nvolenec

Response to "How to save the Democratic Party: The Lytle Seven-Step Guide" in the Gateway 02-08-05

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:26:24 GMT

First off I'd like to say I appreciate your concern about the Democratic Party, a single party being in power without opposition is unhealthy for democracy,no matter which party it is. As far as your 7 step guide I don't really agree with your suggestions, or even to the idea that the Democratic Party needs saving. I do agree that this administration did a better job during the presidential campaign than Kerry's group, but I don't think this can be generalized to claiming that the Republican Party is so dominant over the Democratic Party or that the Democratic Party needs to be saved.

Step 1 advised that the Democratic Party should "Admit to yourself 'Bush won, we lost. There's not much we can do about it now'"
Well actually Matt theres nothing the Democratic Party can do about that, its done and in the books. But it Matt seems to think that people protesting Bush is simply the Democratic Party throwing, "hissy fits over the fact that they lost." Thats a very narrow view, I see the protests as a group of people regardless of politically affiliation congregating and showing their disapproval with Bush's policies. As far as I know none of the protesters was holding a sign claiming that Bush was not the legitimate president, but my information on this is incomplete as I couldn't make it to the protest myself.

Step 2 isn't really a step at all, its not a suggestion just a vague criticism that implies that Liberalism is the problem with the Democratic Party.
My question is this, whats wrong with Liberalism? How is it any better or worse than Conservatism? And finally what are good definitions for Liberalism and Conservatism? I would imagine that if you asked 10 people off the street you'd get a wide range of definitions for both. Some people associate Conservatism with "values", interestingly enough 22% of people in this last election said that "Moral Values" mattered most to them in who they voted for(source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-11-04-religion_x.htm) that was in fact the most common reason given. But what are moral values, I would imagine that if you asked most people they would say abortion and gay marriage among other things. Somehow in America today the Republicans have high jacked the moral issues and made it as if abortion and gay marriage are the only two moral values there are. The Democratic Party stands for moral values just a different set of them, for example seeing to it that everyone has access to health care and helping the poor get back on their feet. I think these are both laudable values to have.
As I'm already in the middle of a massive tangent from the main point of this post I'll continue with one more thing even more off topic. I understand the objections to abortion, it comes down to the debate over when life begins. I completely understand someone feeling passionately about something that they consider murder. But I don't quite understand why people are so up and arms over gay marriage. There is the idea that it takes away from the sanctity of marriage but in the grand scheme of things why is this issue more volatile than say the death penalty. I can understand homosexuals being passionate about the right to marry. From my point of view its the idea of the sanctity of marriage vs. the legal rights of a minority population. In that comparison the rights of a minority win out over a vague idea that somehow 2 people of the same sex marrying destroys marriage.
Ok I lied I'm actually going to take a second massive tangent from the subject of this post, but hey its my journal so I'll do as I damn well please. I think that the religious right has the perception that the Democrats are a bunch of Godless heathens (like me, yes I am an atheist) but thats not true at all, in fact one of the ideas for "revitalizing" the Democratic party is to make it more clear that Democrats don't like abortion but they feel that concessions need to me made in certain circumstances.

Step 3: "Don't get mad, come up with better ideas"
Apparently Matt has a case of selective hearing, this is something I notice with extremists of both parties they tend not to even listen to the opposing candidate. He apparently thinks that Bush won because he had better ideas, I think both candidates had good ideas but they appealed to different people. Believe it or not Matt, Kerry did suggest plans for Social Security, terrorism, homeland security, and tax reform. (I'm sure I'm missing some but its 3am give me a break) I especially liked this quote from the article, "John Kerry on the other hand, never elaborated his plans except for 'bringing our allies to the table.'" Just because Bush never used diplomacy doesn't mean it's dead. I know thats a word we havn't heard for the past 4 years so lets say it together Di-plo-ma-cy (in case you're still having trouble try this link: http://www.bartleby.com/61/wavs/2/D0240200.wav) For those of you who read this and disagree that Bush hasn't used diplomacy lets look at his record, Afghanistan(as in getting them to hand over Osama Bin Laden)--invaded, Iraq--we went before the UN with flimsy evidence, got rejected then invaded, North Korea--done by the Chinese for us, Israel-Palestine conflict--ignored until recently, and finally Iran-done by the UN for us.

Step 4: "Bill's time is over. It's time to let go."
Whats wrong with Bill? (I was tempted to leave this as my only response to step 4 but i just cant resist)

I think the Democrats strategy with bringing Clinton around is simple, it makes people identify the Democrats with the relative bliss we experienced under President Clinton's tenure. By relative bliss I mean, no major wars, a strong economy, a national surplus instead of a debt, ya there was that one sex scandal thing but lets not dwell on that, at least not for the span of this post, once I'm done feel free to dwell as much as you like. Just for reference at the time I thought Clinton should have been impeached for perjuring himself, not the sex, who cares about the sex thats something between him and his wife. But in retrospect there are a lot worse things than perjury.

Step 5: "Conservatism wins, every time it's tried."
I'm just curious what your basing this on? I'd like to go back to my question from before, what makes Liberalism better or worse than Conservatism. Thats all i have to say about the main theme if this step, but now I'd like to address some of the statements made in the text of this step.
First: "Conservatives understand there is evil out there in the world, and we don't trust the United Nations to deal with it."
I really want to address this whole idea of terrorists as evil. I didn't really grasp the significance of it until I was watching a documentary about the presidency and religion. What does it mean for something to be evil, it doesn't mean its really bad which is what i assumed when i heard Bush talking about terrorism after Sept. 11th, it means a product of the devil. So apparently we weren't attacked by Osama Bin Laden we were in fact attacked by the Devil, so why aren't we invading hell? Ok that was a bad joke but it does point out that when Bush says Osama Bin Laden is evil, that means that he is a servant of the Devil, and that has a real significance to me. I don't think Osama Bin Laden is evil, he's definitely not a good guy, but not evil. For example Bin Laden has a large family, I would assume that he is good to his children, I doubt if someone saw him interacting with his children they wouldn't say he's being evil to them, brainwashing maybe but not being evil.
Second: "The American people are way smarter than Liberals give us credit. (In some cases, they think we're all sheep.)"
I've always thought it was the other way around Republicans see the people as sheep. I've always seen the Democratic Party as the party of the people, the party that helps out the little guy. I guess I'm just wondering what you referring to with this, some examples please.

Step 6: "Pessimism sucks. Ditch the 'doom and gloom.'"
This is the political world Matt, whichever party is out of power snipes at the one that is. Thats the way it always has been. Can you honestly tell me that Republicans were optimists with Clinton's policies? One statement from this section that caught my attention was this, "The war on terror is working." Which war on terror are you watching Matt? The one thing that amazes me is that somehow Bush manages to take credit for there not being any terrorist attacks after Sept. 11th with out taking credit for Sept. 11th itself. I really don't know how he managed that but I think its kind of incredible, and not in a good way. It's not that Democrats are pessimists it's that they see the Administration and the world as we all do through the screen of their own views, thats the same reason Republicans see the world as a better place today than before Bush was in office. Maybe we all should do our best to be more objective, not judge any person or policy before all the facts are in. I always endeavor to do this but I'll be the first to admit that sometimes I fail.

Step 7: "Get away from Hollywood" (hang on tight kiddies it's almost over)
The first line of this step reads "Actually, I can be more specific than that, and in five words: Get away from Michael Moore. In this country we have a thing called free speech, the Democrats cant control what Michael Moore has to say any more than the Republicans can. Free speech is why I can write this and you all (I'm hoping more than one person made it this far through my tangled mess of ideas and criticism) can read it, its also the same reason Matt Lytle could write his article in the first place. As far as I know none of the Democratic candidates for president used Michael Moore or his film in any way, but the Republicans had no problem attacking him.

Ok I'm aaaaalmost done now, just a few more final comments. Thank you to anyone who read this whole thing, and I'd appreciate any comments you have. As far as Matt's assessment that his article would draw torrents of negative feedback, I'd just like to say that I am not a democrat, I'm registered as an Independent, although I did vote for Kerry in the 2004 presidential election. I have no affiliation with the UNO Campus Democrats in fact I have yet to attend a meeting but i do intend to. I hope no one will take my statements on this blog and attempt to generalize them as the views of any political party.

"Unless they change now, or at very least admit what I suggested in Step 1, then, let's just say the Democratic Party will be over."
Ok Matt, I admit that you suggested Step 1.

</rant>

My New Journal

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 07:46:59 GMT

This is my new journal, I'm hoping to keep it updated on some sort of a regular basis. The 2posts below this are copied from my other friends only journal.

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 07:42:49 GMT

My election day haikus:

NIGHT BEFORE
Dreams of blue nation
Nightmares of florida flaws
GO democracy

ELECTION DAY
Election day woes
Political dance silenced
Hope and pray Kerry

I voted today did you...and yes I know i live in Nebraska and my vote isn't worth much

My vote counts but it just doesnt matter :)

My political rant

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 07:41:18 GMT

I'm sure the people around me are getting tired of hearing me spout my political views, so I've decided to post it someplace no one will ever read it...here :)

Terrorism, 9/11, and Homeland Security
People credit George Bush with there being no terrorist attacks against the US since September 11th and thats true as long as you don't consider american citizens killed in terrorist attacks overseas which is a precarious stance at best. But if Bush is responsible for there being no attacks on the US since 9/11 does that mean that he is responsible for 9/11? Bush was in office since January 20th of that year before 9/11 but somehow he's not responsible for it at all, its not his fault its Clinton's fault. Bush is very critical of Clinton for not going after al-Qaeda after several attacks; the first world trade center attack in 1993, the attack on US embassies in east africa, and the death of american soldiers in the Somali peacekeeping operation. The one I'd like to focus on is the attack on the USS Cole, this attack occurred on October 12, 2000. Thats 3 short months before George Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001. Now Bush criticizes Clinton for not going after Al-Qaeda, but if Clinton decided not to go after them near the end of his term why didn't Bush go after Al-Qaeda when he was sworn into office? Bush seems to like putting responsibility on other rather than on himself and his cabinet members.

Bush's criticize of John Kerry and John Kerry's position
Bush has constantly characterized John Kerry as a "flip-flopper" besides this sounding like something that a 3 year old would say it has been none the less effective. The republicans have taken to this "flip-flopper" characterization with a zeal like no other. I understand that it is very important for a president to be perceived as strong not only by its citizenry but also by the world. I can also understand how people see John Kerry as a "flip-flopper" because sometimes he does not make himself clear enough. In my mind the worst instance of this is when Kerry said "I actually voted for it[the 87 billion dollars to be spent in the Iraq war]before i voted against it" and Kerry admits that he made a mistake in how he talked about it. The second worst instance is regarding the first one again when Kerry said that it would be irresponsible to vote against the 87 billion dollars, but in fact he did vote against it. Bush often refers to body armor for soldiers when he talks about this $87 billion allocation, but we must not forget that measures put forth to the senate are never that simple, did the measure John Kerry voted against simply say "$87 billion for body armor for our troops in Iraq." Of course not, I'll be honest that I, as most people havn't read the measure that Kerry voted against to see everything that the $87 billion was meant to be spent on. But we must always remember that the senate is about compromise, i would imagine that every measure put forth to the senate has some parts that not everyone agrees to, so the senators must also compromise, if the measure is mostly good with a few bad parts you vote for it, and vice versa. Kerry having spent 20 years in the Senate it would be amazingly easy to make Kerry look like a "flip-flopper" if you looked at all those votes. Of course I'm sure that George Bush's opinion on certain issues has changed in the last 20 years of his life, but its even easier when we can talk about senate votes on measures that are imperfect at best. To his credit George Bush has refrained from bringing up votes that Kerry made 15 or 20 years ago. I have acknowledged that the last two arguments are reasonable, if imperfect. But the third most cited thing Bush refers to that characterizes Kerry as a "flip-flopper" is that Kerry actually voted for the war. But did he? Its true that Kerry did vote for Iraq resolution, but was it a vote for war? George Bush himself in a speech in the Rose Garden did not characterize it as a vote "for war". here is a quote from that speech:
"None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable."
In fact the President of the US does not need the Senate's approval to goto war, he went to the Senate as a show of American solidarity.

