Why I don't trust the Dems by SignyM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Why I don't trust the Dems

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, November 20, 2006 18:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1170
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, November 20, 2006 5:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It was a defining moment of revealed corruption: the California gubernatorial race to replace Gray Davis. The field was wide-open: they had dozens of candidates and three debates including Huffington, Cruz Bustamante, Peter Camejo, Tom McClintock, Peter Ueberroth, and (eventually) Schwarzenegger. I actually listened to the debates.

There was Cruz Bustamante, the BEST the Dems were willing to run, railing against energy deregulation and Enron's (and other energy companies') stranglehold on California energy prices... when a question came up: If it was such a bad idea, why did you vote for it? There was a lot of foot shuffling- yea, I made a mistake etc. Just minutes later, Bustamante again railing about the California workers comp system and how it drove away business and didn't protect the worker. Once again, same question "Why did you vote for it?" More foot shuffling. There was a third issue, which I forget, but the same problem.

That's when I realized that even politicans that are not overtly corrupt are still just politicians. There is a startling lack of statesmanship among them: they go along to get along, horsetrading on even seriously consequential issues. I think the landslide vote to overturn the GOP was a vote against that kind of insular process, but I think the people will be disappointed.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 5:24 AM

ROCKETJOCK

So why does your post title single out the Dems for this? I'm not a particular fan of them, but they're no better or worse than the GOP.

Frankly, I don't see a great deal of difference between the Republicrats and the Demogogs, and as the six-week razor-edge finish of the 2000 presidential race clearly demonstrated, neither does a great deal of the voting public.

Oh, and for the record, in that recall election you refer to, I voted for Larry Flynt. Sure, he didn't have a real chance to get elected, but just once in my life I wanted to vote for a candidate I was sure would never lie to me.

A low-life, sure--but an honest low-life!

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 6:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I trust the national and state GOP even less than I trust the Dems. I just don't automatically see the Dems as salvation. Right now, the only people that I think showed any foresight are the Congresspeople who voted two out of three AGAINST

Iraq invasion
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR),

so-called Patriot Act
Feingold (D-WI)

Military Cmmissions Act
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

Of all those, Feingold has shown the most leadership. But he's not running for Pres prolly because he has a deep dark secret (being gay, perhaps), or the Dem party leadership won't support him, or maybe he just doesn't want to get killed in small-plane "accident" like Wellstone.

That leaves: Akaka, Bingamen, Boxer, Byrd, Chafee, Conrad, Dayton, Durbin, Inouye, Jeffords, Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski (I like her. She reminds me of my grandma), Murray, Reed, Sarbanes, and Wyden. All Dems, except for Jeffords (I) which means that the Dems are better than the GOP but only 18 Dems out of about 47 showed some spine, and only ONE was a statesman.

If anything important is going to get done, it's because the constituency keeps pushing and pushing and pushing the Dems to do the right thing.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 6:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

oops

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 6:29 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I have to say I'm GRATEFUL the Dems got voted in - because the alternative is unthinkable. The republicans behind Bush pushed an odious agenda - including the war in Iraq, the unitary executive, the corruption of science and on and on - as if they had a mandate. And that was with them knowing the elections were fraudulent. And now that congress is lame duck, you'll see the party trying to get their last items in before January - Bush has resubmitted his most radical judicial nominees, and so on.

But there is a HUGE mess to clean up. And democrats, being mostly politicians, may not be up to the task. The problem is, unless they get their act together, they'll be tagged with the problem instead of Bush.

I appreciate the list. I'm going to save it for later.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 6:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

This is part of the topic - what do you want them dems to do? - which I didn't reply to at length because, well, I'm slow.

In the 'draft' thread I said

democrats - police their own ranks
strengthen Congressional ethics rules
hold hearings and investigations on republicans
pass laws against a 'unitary executive'
restructure government to insure apolitical intelligence, science, and medicine
put military contractors under the same legal code as uniformed soldiers
investigate the 2000, 2004 and 2006 elections - from registration to counting
create a uniform transparent and secure voting process - from registration to counting

But I also agree with your list, especially repealing the 'personhood' of corporations, which is probably of paramount importance.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 7:06 AM

ANTIMASON

what scares me about the democrats in control of congress is now we have no chance of ensuring border security, since the Dems have been begging for amnesty for years now(probably the reason Bush and the other globalists held off on reform).. and now will, barring some miracle.. get their guest worker program. this is exactly why both parties are useless..notice no one is talking about the NAFTA north american union that is being forged behind the scenes? we're just supposed to accept the assimilation of the third world into America.. all as a result of our two parties negotiating with eachother, on behalf of the international satanists. and then.. after the '08 biometric ID act, we'll officially have lost our sovereignty as Americans and be forever lost down the road to the predistined goal of a global government indentured slave class. its been a slow and gradual decline from freedom to fascism.. but thank our two parties for willingly submitting to the powers that be. we get no impeachment hearings for Bush, no reinvestigations into the Neocon(NWO) war crimes in Iraq... no admissions of the unconstitutionality(?) of the recent anti-terror bills.. i mean, for all intents and purposes the NWO nazis got a 'get out of jail free card', as the opponant party has subtlely endorsed the same worldview, having just altered the strategy so as to give the illusion of democracy at work. the who said it best when they sang "meet the new boss.. same as the old boss", since theres no real progress here. some of us are smart enough to know that the democrats have always been at the other end of the NWO seesaw..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 7:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes Anti, there's that too. So adding to my list of important votes, here's the Senate NAFTA roll call record AGAINST NAFTA:

Akaka (D-HI) Boxer (D-CA) Bryan (D-NV) Burns (R-MT) Byrd (D-WV) Campbell (D-CO) Cohen (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND) Craig (R-ID) D'Amato (R-NY)
Exon (D-NE) Faircloth (R-NC) Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA) Ford (D-KY) Glenn (D-OH)
Heflin (D-AL) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Kempthorne (R-ID) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Metzenbaum (D-OH) Mikulski (D-MD) Moynihan (D-NY) Reid (D-NV) Riegle (D-MI)
Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Sasser (D-TN)
Shelby (D-AL) Smith (R-NH) Stevens (R-AK) Thurmond (R-SC) Wellstone (D-MN) Wofford (D-PA)

Again, almost all Democrats (10 Republicans voted against as well- GOOD FOR THEM!) but that boils the "good guys" list down to: Akaka, Boxer, Byrd, Conrad, Inouye, Levin, Mikulski, and Sarbanes.

FEINGOLD- 100%

If the Dems had MOSTLY voted like Feingold (and Wellstone, when he was alive) they- and we- wuoldn't be in the pickle that we are.

I understand why the Republicans vote the way they do, but there is obviously something systemically wrong with our whole system that allows for such corruption.

Just out of curiosity, I thought that maybe the answer was in campaign contributions. So I looked up Democratic PAC contributions:

Feingold- 8%
Hillary Clinton- 7%
Boxer-10%
Feinstein-15%
Hoyer- 72%

Looking at Repubclicans,
Trent Lott 49% of his $ from PACS
Frist 20%
DeLay-20%
Hastert-46%

There seems to be a fairly solid inverse relationship between PAC contributions and good governance, altho not a 100% one. This is prolly the best place to start cleaning up government.

You can check out the candidates here:

www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=IL14&Cycle=2006

-------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 12:06 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I don't see politicians disabling the gravy train that is what PAC's are... alas.

That being said, with enough force behind it, one can fight fire with fire, not all PAC's represent vile interests.

http://www.protect.org

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 2:53 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
I think the landslide vote to overturn the GOP was a vote against that kind of insular process, but I think the people will be disappointed.

Umm...which 'landslide' vote would that be ? Yes, the Dems won more seats and barely gained control of both houses, but it's far from being a landslide.

But you're right about the horse trading in both parties. It's very discouraging to see.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 6:09 PM

DREAMTROVE

Signym,

I think you're right on both counts. People meant to vote to reject the agenda, and they'll be disappointed.

My area is predominantly republican, so we get some power-seekers who are republicans because they're gollum, and a lot of people who are just republicans. The gollum-publicans would be democrats if they lived in the city, because that would be what would get them ahead. The democratic party today is just as full of gollumocrats as the GOP is full of gollumpublicans.

What makes matters worse is a bunch of core baddies ditching Bush early to get in on the new DEMpire, eg Richard Perle to guide them, and the dem operatives of the team, hillary et al, to lead them. the gollums will glom on to the rising tide of the new ringbearer, and follow him to mt. doom. which is not to say hillary is frodo, or perle sauron, but you get the point. somewhere along the line are a few good dems, pat leahy, for ex., but they don't make the party good as a whole. I wouldn't say the GOP is 'good as a whole' either, I think it's pretty rotten these days, but hopefully we'll clean it up.

At the moment, I dispair of cleaning up the democrats. The roots of the thing just go too deep. I see an awful lot of democratic followers following a dancing shiny light which talks about the positions they support, but not actually getting people like them. Too often I think also, the issues they are told to care about by their party take over their decision making, and you get things like people who are solidly pro-peace and will never have an abortion end up voting for a solidly pro-war candidate because he's pro-choice (like a lot of votes kerry probably got in '04) - which is all a very twisted manipulation by the party. Which is not to say the same thing doesn't happen on this side of the aisle, I'm sure it does.

But no one should ever "trust" a politician much less a political party. eternal vigilance. And careful which ones you support. I try to support people with a long unshaken history of independence and doing the right thing, even if they are sometimes wrong. I am most suspicious of people with powerful friends who ascend through the ranks. I think this was a pretty clear dichotomy in 2000 in Bush vs. McCain, but I'm less clear about McCain now. Generally I would more trust Warner, Lugar, Specter, other old time republicans, and McCain if he were with them, but not if he's with his new friends.

There was one republican on those lists, but sadly Chafee lost. Jeffords is more of a republican than many republicans lately, but he is retiring. I think the only good part of the democratic victory is as Cato says "gridlock is good."

But now you guys get the thankless task of trying to temper your parties massive genocidal wars for haliburton, oil and muslim extermination. don't believe me/check the history, and prepare for the coming "let's nuke Iran" plan. Sure, Bush would have liked to, but I think his party wouldn't let him, and now it's the dems turn. I'm expecting it won't happen until after '08, when the person to whom this new dem majority owes favors is in power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE