First up, consider Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma). Inhofe is a certifiably crazy man, who can be seen in this illuminating segment on "Fox and Friends" discussing his belief that global warming is "the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people" and reminding us that God's still up there. (As an aside, I'd like to see scientists study just how much dumber repeated viewings of "Fox and Friends" can make you. I watched thirty seconds and forgot my own name.) Anyway, why are Inhofe's ravings important? Well, for the last several years, this nutty little raisin cake has been the head of the Senate committee which determines federal policy on the environment. He's been a chief obstacle to any kind of government action on global warming, a champion of rolling back the Clean Air Act, and the Bush administration's point man on killing the Endangered Species Act. Next, consider Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California). Because the Democrats retook the Senate, she's the new head of the aforementioned committee. She's already sketched out an ambitious agenda, one that seems just a little bit different from her predecessor's. She intends to introduce legislation to drastically reduce greenhouse gas pollution, to strengthen environmental laws affecting public health and to hold hearings on federal plans for cleaning Superfund hazardous waste sites across the country. And, in a sign that she's clearly a dangerous left-wing feminazi from gay California, she not only believes all the science about global warming, but also thinks we should do something about it! Crazy!
If that doesn't make the contrasts clear enough, then take a look at virtually any committee in the Senate. The Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will no longer be led by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Tantrum), a man who thinks the internet is a "series of tubes" and who famously wasted $233 billion on his "bridge to nowhere." The Finance Committee will no longer be led by adminsitration water-carrier Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) but instead by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-SD), who just pronounced that Social Security privatization is "dead" with him on the watch. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) has kept all investigations of 9/11 and Iraq intelligence failures bottled up in the Intelligence Committee, but new chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is going to pry it all open.
The list goes on and on. Education now goes through Ted Kennedy, who's itching to revisit the failures of No Child Left Behind. Judiciary is now run not by Stepford Senator, Arlen Specter, but by Pat Leahy, an aggressive guy who reduced Cheney to profanity and who's already calling for investigations into voter suppression tactics in the midterms. And so on.
You'd have to be willfully ignorant not to see the real differences between the two parties here. Wait -- wasn't that Nader's 2004 slogan?
22 comments:
Honestly do you want me to let some nader supporters and greens on to this great blog of ours, because here in Cincinnati they hate me
My experience with "these people" is that it is far more a social organization that a political organization. The social organization involves a lot of "political dicussion" which generally involves sitting on a couch, complaining that your parents don't respect/understand you, personally criticizing outsiders versus determining a plan for change and implementing it.
PS - their parties suck because they are all BYOB until someone brings the pot then everyone mysteriously disappears to the pourch even though it is 14 degrees outside.
Also, when you notice bad misspelling in my posts - it is my wife yelling "what are you doing with that computer in the bedroom". Even though the answer is not a dirty one, somehow I feel nervous when accused and I panic.
Thanks for sharing.
I wouldn't worry about them coming here, Yossarian. Once they realize they can't delete half our comments at this site, they'll quickly leave.
I agree with all your hopes on all committee chairs except for Jay Rockefeller. Unless he grows a spine between now and January, I do not have high hopes for him. But perhaps he will become less timid with his fellow Dems kicking ass. His own included.
Hi boys! I see you couldn't take the heat at Andrew Warner.org so you cut and ran over here where it's safe inside your bubble.
Studio Dave, I'm curious about your experience with "these people". Can you name some names? I think you're full of shit.
Imagine, a political party having "political discussions". We ran candidates who stood for clean elections, living wages, universal health care, ending the war and restoring the bill of rights.
You and Yossarian seem to be "personally criticizing outsiders versus determining a plan for change and implementing it."
What are you doing to reform your party? Kerry voted for the war and wanted to "stay the course", he wasn't alone in his party. Clinton and the other leading corporate democrats feel the same way and are giving another $75 billion for the quagmire they helped get us into.
"their parties suck because they are all BYOB until someone brings the pot then everyone mysteriously disappears to the pourch even though it is 14 degrees outside."
You're so full of shit! Democrats don't inhale and continue to fill our jails with pot smokers and waste billions on the failed drug war.
otto man, you're lying too. We don't delete half your comments. Andrew did edit part of a post, because he said it was douchebaggery. It's his blog, but I don't have a problem with you being a douche. Yossarian does it all the time and we don't censor him.
The corporate democrats won't get us out of Iraq, give us a living wage, clean elections, universal health care, our civil liberties back or do anything to reign in the
corporate power that owns them. They won't impeach the most impeachable President in our history either.
You all won't do anything to reform your party. You'll sit on the couch and bitch about the greens and the republicans while your party leaders continue the policies they supported under Bush.
