July 19, 2004
Hate
With the way the Right has talked about the Left these days, you would think that Bush is chased around Washington D.C. by a mob of pitchfork wielding liberals. Again and again, the subject of conservative thought and Right Wing talk is just how much the Left hates Bush. They say its a blinding, unreasoning hatred born out of things like jealousy at his tremendous successes on the war on terror and on the economy. They explain it by saying that he’s given back those tax dollars that we Democrats are addicted to taking away from people, and that’s just ticking us off. And of course, the liberals are traitors to all that is right, good, and God Fearing. It must be hate that has them oppose Bush, right?
Well, here's one liberal's perspective on that. After a decade of relative peace, of great prosperity, 2000 comes around, and what happens? One of the most vicious political controversies of our time. By the end most of us are tired, feeling rather beaten down. At this point, Liberals are in surrender, but it's only out of exhaustion. We just weren't prepared to argue another several months about the issue.
This is important- Bush never successfully defeated Gore in many people's minds. There was no electoral knockout punch to ensure that Bush had the mandate in the eyes of the rest of the public.
Bush went into his first year raring to go anyways, with the result that he irritated a crowd already in doubt as to his legitimacy. His policies, including those towards business, ensured that had things continued the way they were going, Bush was heading for one-term terra firma. Enron and the energy sector collapse were going to be the big stories.
Of course, history took us in another direction, giving Bush a real second chance. If he had played his cards right, he could have been one of those leaders whose reputations among his political opponents transcended partisan sensibilities. That rare sense of national unity seems like a dream now, one that existed for a brief shining moment.
It's useless to blame one side or another for it. The American people had to disagree at some point as to how to respond, and those disagreements, no matter how small or big they were, were bound to have the full force of the trauma of 9/11 behind them.
Being the party in power, however, the Republicans could have done a better job of dealing with that inevitable disagreements, keeping the unity of the country in mind. I honestly believe Liberals were more willing to accept a shift towards the right on these issues. It had been in the cards for years.
To take a film example, Who were the people that reinvigorated the cultural notion of the just war? Often, Liberals. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are great examples. Look at the effect Lucas's Star Wars had. What could better represent the concept of an Evil Empire than well... an Evil Empire!
Spielberg, of course is the fellow behind Saving Private Ryan, the movie that singlehandedly managed to redefine the approach Hollywood and audience members took to war. It is no accident that the language of the greatest generation is part of the language used to support hawkish sentiments in this time.
Those on the right should take note that the Left often speaks of Iraq as an inappropriate war or a detour from the war on terror. With that in mind, the implication is obvious- the Left does consider there to be appropriate battles to fight, especially as it concerns Osama Bin Laden.
Point is, liberals were willing to compromise in the days after 9/11, and Bush had their support in the days after 9/11. If Bush had wanted, he could have secured the Right's foothold in power for the next generation.
But something happened. Maybe those on the Right saw and heard something different, but things seemed to grow more contentious, and winning the war on terror became linked with supporting whatever policies Bush wanted supported. It got simply absurd- It was like the Republicans were expecting liberal politicians to make political conversions overnight. It seemed to us as if the Republicans were abusing their power and the situation to undermine liberal positions on many issues that had little or nothing to do with terrorism.
Iraq was the straw that broke the camel's back. We supported it, and were willing to vote for it, but we did so on the understanding that this really was part of the war on terror, that there was a threat, there were stockpiles, and that in a few short years, we'd hear the dreadful news of a successful nuclear test on Iraqi soil. We were told terrorist might get handed the worse kinds of weapons, and make 9/11 look like a mercy by comparision. What did we find? Nothing of the sort. Oh well, we were confused, but we couldn't be happier at Saddam's fall. I know I was grinning. Few would dispute the joy of that moment.
But in the time after, as Americans died in droves, and the serious weakness of the case for war became more apparent, the sense of things changed. A successful occupation would have been one where things calmed down, rather than heated up as time went on. Instead, each month became decidedly worse than the last. The excuse for this was that the terrorist were trying to break us there, to make us pull out prematurely. A convenient excuse, since it only allows for one "rational" action.
Truth is, few Americans needed such motivation. We didn't want a second Vietnam, especially not when that could mean just another Afghanistan. From the start, the liberals have been fully willing to gut it out. Indeed, most complaints have been about the insufficiency of the invasion force, the lack of progress in reclaiming the cities that the insurgents took over.
