Monday, February 20, 2006
A Tale Of Two Tigers
If there were two raging tigers running towards you and one was just a few feet away and the other was a mile away which of the two would concern you most. Well, most people would logically chose the tiger who is just a few feet away. It seems to me that the Democratic party is more concerned with the tiger who is a mile away, (which is the Republican party) rather than the DLC( Democratic Leadership Council), which is actually breathing down the necks of the Democratic Party.The typical DLCer is more concerned about Michael Moore than he( or she) is about George W. Bush. The typical DLCer (i. e. Joe Lieberman) is completely out of touch with the grass roots Democratic who: 1) Opposes the war in Iraq 2) is stunned by how Democrats in Congress let George W. Bush have his way with Supreme Court nominations knowing that over 80% of Bill Clinton's nominees were rejected by Republicans. 3) Democrats (mainly DLC Democrats) gave this selected president tax-cut after tax-cut to such a degree that the administration's Robin Hood in reverse philosophy has severely limited funds for health-care, the environment and education. 4) Progressive Grass Roots Democrats are also enraged over the rampant cronyism that has become a trademark of the Bush administration. Halliburton charges the US government 27 billion dollars to transport 8,200 gallons of gasoline. This money is taken primarily from the middle class. Right after the latest election fiasco I said if Democrats are serious about winning the White House they must address the disenfranchisement of the African-American voter in Ohio and Florida. Even though it has been proven beyond a doubt that Republican operatives sabotaged the voting process in those states and others you will be hard pressed to find a Democrat who will come out and say so. Even though many states are refusing to use Diebold machines in 2008, we have states like Florida that have made the hand counting of votes illegal. The deafening silence on this issue by Democrats is setting the stage for the same thing to happen all over again. It seems as if there are more Democrats representing corporate interests than representing the interests of their consitituents. There are many exciting races all over the country that Democrats have a strong chance of winning: Rick Santorum still trails his Democratic opponents in Pennsylvania, Tom Delay is far behind in Texas. Both Leiberman(Mr. DLC) and Chaffee face stiff competition in Connecticuit while the young fighting Dems (some of whom have lost limbs or sustained other injuries in Iraq) give the Republicans the awesome task of running against someone who really knows what the Iraq war is like because he or she has been there. But all of this will mean nothing to the Democrats if they continue to not give top priority to fair elections in '08. At this time we can only guess about who the Republican nominee will be. It might be John McCain, who might present himself as being kinder and gentler than George W. Bush, but Mr. McCain has shown himself to be a team player and most of the time he endorsed most of the Bush agenda. It could also be Sam Brownback, a notoriously dangerous religious zealot who with the support of the Bush Supreme court could make the United States a theocracy and set civil rights policy back to the dark ages. The hypocritical Frist(opposes abortions yet they are performed in his hospitals) offers the same Bush policies. With the exception of McCain many if not most of the Republican candidates find themselves in skirmishes with the law. But these candidates all represent the tiger that is a mile away. The tiger who is close to us is Hillary Clinton (who enjoys very favorable poll ratings among likely Democratic voters) , to this day still hasn't opposed the Iraq war, even after receiving thousands of letters and e-mails from the people of New York who put her in office. Al Gore has recently made eloquent speeches condemning Bush policies, but to me they ring hallow when I think about the fact that he was the one who cast the deciding vote that made Bush president in the first place. John Kerry to a lesser degree also disappointed progressive grassroots Democrats when he conceded far too early. Even now he still refuses to come out and say the election was stolen. The most that he will say is that there may have been some irregularities. Perhaps the only Democrat thus far who has vigorously and consistently opposed Bush policies is Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, who wasn't fooled from the beginning when he voted against giving Bush extraordinary powers that would allow him to sidestep Congress and bring the country into a war based on the LIE of "Weapons of mass destruction. Even MoveOn.org, an organization that played a vital role in raising the consciousness of the Democratic voter distributed a survey to its members asking them if they preferred to remain silent about the actions of Democratic members of the house or would they prefer to criticize Democratics as vehemently as Republicans. As a MoveOn.org member I was shocked that this question would even be asked when it is painfully obvious that the later choice is the better of the two. Renegade Democrats or Blue Dog Democrats, Republicrats or whatever they are calling themselves today must be taught a lesson, that there are consequences to be paid if you fraternize with the opponents of basic Democratic principles. Wake Up Democrats, if you intend to clean house(and senate) in '08 you have to start by cleaning house(and senate) within the Democratic party. You must kill both tigers but the one that is closer to you is the one that should receive the first shot.