By the way Nader's slogan was "not for sale". He won't take the corporate money the Democrats are addicted to.
He was for ending the war, a living wage, universal health care, major tax relief for working people, real political and election reform, reigning in corporate power and abuse.
These are all things Kerry opposed. Tell me what the difference was between Kerry and Bush. He supported the gay marriage ban in Missouri and Clinton told him to take a stronger stand against it. The Democrats also fail to block right-wing judges, though they could've.
Please list the actual differences between them.
Thanks for teaching us a valuable lesson about standing behind your arguments, Anonymous. Is that your real name?
In Atlanta, I worked with the DFA - Georgia group. We worked a coalition with Riverkeepers, the local Green Party, some kind of angry gay group who ironically didn't want to be defined. I found them all more angry with themselves and blaming the system. My experience, my opinions.
I spoke before 800 at a Veterans for Kerry rally and have co-hosted Sen. Kennedy 3 times in the Peach State - in addition to attending countless local fundraisers for progressive causes and candidates.
I was a pro bono lobbyist in Washington for the Ryan White act in 1993, National Children's Defense Fund also in 1993, and the failed gays in the military effort.
I spent 30 minutes with Sam Nunn, his chief of staff, and our principle lobbyist - where I said "fear is not a valid defense for discrimination". (This was a fairly famous confrontation.)
I now manage a division of 200 developers and project managers, have 3 wonderful children, and a proud stay at home wife. I don't have time to throw away time shaking my fist at the sun. My actions need to make an impact. I am a proud democrat.
I would advise you point your venom to an actual issue or opposition group than a blog of democrats.
We welcome you to our blog if you can argue issue based topics using facts to support the idea. But we are adults; and if out argued, we acknowledge it and move on.
BTW - We don't edit comments from posts because they hurt our feelings. Foul language is a sign of ignorance and lack of faith in the facts of your statement.
Nice reply, Studio. I was much too lazy to give my own report to the Authenticity Police.
It won't make any difference, though. I was asked over there to state what voting Democratic this past election would do for me. I gave a detailed answer, and they moved the goalposts, asking what voting Democratic in the past had done for me. I gave another detailed answer, and they moved the goalposts again. Now that you've answered the what have you done question, I'm sure the goalposts will move again. Arguing with a green is like watching a Rumsfeld press conference.
Meanwhile, I've still gotten no answer as to what specific changes come from voting Green -- past or present. No answer at all, except an assurance that there's a growing progressive movement out there. Awesome. I'm sure the working poor and the people dying in Iraq appreciate all that.
Thanks for visiting, trust fund hippies. We all bask in the warm glow of your moral superiority.
My real names Otoo, and I was invited by Yossarian and he's the one that comes to our blogs with nothing but venom. He never talks about the issues. I am talking about the issues.
I wasn't looking for your resume. My question was "What are you doing to reform your party?"
What did you tell the vets? Kerry will fight the war better? Did you explain why he voted for the war and then said "knowing then what I know now, I still would've voted for it"? If so, please explain it to me.
Otto, Andrew answered your posts with a thoughtful rebuttal, and yes we did ask you further questions because we thought you guys wanted to debate since you were on our blogs.
I never said Democrats on the ground are bad and corrupt. It's your polititcians in office that vote against what most Dems stand for and what the party is supposed to represent.
Are you denying that they are guilty of being to beholden to corporations?
Throughout our history real change has always come from third parties. From ending slavery, child labor, to creating the 40 hour work week to the modern movements for environmental, consumer and worker rights. Change comes from citizens at the bottom and then the people at the top have to react.
Though you deny Nader's tremendous contributions to our society, they are very real and significant.
A Green vote means you'll only support candidates that will vote for peace, environmental justice, cleaning up elections, a living wage and universal health care for all Americans.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. What demands have you made? Power is only reactive when it's insecure. How does throwing your vote to any Democrat futher your causes or issue?
Otto, Andrew answered your posts with a thoughtful rebuttal, and yes we did ask you further questions because we thought you guys wanted to debate since you were on our blogs.
Andrew never answered my questions about what concrete accomplishments had been obtained from voting Green. I answered every one of his questions and he avoided giving an answer and instead changed the subject.
Throughout our history real change has always come from third parties. From ending slavery, child labor, to creating the 40 hour work week to the modern movements for environmental, consumer and worker rights.
Do you hail from an alternate universe? Child labor was outlawed by Democrats (Fair Labor and Standards Act, 1938). The 40 hour work week came from a Democrat (Hugo Black, 1936). Environmental legislation, Democrats (Clear Air Act 1970, etc.). Worker's rights, Democrats (National Industrial Recovery Act 1933 and National Labor Relations Act 1935).
