Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I too, felt very proud last night.
Of our diversity, our shared goals, our basic understanding of what is important and what our vision of the future must be in these post 9/11 years.

Barack Obama - Wow, was I impressed! His speach was amazing - eloquent and energizing - what a national debut that man made! I will be looking to see a lot more of him in the future, because its quite obvious that he has what it takes to go all the way to the top. And by that I mean the chance to be the first African- American President.

And Teresa Heinz Kerry - such a breath of fresh air! Articulate, Intelligent, Passionate, Earthy and Humorous - quite a stunning change from the usual Political Stepford Wife (Hilary excluded). If we women have to wait another twenty years to see a woman in the White House, it will be a whole lot easier if we have strong, opinionated, artlessly elegant women like Teresa as first lady.

And who’d have ever thought that Ron Reagan Jr. would speak at the Democratic convention? His speach was very powerful - positively fueled by his anger over the current Republican ideology against the potential for stem cell research to transform medical science.
The one thing I noticed was that he didn’t mention his Father or Alzheimer’s once during his speach - and I felt a little bad about that - almost as if he was afraid that the mere mention of his fathers name would elicit anger or hissing from the crowd. What made me sad about that was my sense that the Democrat’s in that room wouldn’t have done any such thing - but perhaps because he was raised in the atmosphere of the Republican Party, he just couldn’t believe that that was possible. I think his fear of doing so speaks volumes about just how cut throat and divisive the Republican’s tactics have become.
Like when they broadcast ads against Democrats running for elective office such as Max Cleland (who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam) questioning his commitment to national defense by combining images of him, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein.
Such shameless and dirty tactics are no doubt making the Republican’s nervous and paranoid - and the fact that the convention is managing to rise above such dirty dealing with messages of collective hope and with positive visions for a strong future must be making the GOP chagrined and shocked. No doubt they were expecting these four nights to be a Bush Bash and the fact that we don’t _need_ to play their game because we’ve got powerful messages of our own must be leaving them totally gob-smacked! :D

Barack Obama; what can I say. As he put it so well, the “skinny kid with the funny name” is as well-crafted a politician as they come. Watching his speech last night, all I could think was screw Kerry, Obama for President!

I don’t think Obama holds a candle to Harold Ford Junior, a fairly brilliant young Black Democratic congressman with real crossover appeal, an easy and detailed command of the issues and actual experience in government on the national level. And he’s a southerner to boot, which bodes well for his political future. He’s one I really think could be president some day—and perhaps actually deserve to be (see, I can say nice things about Democrats).

I’m sorry, but Obama is a flavor of the month. He’s somebody with very thin credentials, a state legislator without significant accomplishments who got elevated to the national stage on the basis of tokenism and a sentimental feel-good story. He’s a walking talking Walt Disney soundtrack.

His speech was a mix of soft-headed bromides of the left (America is for everybody, let’s cuddle with puppies, live out our promise, blah blah blah) and actual absurdities (get federal agents out of the libraries—huh?). If you like soft-hearted and headed feel-good cliches that lack contact with the realities of life and politics, then you’ll love Obama.

Stick with Harold Ford Junior—honestly, you dems would be doing yourselves a giant favor.

One more thing—the first Black president, as well as the first female president, will almost definitely be Republicans. This is something I’ve heard from a number of politcal observers, and it makes a good deal of sense.

Part of the reason is the only-Nixon-could-go-to- China syndrome. A black Republican candidate would get the conservative vote as well as cut significantly into key portions of the Democrat’s usual demographic base.

In fact, I don’t discount the possibility that the first female president could also be the first Black president. Wouldn’t that rock the Democrats back on their heels. Once again, substance trumping tokenism. Condi in 08!

His speech was a mix of soft-headed bromides of the left (America is for everybody, let’s cuddle with puppies, live out our promise, blah blah blah) and actual absurdities (get federal agents out of the libraries—huh?).

Martin, thank you for walking into the characterization that Kerry is creating for Republicans. I hope the guys running your party will make cynicism the main theme for your convention.

And in case there are other Republicans who are in the dark over the federal agents in the libraries remark, it refers to the power given to the government by the USA PATRIOT Act that requires libraries to hand over any information they have about you and your reading and computer use habits, without the need for a search warrant or having to inform you.

For a party that doesn’t want government intruding in your lives, you’re pretty relaxed about it. I wonder if you’ll feel the same when it’s Kerry who is exercising that power.