Despite Bush's constant characterization of Kerry as a "flip-flopper" on the war Kerry's stance has remained very constant. His view is this and I only feel the need to state what is my interpretation of his stance because there seems to be great confusion over it. His stance is this:

+Saddam was a bad guy
+Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing
+Going to war in Afghanistan was right
+Going to Iraq should have only been considered as a last resort

Thats about it, now heres where the confusing part comes in. Kerry says that getting rid of Saddam was good so the effect of the war was right but how Bush went about it was wrong. Around about the time of the Iraq resolution Bush himself said that he would only goto war as a last resort. Kerry's view here is that Bush didn't goto war as a last resort.

Now I personally don't think that sounds very complicated. Where I think the complication comes in is when Kerry is asked if he's for the war. Well how would you answer that question if you had Kerry's view? A yes or no answer doesn't quite cut it, if you say "yes" then its assumed that you agree with the war in all respects including how Bush went about it. If you say no, its assumed that Saddam posed no threat. Its a simple question "Are you for the war in Iraq?" but the answer isn't simple because the situation isn't simple.

The Debates
The presidential and vice-presidential debates have become a farce. The debates used to be run by the League or Women Voters, this was until 1988 when the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship, this is an excerpt from the press release announcing the Leagues withdraw:
"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
The debates are not run by the Commission on Presidential Debates which was created by the Democratic and Republican parties. The debates today are closer to glorified press conferences than real debates.

Despite the fact that the debates are are basically joint press conferences they do show some distinct differences between the candidates. For example, John Kerry's arguments are usually based on facts and statistics while George Bush's arguments are often emotionally based. These debates are a joke when a candidate doesn't want to answer a question they simply side step it and talk about a topic that may or may not be related to the question. The part of the debates that I find truly sickening is "the spin", that would be the media spin that the respective parties put on the debate. This would be things like the Democrats making a big deal of George Bush's facial expressions during the first presidential debate. Or the Republicans taking Kerry's statement about a "global test" completely out of context.

The Reinstatement of the Military Draft
The Democrats have hinted that Bush may intend to reinstate a military draft. Thats a complete falsehood, besides the fact that its not the president's decision to reinstate the draft, there was a proposition before congress to reinstate the draft but it was put forth by a Democrat. I watch C-SPAN as the vote was taking place. Only two congressmen voted for it and the other 300 odd congressmen were against it, 50 or so didn't vote. I do believe that the talk about the draft was a scare tactic by the Democrats, but thats not to say that it wasn't a good issue to have before the congress and the way it was so overwhelmingly defeated was very reassuring to me.

John Kerry's Vietnam Record
There have been vast criticisms of John Kerry's Vietnam record including the accusation that one of his purple hearts was not deserved because it came from a self-inflicted wound. Now an important clarification, self-inflicted wound does NOT mean that he's accused of shooting himself or intentionally injuring himself. Even the most conservative activists havn't made that outrageous claim. A self-inflicted wound could be something like shrapnel from the weapon the soldier is firing coming back at him and hitting him. Are we seriously considering going back 30 years and second guessing a medal giving to a soldier? The decision was made at the time he medal was awarded, 30 years later do we somehow have more information? No in fact i would argue that we have less. So Kerry may have earned only two purple hears instead of three, when the man he's running against didn't go to Vietnam during the war.

John Kerry's Senate Record
George Bush has distorted John Kerry's Senate voting record, for example in this latest debate he said John Kerry voted 200 time to raise taxes. Now i personally don't know if that figure is true but lets give the president the reason of the doubt, the problem with figures like that is it counts multiple votes on the same measure. So how many tax increases did Kerry really vote for, not counting repeat votes? I dunno, but I'm very curious. And 200 votes in 20 years, thats not that bad, its not good either, but its not that bad considering how many votes the Senate makes in a single year. The figures I'd be curious to see is how many times Kerry voted against tax increases. Lastly, a tax increase does not mean a tax increase across the board for everyone, it could mean a tax increase only for the wealthy or even tax increases for large corporations. It's all in the details.

As far as attacks on John Kerry and John Edward's senate attendance record Edwards does have a pretty crappy record, but thats not to say his votes weren't recorded, many were made by proxy. But how many days did George Bush spend on vacation during his term as president? Bush has taken, as of August 2003, 250 vacation days. Who knows how many days it'll be by the end of his term.

I could rant more but i'm getting tired of typing...to be continued..maybe :)