Sure, outside agitation helped further all those causes, and no one here is suggesting otherwise. What we're saying is that in the actual functioning of government, there's a real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in what they put on the agenda and what they accomplish.
Take Social Security. Yes, independent voices like Francis Townsend were speaking out for old age pensions alongside Democrats like Huey Long. But Townsend could never get anything done. It was only when FDR embraced the idea and put it into action that we got SSA. If the president had been a conservative Republican, we would've had nothing. I really don't understand how this simple fact is so problematic for Greens.
Again, we're not contesting the idea that Green values or ideals are wrongheaded. They're not. We all love the idea of a living wage and less corporate influence.
We're arguing instead that voting for a Green in the current political system is a complete waste of time. I have asked this many times and I have asked this in many ways, and I have yet to see a single argument made about the concrete gains to be made by voting Green.
Please answer this: Who have you elected at the national level who's made a difference? What actual policies have been enacted by Greens in Congress? I don't see anyone there, and so rather than waste my vote on a 100% solution that has zero chance of happening, I'll take a 75% solution that can actually happen.
I can't wait for utopia, and most of my fellow citizens can't either. I really envy whatever world you come from where you can sit this out on the sidelines and wait for perfection. I can't.
But again, please tell me the concrete accomplishments you've made by voting Green. You all demanded, rather angrily, that I list what Democrats have accomplished in office and I complied in great detail. It's your turn.
Well, I'm glad we can agree on somethings. Outside agitation is what really brings issues to the forefront.
"What we're saying is that in the actual functioning of government, there's a real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in what they put on the agenda and what they accomplish."
I do have to disagree with this. Leading Democrats support the war. They just passed another $75 billion for it. They also support the Patriot Act. They won't impeach Bush though he's more impeachable than any President in our history. Leiberman was your candidate for Vice President.
They still aren't pushing for a real living wage. They aren't pushing for universal health care, though we clearly need it and deserve it.
Who documented the problems in 2004 and has kept these problems alive? The Green Party. Kerry knew there were problems and still conceded after Edwards said they'd count every vote.
Greens are getting elected in NY and California. We're a party that's still young and growing. In a democracy we would be allowed to multiple parties like every other western nation.
We're just getting started in Ohio. If you really cared about our issues, you wouldn't be such haters and try to work with us instead of trying to just marginalize us.
We haven't had a candidate elected to Congress because the system is rigged so you have to sell out to corporate interests to get covered by the media and be allowed in the debates.
The Democrats aren't doing anything to reform this and they won't unless thid parties get the issue to a tipping point by running candidates and pushing the issues. The Democrats aren't 75% right on the issues. They're virtually the same because of the special interest their beholden to.
We're not asking you to wait for Utopia. Just don't disrespect us for taking a principled stand. We draw a line and as soon as Democrats do that for their party then maybe the politicians will represent the people for a change.
I come from a family of Democrats and I wish the party didn't abondon what it's supposed to represent. We're right on the issues and you'll say we're on the fringe. I would've voted for Dennis Kucinich, but he's not taken seriously by the party leaders.
I would've voted for any anti-war candidate. Nader was my only choice.
Once again, my central question has been artfully dodged: What has voting Green accomplished?
The Democrats may not be pushing the "real living wage" that the Greens are championing, but the odds are very good that they're going to get through a raise in the minimum wage and very soon into the new term in Congress.
Which party is going to do more to help workers? The Democrats who'll raise the minimum wage? Or the Greens who'll talk about how much they'd love to get a "real living wage" enacted, and talk and talk some more?
You can have your principled stand. Enjoy it. The rest of us can't wait.
One more time: What has voting Green accomplished?
Voting Green has gotten honest, grassroots candidates elected in many other states. It has given people election reform and challenged the special interests strangle hold on the politicians.
It changes the debate, dialog and puts pressure on your party to pull from the far right back towards the center. It gives people a choice instead of just the corporations.
"Which party is going to do more to help workers? "
Clinton and Kerry's NAFTA did more to hurt workers than anything I can think of. When enough Greens get elected we'll get some change. We will get one elected here soon.
The minimum wage hasn't been raised for ten years, though Congress increased their own wage by thirty thousand dollars in that time. The wage increase passed here and across many states and I'm supposed to be impressed that the Democrats are endorsing a slight increase? What courage.
Voting Green is a principled stance, and it's a choice I gladly made in 2000 & 2004.