Martin, C. Rice would not draw very as many Dem votes as she would lose for the Rep. party. As one of the architects for the more than 900 dead and thousands upon thousands of injured American soldiers in Iraq, she will have little appeal to the broad spectrum of Dem.’s or Independents. And a significant portion of Rep. constituency which believes a woman’s place is in the home, and a black’s place is under white rule, would simply stay home on election day with Condi running.

Nope, in all likelihood, it will be a black man, and it will likely be one with a military background, capable of earning the respect of Americans who are putting the nation’s security and strength first. Could be Collin Powell if he ever decided to run. But, 2008, 12, 16 are so far away, it is impossible to speculate which party will spawn the first woman or non-caucasion president.

It will be a huge milestone in American history, though, and the responsibility on that person will be huge!

David, David, David. Condi is an “architect” for 900 dead? You may choose to see it that way, to blame those who solve problems instead of those who create them, bu many of us still see her as an “architict” for preventing even more deaths than the 3,000 we lost on one sunny morning in September.

I guess you get angry at firemen too because they smash down doors with axes and cause water damage to carpets. Condi is the model of a strong Black woman with an influential position she achieved through her own gifts and talents, instead of Democrat-styled tokenism. That the left hates this about any black person who wanders off the plantation is telling and sad.

Wake up Martin. Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. You can fool some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time, but, lose this argument cause you can’t fool all the people all the time. The polls show the majority of Americans have awakened to the truth. Give me an address, I will send you my Mickey Mouse alarm watch to wake up by. Just kidding. That watch hasn’t worked for 40 years.

From Martin:
“His speech was a mix of soft-headed bromides of the left (America is for everybody, let’s cuddle with puppies, live out our promise, blah blah blah) and actual absurdities (get federal agents out of the libraries—huh?). If you like soft-hearted and headed feel-good cliches that lack contact with the realities of life and politics, then you’ll love Obama.”

Wow. Listen to your ownself. Is not America for everybody? Is this a “blah” thought to you? And would you propose we don’t live out our promises? That rather we give up the principles our country is founded on? Because, perhaps they are hard to achieve? And what then is America to you? For the privileged? For only those of a particular race? Of a particular religion? Then we just shrunk the population who deserves America down to a very small percentage.

I believe striving for a country of equality, opportunity and tolerance is not an unrealistic goal to be shunted aside. Imagine if Barack Obama had thought so. If he himself gave up because it didn’t match up to the “realities of life” you seem to be expert on. Then he wouldn’t likely be a Senator. He wouldn’t have probably graduated from Harvard. And he wouldn’t have given that powerful speech. And you, Martin, wouldn’t have heard it and then wouldn’t have been moved to speak out against him. Is that the America you really want Martin?

It would appear that Barack Obama is a living example of believing that in this country one really can rise from a modest beginning to achieve whatever level of success one wishes. So it isn’t so unrealistic is it.

It is a totally blah thought to me, Brandy. I want results. Not empty populist rhetoric from politicians who actually stand in the way of our realizing the American dream while insulting us with ridiculous palaver about homeless people sleeping on the White House steps.

Politicians can talk forever about how America is “for everybody” but only those who seek to enable Americans to actually reach that potential interest me. Some who shed crocodile tears while striking populist poses and telling us that America is for everybody are really asking for permission to CONTROL America and carve it up according to their own ideologically blinkered fantasies. Too many Democrats say America is for everybody to cloak a kind of Marxist desire to penalize initiative, reward dependence on government and inhibit the kind of growth that could make the pie larger for everybody.

There is that communist paranoia we have come to love and trust from the right! Good show! It is nice to know that some folks are predicatable.

The Dem’s have one thing right. There are many on the right who would divide us into those who see things their way and all others as communists. Funny really how the right validates their opposition so often, and so blatantly.

“I want results.”

But Obama’s own success is a result! And people are homeless. Everywhere in America actually. It isn’t insulting for a politician to point that out and neither is the problem a ridiculous one. It is deeply problematic that in a nation as wealthy as ours, we have people who sleep on the streets. Not acknowledging problems such as these is being idealistic to me. Or ignorant or thoughtless. How is this acknowledgment standing in the way of our American dreams?

“Politicians can talk forever about how America is “for everybody” but only those who seek to enable Americans to actually reach that potential interest me.”

Obama does seek to enable Americans to make this country for everybody. Never once in his speech did I ever hear a need in him to control America. I heard him strive to empower people. People who would have the odds against them due to their race, or financial situation, or gender, or sexual preference. People like himself. He is living the American dream and he appreciates it. And he wants others to have it too. That was the essence of his speech to me.

