but give a pass to Alabama, which recently rejected an attempt to reverse 100 year old Jim Crow laws? How often is it pointed out that the Dems need to dominate the other 39 states if the GOPs sweep the Confederacy, but the reverse (that the GOPs have to dominate the rest of the nation if they can't win Cali or the Northeast)? For that matter, how often do the media point out that those small government red states are net recipients of federal dollars, while blue states are net donors? Yep, those hardy red staters are sucking the lifeblood of America, the shiftless welfare sluggards.

    It's true that if you were to pick the Average American, the Northeasterner would have lefty values. It's just as true that the Southerner has right values. Which do the media trumpet repeatedy? Kerry had to "apologize" for being from the Northeast. Why doesn't Bush have to "apologize" for the South?
     

Share This Page