And I don't apologize for doing so. Why? Because I'm insuffiently cynical & evil to understand the depths that some of my fellow countrymen will stoop to. If I knew what I know now in '00 & '04, I wouldn't have voted Green (nor would I have voted Green if I lived elsewhere than NY, where no elections have been contested recently).
That said, as OM and others know, I supported the Democratic ticket this year, though I am no more a "member" of the Democratic Party than I was two years ago, nor do I where I'll be in 2 more.
Why did I do this? Because, as Otto demonstrates, voting Green (or Libertarian or Working Families) accomplishes nothing. And with Bush in the White House, something needed to be done, in my opinion. If only to stop the momentum.
Anonymous: you vote on principle, and I respect that. But when it comes to action -- which Otto, and I, and Studio Dave, and Yossarian felt was needed in '06 -- a vote for anyone but the Dems in closely contested elections was a vote for Bush, his cronies, and his policies.
More vague answers. Not surprising.
Once again, I'm asking what has been gained in the past by your voting Green at the federal level. Name me the politicians elected, the policies enacted, or please have the guts to admit that nothing has been achieved. Nothing.
A vague sense that a progressive movement is growing, or that change is going to come doesn't count. I was mocked roundly at that other site for explaining what I thought the Democrats would do in Congress in the future, so leave the pipe dreams aside.
What has voting Green accomplished?
The minimum wage hasn't been raised for ten years, though Congress increased their own wage by thirty thousand dollars in that time. The wage increase passed here and across many states and I'm supposed to be impressed that the Democrats are endorsing a slight increase? What courage.
First, those ten years were ones in which the Republicans controlled the House. The Democrats now have control and will make the change. Thank you very much for proving my point that there is a real difference between the parties.
And second, the "slight increase" that you sneer at is going to be an one from $5.15 to $7.25, which is an increase of nearly 50%, a staggering increase by historical standards. So thank you again, for proving my point that Greens don't care at all about the actual lives of working Americans.
Go talk to someone trying to scrape by on $5.15 an hour and tell them that a 50% increase in their income is meaningless to you, that they should wait until the country suddenly rallies behind the Greens and takes power and installs a Real Living Wage. I'm sure they will be happy to wait.
Well, I must say that I enjoy a real discussion with you guys much better than the useless drivel we constantly get from Yossarain on our blogs.
Mike, as you probably know, Gore won in 2000 and the Democrats let them steal the election. It's unbelievable that Gore didn't landslide a bumbling Governor from Texas with a horrible record.
Jessie Jackson said the Dems failed to register 10 million African Americans in 2000. Nader got most of his votes from people who wouldn't have voted otherwise or Republicans according to democratic pollsters.
Most people held their noses and voted the lesser evil in the swing states.
Also in 2004, Ken Blackwell stole the election and Kerry conceded after Edwards promised every vote would be counted. The Dems rolled over despite being aware of major problems and the problems of 2000.
It was the Green party that demanded a recount and documented the massive and unprecedented amount of disenfranchisemnet of African Americans in Ohio. This lead to the Conyers report and RFK jrs. Rolling Stone article.
"those ten years were ones in which the Republicans controlled the House."
Yes, but the Democrats voted with the Republicans on the war, Patriot Act, CAFTA, support for Isreals war crimes and everything else corporate America wanted.
"The Democrats now have control and will make the change."
They said they won't impeach, are proposing a draft and voted to give another $75 billion for the bipartisan quagmire.
If we adjusted the 1968 minimum wage for inflation it would be more than $8.20 cents. Why not make it that now while they have the majority. They say they care about working families, but won't give them a living wage. They raised their own wages lots of times.
Now that the wage increases are passing across the country they should be more aggressive. It's not the Greens that have been making them wait. We've stood firm on the issue, too bad Democrats haven't.
Mike, what about races that aren't closely contested. Is it better to throw your vote to a Lieberman with Republican policies or to vote for the only thing that pulls the Democrats to the left? A principled Green vote?
Otto, we don't have anybody on the federal level yet, but Nader laid out a great platform and literally served great issues up on a silver platter for Kerry and the Dems to take. Something was gained when he stood for peace, a living wage, clean elections, major tax relief for working people, universal health care and real political reform. He planted the seeds of progress.
It took women 100 years to get the vote. They always heard "nows not the time". The same thing is always argued, but now is the time.
We didn't mock you, we simply pointed out the record of Democrats like Kerry and Clinton. We also pointed out that other parties influenced the New Deal etc. Hell, a socialist just got elected to the Senate.
The Dems aren't entitled to our votes, they have to earn them by supporting the right issues and not the special interests.
Another nice scattershot answer. Is this a Green debate technique? When in doubt, move the goalposts?