But having gone through all that, at such a price, America's liberals have lost their patience with the man in charge. Bush's continued denial of the panoply of errors made in Iraq have only tested the patience that remained.
In the end, it is that exhaustion of patience that is the source of Bush's seemingly intractible troubles with the liberals of this country, not any hate. People are just tired of the empty rhetoric, the incompetence, the disrespect aimed their way.
Do we hate Bush? I don't know. But one thing is for sure: we no longer want him as our president, and through his heedless actions, he has ensured the strength of our opposition to him.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2004 05:28 PMVery well said, Stephen. (Still ain’t voting for Kerry, but, you have caputured most of my sentiments, very well.
I actually told my wife just after Bush was elected, that without a mandate, he would lead from the middle and therefore, his presidency may actually do some good for our country. WoW! Was I wrong!
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 19, 2004 06:18 PMWe counted on the idea that Bush would approach his office as if he was lucky to be elected in the first place. Only trouble is, we didn’t count on him believing that he was destined to be elected, chosen to be elected. With that, the question of whether he would take the cue of his lukewarm popular support went out the window, because this man believed his administration divinely ordained. And he felt “obligated” to fulfill his agenda as it was, no compromise.
That’s been the worse part. No live and let live with the modern Republicans. They believe they’re fighting some culture war, and that compromise spells surrender. What they don’t realize is that the means they use to fight this battle of values has as much if not more influence over people’s morality, as the things they are fighting over to begin with. So many questionable things are being countenanced in the name of decent society.
Bush doesn’t realize just how bad a thing it is to have nearly half the people in your country frustrated with your performance in office. He doesn’t realize that there may be real good reasons people find his policy decisions hard to agree with.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2004 09:18 PM…and winning the war on terror became linked with supporting whatever policies Bush wanted supported.
When Tom DeLay said, “Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes,” I would have fallen off my chair laughing if I hadn’t been so absolutely disgusted. What planet is the GOP leadership on? And if I remember correctly, that was the same week the Democrats had to vote down a Republican proposal to cut veteren’s health care and some other military benefits.
I don’t hate Bush. He’s just a guy the GOP found who fit the suit: An amiable knucklehead who can raise some serious cash and be counted on not to ask too many questions (GW - “Didn’t we already do tax cuts for the rich?” KR - “Stick to principles!”) - a lot like Reagan, who slept through most of his presidency. But I do think that the programs and actions Bush has taken are stupid, reckless, dangerous, and short-sighted.
Bush has made this country hated around the world, while failing to strengthen homeland security, fix our intelligence community, or even to seriously pursue the guys who perpetrated the worst attack on this country since Pearl Harbor.
He’s given tax cuts and subsidies to the people and industries that need them the least, while saddling this country with tens of trillions of dollars of debt at a time when it’s a very real danger that countries who hold that debt (mostly China) will be inclined to manipulate our economy with it - much the same way Malaysia’s economy was manipulated in the 90s, sparking the Asian economic crisis.
Bush’s insistance that peace in the Middle East “runs through Baghdad”… Mother of Christ in a birchbark canoe!
I could go on and on, but what’s the point. Come November he’ll hit the history books as the worst president in modern history.
It’s hard not to be offended by someone that wants to amend the Constitution to make you the first class of Americans that it’s lawful to discriminate against, since the Africans.
…especially when they do it not just out of hate but to use you as cheap political cannon fodder.
Makes you feel real special.
Makes it your duty to convince everyone you know, all your family, friends, and acquaintences, to vote for Kerry.
Posted by: Adam at July 20, 2004 09:52 AMHey, that’s may name!
Eh, anyways, I think the biggest problem is that the Left is not being levelheaded enough about their approach.
Two years ago, the Left were no more than quiet mice in the political field, doing too much compromising, and then came out, guns blazing as you stated Stephen. That no doubt turned a lot of people off.
In these last few months, it is paramount that the Left’s ethos don’t run away from it and strongly rely on the logos.
Posted by: Adam at July 20, 2004 01:31 PMWe counted on the idea that Bush would approach his office as if he was lucky to be elected in the first place.
Except that the House and Senate are also now in Republican hands. The country seems to have given the Republican party a clear majority. And I would submit that they have not done as much with it as they could or should have. Republicans have been more moderate than they should have been. Especially from this right-of-Attila-the-Hun-Republican’s perspective.
I think some of you are suffering from selective memory disorder. Democratic congressman were making speeches about how illegitimate Bush was. How he was ‘selected’ not elected. Calls for civil rights investigations in Florida. Democrats weren’t being quiet as a mouse, they were playing up the ‘Bush stole the election’ angle, announcing the ‘theft of the presidency’ and promising to prove his illegitimacy at every turn. They played it up and then warned that he better govern as if he were Gore.
No matter how close the election was there was no chance that democrats were going to allow Bush to ‘get away with” things like nominating conservative judges, or passing any significant conservative legislation. Except for the fact that they then lost the Senate as well. Woo hoo.
Anyway, I should get back to work now. If nothing else this election will be interesting.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at July 20, 2004 02:24 PMExcept that the House and Senate are also now in Republican hands. The country seems to have given the Republican party a clear majority.
Really? By giving the popular vote to the Democratic candidate in 2000? By the narrow majorities of 51-48 in the Senate and 228-205 in the House of Representatives? There’s a broad majority from the perspective that the GOP holds all branches, but it’s not a deep or clear majority at all.
Posted by: LawnBoy at July 20, 2004 02:41 PMAnd that elected majority is not reflected by the electorate! Watch out. That is a warning to the GOP regarding holding on to what they have in November. I am confident they will lose ground as the nation’s future prospects worsen as a result of their entrenched policies of borrow and spend like “THERE IS NOT TOMORROW”.
I doubt the voters will be fooled on iota by the GOP’s cutting the 1/2 Trillion dollar deficit to 1/4 Trillion dollar deficit in 4 years. How absurd of the GOP to count on the voters to support a quarter trillion dollar deficit at the end of another 4 years under GOP leadership. The economy has seen its high point of recovery, and is slowing again. Greenspan just said accomodative policy will likely increase inflation, which will increase interest rates, which will further reduce economic growth. Thank you Republicans for this high point of your reign.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2004 03:03 PMI think that the point is missed here. The left is still bitter about not having Gore as President. They do not care what Bush does, right or wrong. They care that there is not a donkey in the white house. It has blinded them so bad that they cannot see that terrorism is not a country or place, but a state of mind. Terrorist are bread and born everywhere (Yea, even here in the US, (OK. City bombing). To change the minds of people to not to want to be terrorists, you have to make their enviroment in such a way that they do not want to be terrorists. This requires big changes. And that usually means a change in government. This is where Iraq comes in. Iraq was a breading ground for terrorism. I know the there are reports that there is no links between Osama and Saddam, but Saddam did support terrorism. He paid bombers’ families money in Isreal. That is supporting terrorism. Now things do not look good in Iraq, YET! It will take time, many years for the democracy to take hold. It will take time for people to understand that they have rights in this type of government and if they do not like someting, they can change it, peacfully. However, you will find that it will take very little time for the Iraqi people to get tired of the killing and take care of that on their own. I do not care that people hate us all over the world. We have been pushed into being the worlds police force, so we will be it. I would be willing to bet that things do not stop in Iraq, no matter who is in office next year.
Posted by: Walter Crowley at July 20, 2004 03:24 PMWalter, we were warning your people about Al Quaeda when your people were still confused about who they were. As for Saddam supporting terrorism, it was nothing but the low grade crap we’ve been dealing with for decades. We can most definitively say that Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorists. Saddam was very good at keeping opposition groups out of his territory. This man did not survive for thirty years as dictator by letting people like Al Quaeda, hostile to his secular Baathist socialism, get hold of his most powerful armaments.
As for changing governments, that is a task, as we can see from Iraq, which is not taken on lightly. And the opposition this breeds in those countries and elsewhere may serve to denigrate our support in the region (what’s left of it) faster than our nation building can rebuild it. I think you should consider that these are nations new to being conquered and ruled over, and most certainly not new to striking back at those who impose themselves on their nations.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2004 07:38 PMClearly stated, Stephen!
Although, I think before November, a group of us from the Blue Column may need to make a sojourn to the House of Remer, to perform a political Intervention!
Its funny also to see these Bush supporters complaining about this all consuming, burning fever of hatred for Bush afflicting all Democrats, then turning around and wishfully insisting a significant number will abandon Kerry for Nader, over the war issue.
Again I will state, that this is a desperate ploy to demonize us, thus discounting our outrage and criticism of this failed Presidency, excusing Bush supporters from the responsibility of defending this administration, before an increasingly skeptical electorate.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at July 20, 2004 08:03 PMBert, I heard that! Being surrounded by folks from the red column in my county however, I don’t know if I should feel secure against your sojourn or insecure about where I live :-(
All I can say for sure is my vote in Texas don’t amount to a hill of fire ants. So, I am disenfrachisedly freed from the haranguing over whether to vote for Kerry to oppose Bush, or vote for Nader to express my true political beliefs. Its a no brainer, Nader, Hands Down!
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2004 08:57 PMWell David,
Just as futile, is a $24K gig as a Canvass Director for grassrootscampaigns.com (DNC funded), expected to work 90-100 hours a week to defeat Bush here in the state of Illinois, that has already been written off by the Republicans!
I’ll suspend organizing the Blue Column Posse (for now), but I do have one question.
If, you instead resided in North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin or Louisiana (all battleground states I’ve determined will be decided by the closest of margins), could this factor possibly sway your decision?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at July 20, 2004 09:38 PMI think we can call it the Podhoretz Paradox: how is it that you can expect Liberals to deal with you in a calm, rational fashion, when you’re doing your best to infuriate and frustrate them at every term?
Modern Conservatives have unfortunately been taught to treat their political rivals with utter contempt, to the point of practically calling for a revocation of their citizenship. It’s this caustic connection of patriotism and power politics that makes it very difficult to argue in a manner that tests theories more than just patience.
It’s golden rule, as stated by the truly wise men of history: Don’t do to other that which is hateful to you. It’s odd that a president who confesses himself a Christian does not seem to live by that simple principle. And contrary to what some might allege, it’s practical.
It is intensely difficult to convince an adversary of one’s point of view. One does not need to add the difficulty of overcoming offense to the task of persuading one’s opponents.
Today’s conservatives stand to lose ground by their aggressive tactics, because they’ve added another unfortunate element to the mix: factual inconsistencies.
Factual mistakes are something we’ve all made. Check out the comments and the columns on this site, and you will find few active writers here who have not been in error. The question, overall, is how people deal with their mistakes. Do they cover them up, try to change the subject, accuse those questioning them of Partisan Bias, or do they use their critical faculties to deal with the issues of factual correction, to refine their theories?
Republicans, because of the culture war mythos drilled into them, are reluctant to cede any ground, as it is rightly seen as a political loss. Unfortunately, this thinking is somewhat prevalent among certain liberals and democrats too. Either way, it’s an ultimately self-defeating strategy, because it produces a kind of transparent desperation, rationalizations perpetually convenient to the argument being lost, instead of having the more organic, less partisan supporting structure of a successful rebuttal.
That desperate kind of defense, combined with maintained positions of power leads to a situation where people are justifiably frustrated with the behavior of those in power. This is the situation the Bush administration is in, and this is what Democrats like myself feel so strongly about. We feel the need to be so forceful, because we believe the opposition itself is not based on fact, but rather the aggressive need to maintain their power.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2004 09:45 PMBert, that was an astute question. I honestly could not say how I would vote until after I was in the booth under those circumstances. The reason is that I perceive some significant short term gains with Kerry’s win over Bush, in terms of international relief and some restored confidence in the American electorate by the peoples of other nations, and a far greater deliberative process taking place before committing our nation to combat around the world.
On the other hand, I am a father of a 13 year old. And I have seen little from Kerry or the Party’s platform that instills confidence in me regarding fiscal responsibility and all that that would mean for my daughter’s future as an American. For her long term future, my choice definitely goes to Nader. For our short term future, I lean toward Kerry. The one against the many, the now against the future. It would be a very tough call and I could not say with certainty at this time how I would choose. I would like to think I would vote in favor of the greatest good for the greatest number which leads me to suspect I would vote for Nader, but, the threat that the Bush administration poses to my daughter’s future earnings as well as to her security from attack is one helluva a motivator to vote for Kerry.
That is the best answer I can give at this time. Sorry. It would be a decision I would end up making in the booth, but, I suspect, being a person who tries to make long term responsible decisions, I would vote for Nader, but, it could go either way.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2004 11:20 PMBeing surrounded by folks from the red column in my county however, I don’t know if I should feel secure against your sojourn or insecure about where I live :-(
You’re safe around us David.
Modern Conservatives have unfortunately been taught to treat their political rivals with utter contempt, to the point of practically calling for a revocation of their citizenship.
If that were true, I’d say we learned it from the left.
Today’s conservatives stand to lose ground by their aggressive tactics, because they’ve added another unfortunate element to the mix: factual inconsistencies.
I don’t see Republicans practising the kind of scorched earth policy democrats have been doing Stephen. Bush reaches out his hand and it gets bit off.
What I find humorous is the left’s definition of bipartisan. If conservatives agree with the left they are being bipartisan. If they don’t, they are divisive, hateful, arrogant, and offensive.
For example the Kerry fundraiser where Whoopi and all the other glitterati profaned Republicans and Bush with their hate speech, and Kerry says they represent the best of the American people. Michael Moore.
That desperate kind of defense, combined with maintained positions of power leads to a situation where people are justifiably frustrated with the behavior of those in power. This is the situation the Bush administration is in, and this is what Democrats like myself feel so strongly about. We feel the need to be so forceful, because we believe the opposition itself is not based on fact, but rather the aggressive need to maintain their power.
It’s ok if you feel strongly about something because the opposition is so bad? Surely this is not your argument Stephen.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at July 20, 2004 11:36 PMThanks David,
For the compliment, and making very clear how principled you are in reaching such a decision.
I truly understand your doubts and reservations concerning a Kerry presidency, given the long history and ingrained presumptions of a Democrat in power. However, after the Blue Column Posse settled into a semi-circle, with you firmly hogged tied in a chair in front of us, this is how I would start my pitch.
Having gone against everything we’ve equally believed about Conservatives, they have governed over the most excessive and indulgent act of pork barrel, wasteful spending in our history. While recklessly draining (what is left of) an inherent surplus, to cynically reward the wealthy few who support them.
My point being, if you now are convinced that such an hypocritical, core principles abandoning, about face can occur to a national party you thought you knew, can the opposite transform the Democratic Party?
I do not dispute that the go-go, economic boom of the Clinton era, was part right place/right time. However, I firmly believe that the fiscal discipline of a Robert Reich guided doctrine, in many ways aided in prolonging the ‘good times’. The Democrats, being the devil we knew, should’ve blown that surplus on more entitlement programs, right?
As hard as it is for the American voter to believe Bush’s revisonist rationalizations on the campaign trail, it is equally hard to think of the Democrats as the fiscally responsible party.
David, if you’re not convinced as I am, that Nader has a confirmed and pivotal role in a Kerry administration, then I have my work cut out for me. And, risking I might offend you, this vote will get you closer to realizing Nader’s ideal’s impact on this country, than the ones you’ve cast previously.
Just look at me - an optimistic Democrat.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at July 21, 2004 12:45 AMBert, you mean Robert Rubin, not Reich.
it is equally hard to think of the Democrats as the fiscally responsible party.
I don’t see that. Clinton, as the most popular and successful president since FDR, really rubbed fiscal responsibility in the party’s face.
Clinton campaigned on fiscal responsibility. His whole presidency was built on, “It’s the economy, stupid!” There’s no way Kerry didn’t learn that lesson. In fact, if you skim his web site or his campaign book, it’s clear that fiscal responsibility is going to be a BIG DEAL during his presidency.
I would concider myself to be a moderate conserative (if there is such a thing). I would say that my conserative stance is based off of morals more then economics. I think that no matter who is in the office they surround themselves with extreamly smart people who know what they are doing when it comes to the economy. Yes it is possible that there is more then one right answer. The american people drive the economy more then any policy that is set in place. I have been in the work force for 8 years now (full time). I have worked for big corperations, small companies, and even owned a few. In this time not one piece of legislation passed or brought into law has helped or hurt my business(software development). Maybe I am too small for the system to effect, but then again I would say that most of us are.
Stephen, to answer your issue about Saddam supporting terrorism, I would say he most certainly did support terrorism. Just because he did not openly have camps on his land, or even if he did not have camps, he paid for it. I would go as far as to say that Saudi Arabia, Iran, and even the US supported terrorism. Terrorist cannot do anything if they cannot buy the weapons. Also if you were warning us about the AL-K… then why wasn’t something done with Clinton. He was in office 8 years. Even taking in concideration that 4 of them were to help himself get re-elected, he had 4 years to do something. I think the truth of the matter is that there is no one group, person, or even organization to blame. We all failed. Now we must fix it. If there is one thing that this country is great at is trying to fix problems. We only succeed some of the time, but do keep trying over and over. I do not know what Kerry’s plan is to fix this terrorist issue. Can anyone explain it to me. And when you do, can you show me the differences from what the current administration is doing.