Again, yes, it would be lovely for the Democrats to push for an $8.10 minimum wage. But once again, you're demonstrating the Green tendency of living in Fantasyland. Look at the historical record. Past increases to the minimum wage have been $0.35 (1949), $0.25 (1955), $0.15 (1960), $0.10 (1963), $0.15 (1969). Even during the rampant inflation of the 1970s, it only went up by a dime or fifteen cents when it was increased, and even then only a few years in the decade. The last increase, in 1996, raised it by just fifty cents after a five year lag.
So now the Democrats are coming along and proposing raising it by $2.15 -- more than four times the last increase, more than twice the increase rate per year of the last increase, and nearly twenty times the average historic increase -- and that's not good enough for you? Seriously? They're not adding another 85 cents, so working families should shun the offer and wait for utopia? Are you kidding me???
But, yes, you Greens have stood firm on the issue. Sure, that has done absolutely nothing for the lives of working Americans, but bravo to you all for standing firm on the ideal. (What's your position on free unicorns for all children? Are you for that too?)
I know the Greens like to blame everyone else for their inability to win votes -- from the evil presence of corporate money, to the fact that we don't live in a proportional parliamentary democracy -- but there's a simple fact you're ignoring. People want to get things done, and the Green batting average so far is 0.000.
You can sit there and delude yourself into thinking that the Democrats are pining away for Green votes, but the reality is that they've given up. They've realized that there are more independent and moderate voters out there, and that they (unlike the Greens) don't consider themselves too good to vote Democratic and can actually be won over. And that's why the Democrats tack to the center and not to the left.
All the while, the Greens sit there, deluding themselves that they're changing the terms of the debate and acting as a vital force in politics. It's like Blanche DuBois formed a political party.
Whatever. Enjoy your ideological purity and your complete lack of influence.
Anon-
3 things, and I'm letting it rest. I think the questions you pose are legitimate, and I'll play them out in my head over the next two years. But I'm not up for up right now, 2 weeks after the election.
1. You don't sound like a Let's break down the two-party oligopoly guy, which is what I am. You sound like a dyed-in-the-wool Green Party guy.
If that works for you, rock on, bro. But I'm not interested in seeing the world through the filter of a party lens. 3rd party included.
2. Is it better to throw your vote to a Lieberman with Republican policies or to vote for the only thing that pulls the Democrats to the left? A principled Green vote?
That's a strawman, and a silly one at that. My choices -- in NY! -- are the Green candidate and . . . Joe Lieberman???
How about the Green, the Libertarian, the Dem, the GOPer? That's 4 choices, all of which I take seriously (I've voted for all 4 parties at one time or another). It's YOU who's creating false DIchotomies.
3. support for Isreals war crimes
Gimme a fucking break. It's this kind of crap that makes me lookin my own leftist mirror from time-to-time. And the view sickens me.
And I Won't Play It. Take it somewhere else.
Nader laid out a great platform and literally served great issues up on a silver platter for Kerry and the Dems to take.
Literally? You mean that, without exaggeration, Nader shrunk down the issues to a manageable size, physically placed them on a platter made out of silver, and presented them to John Kerry as a gift? Wow. That must've been quite a sight.
"You don't sound like a Let's break down the two-party oligopoly guy, which is what I am."
1. Yes I am too. I've voted for other third parties, but the Green values do seem to represent me best.
2. I wasn't trying to be specific to NY. Is Lieberman from NY? I think it's a legitimate question, but feel free to vote for who ever you want.
3. Using cluster bombs on a civilian population is a war crime. Of course those were mostly US made boms and their military is US funded. The use of these weapons should sicken you, not the fact that I pointed out that it's against international law.
Otto, the goal post aren't moving my friend. The issues are still the same.
Seriously,I thought we're talking about a living wage? $8.20 would be closer to a living wage if you want to really help workers. The wage was raised every 4-6 years. It didn't increase at all in 10 years. Just because it wasn't adjusted for inflation for the past couple of decades doesn't mean that it shouldn't be and that workers don't need it.
The Greens have helped put the issue on the national agenda and it's the people at the grassroots that got it passed in many states, so lets not pretend that the corporate Democrats have some kind of major moral courage here.
It is you that lives in fantasyland where the Democrats are the good guys who voted agianst the war, the Patriot Act and for unions, a LIVING WAGE, for full health care coverage for all Americans, and major tax relief and political reform.
We're not asking for anybody to wait for utopia. We just want to get rid of the corporate money that interferes with honest elections. We just want a fair debate and for people not to make up things about Ralph Nader and the Green Party. That's all!
Thanks, it's been fun!!!
Post a Comment