Creating a country is incredibly difficult, I agree. These people will have to define themselves, and what they want out of it. I would say even impossible. But does that mean we shouldn’t try? No. It is becoming less tolerable now. I think something like 900 US troops have died over there. But every one of these deaths would be wasted if we fail now. I hate war. I think that it is the last thing to do (and then I question it). But I hate living with the idea of living scared. We are not dealing with rational people. Sometimes it takes a kick in the butt to straighten things out. These people do not like us. Not because we support Isreal. Not because we have things on tv that would offend them. Not because woman here can do what they like. They hate us because we are not like them. Plain and simple. With a new democracy in Iraq, we will still see the hatred there. But it can be directed in a fashion that will not lead to war or some sort of terrorist act.
This is the first blog that I have actually written on, and I have to say this is a good one. For thoughs of you who are disenfranchised with the system and do not have hope to win in you area, please keep it going. I am from Colorado. It use to be that we really didn’t matter when it came to elections. Everything was already decided by the time it got to us. This is different this year. So your time will come even it dosen’t seem so….
Of course you could always come over the right side ;)
Walt
Posted by: Walter Crowley at July 21, 2004 11:40 AMWhoopi and all the other glitterati profaned Republicans and Bush with their hate speech
Yarrgggh, this drive me nuts. Since when does insulting someone constitute “hate speech”?! (Answer to rhetorical question: Since the past couple of years, when a Democrat is talking.)
If Whoopi called Bush a “stupid cracker” or the like, I would condemn her as quickly as anyone. She apparently made some kind of joke about his name and a vulva. To call that hate speech is to make the phrase almost meaningless. Hate speech involves a class of people. I can say all of the terrible things about Bush I want, and as long as it is about Bush as an individual, it ain’t hate speech.
Thanks for the clarification, AP!
Walter,
Welcome. I hope to see you return and add more to the debate, finding your Conservative opinion well-reasoned and civil.
However, I will take issue with your assertions about Saddam and terrorism. Again, there is no solid proof of his connection to Al Queda or any other terrorist groups aligned with Bin Laden. I am sorry to say, but your wistful and unsubstantiated ‘theories’(like training camps not in Iraq, yet Saddam funded), will not hold water here. Its grasping at straws, and not unlike the revisionist rationalization from Bush on the campaign trail.
Yet, when you turn your attention to Clinton and terrorism, he is then harshly and rigidly criticized by 20/20 hindsight, not given the caveats, or margin for error, only reserved for the current administration.
And, your plea for a more thoughtful and compassionate, bi-partisan approach to the difficulties of rebuilding a nation, triggers me to close my eyes and imagine our positions on the Iraq War, switched around.
Nice try.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at July 22, 2004 01:50 AMHey Walter! Wow! A moderate conservative. I like it. I hope you’ll be a voice of reason on the right here and won’t resort to the hate-spewing, anti-Kerry demagoguery that masquerades as substance on that side of the page. Maybe you could write an article that explains why you think Bush’s environmental policy is really good.
I’ve owned and worked for software companies also, and there are some tax breaks, write-offs, employee taxes and regulations, business training programs, loan programs, etc. that do affect small businesses all the time. OSHA also comes to mind.
Anyhow, I hope to see more of you around here.
I just wanted to tell you about a great campaign that I’ve been working on. Democrat Stas Gayshan is running for State Representative in the 13th Middlesex district which includes the towns of Wayland, MA, Lincoln, MA and Sudbury, MA. He has inspired many people both young and old to become politically active for the first time. He is a talented progressive who will fight for the issues that matter to the people of the 13th Middlesex district, and Massachusetts in general. His grassroots campaign focuses on bringing back commonsense values to Beacon Hill, and the State House will undoubtedly benefit from his leadership and vision. He is pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro gay marriage, and a strong supporter of women’s rights. He recently attended a rally in Washington run by NARAL. He believes in developing business in his district but not at the expense of the environment or workers rights. The best part about Stas’ campaign is that he gives liberally of his time to help teach younger volunteers about the political process and he labors constantly to ensure that everyone on his campaign team gets something valuable out of the experience. Check out his website on http://www.stasforsate.com for more information about how you can help.
Posted by: DAMIEN DONG at July 24, 2004 02:05 AMSorry, Stas’s email should read http://www.stasforstate.com
Posted by: DAMIEN DONG at August 3, 2004 07:30 PM