America is for everybody Martin. And that concept doesn’t dissuade people from working hard. It doesn’t cause people to give up and rely on the government. That concept inspires people. It makes people think they can work hard and achieve their goals. If you walked up to someone and said - ‘hey, bub, your out. America isn’t for you’. And that person is stuck here anyway because this happens to be their home, how would that be encouraging?

But I, or any Republican, would never say that to anyone. We’d encourage them to start a business, go to college, get a job, save, invest and use their own skills and potential to achieve for themselves. We wouldn’t say that politicians are going to solve their problems for them—and that’s the key difference between conservatives and the left. Conservatives want people to succeed. The left imagines that people can’t succeed without massive outside interveention and have to rely on the largesse of the government. Which is a more optimistic and positive view of America and human potential?

Well, I don’t really care whether it is a Rep or Dem who wouldn’t say America is for everybody. It’s the issue that is important. Not the flavor of the person who says it.

I don’t think embodying the premise that America is for everybody suggests that one doesn’t also believe in hard work, education, saving and investing. I think the essence of believing America is for everybody addresses the prejudices that are often faced base on race, gender and/or sexual preference or even financial position. It addresses people who are faced with unbelievable hardships. It addresses the fundamental point that America is still not an equal playing field for all. Not because they aren’t willing to work or go to school. But because they are a woman and she wishes to be an astronaut or engineer and the opportunities for women are still far less in such fields than those for men. Or the person is Hispanic American or African American and face racial discrimination in the job market. Or the person is from a poor family and must work after school to help put food on the table and couldn’t even begin to dream of raising the money to go to college. Every one of these people believe in hard work, eduction, saving, investing. But they are faced with either financial hardship beyond what they can deal with or they are faced with prejudice that will hold them back.

I think the essence in believing America is for everybody is the hope that one day, no matter what somebody looks like, what their religion is, what their financial situation starts out like, there is the opportunity for them to reach their highest potential. If we stop believing and hoping for this, we will likely never have a woman president.

Martin said We wouldn’t say that politicians are going to solve their problems for them—and that’s the key difference between conservatives and the left. Conservatives want people to succeed. The left imagines that people can’t succeed without massive outside interveention and have to rely on the largesse of the government. Which is a more optimistic and positive view of America and human potential?

I don’t think it has anything to do with left or right. It’s called statistics and economics. With even just a cursory understanding of these sciences you can understand that regardless of good intentions and dedicated effort some will still require assistance. It’s not about knowing what’s right for people in need (unlike the right who insist they know exactly what they need to do, e.g. get off their lazy asses). It’s about compensating and minimizing the inherent problems of any large complex system.

And guess what, liberals want people to succeed, too. You keep trying to portray us all as some kind of Stalin wannabes. We want to control everyone’s lives. We want to suppress success and oppress the wealthy. Blah, blah, blah. But this is just the sort of jaded extremism that I believe most in this country will reject.

Look: a Pell Grant doesn’t get you a 4.0 grade point average. A $1,500 child tax credit doesn’t pay for your child over the course of the year. Unemployment is not enough to retire on. No one on the left is advocating that these programs usurp personal responsibility. They are meant to enable personal responsibility. Is this so hard to grasp?

The positive view of America is wanting to help others for the benefit of everyone because we love our country. The positive view is believing those in need will appreciate this help and use it to succeed. The positive view understands that the community and the nation have as much to do with anyone’s success as individual drive. The positive view of human potential sees that success is a cycle or receiving and giving.

Very well and accurately stated Joseph. Economics and philosophy of economics were among my favorite courses in college. Being a statistical science essentially measuring the accumulation, distribution, and consumption of finite resources amidst infinite demand, economics is nothing more than a tool which may be used for ill or good in the development of policy. Economics itself dictates nothing, it simply measures. It would be good if everyone discussing economics would acquaint themselves with this fundamental concept.

“Too many Democrats say America is for everybody to cloak a kind of Marxist desire to penalize initiative, reward dependence on government and inhibit the kind of growth that could make the pie larger for everybody.”

I think this comment shows how out of touch you are, Martin, with Obama and what he represents.

He has true crossover appeal, and one of the main reasons being that he holds everyone accountable. He does not pander, by any means, to his minority constituencies — instead he says that it is their responsibility, first and foremost, to carve out their own success and that the government will step in wherever possible to help them out.

One choice quote from the keynote was:
“Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.”

This is a very direct call for responsibility and accountability to the minority community and the type of rhetoric that will gain respect on the right side of the fence.

Obama doesn’t believe in handouts, nor does he believe in government waste. He wants to usher in an era of accountability and SHARED responsibility. The economy, social justice, and like institutions need not be a zero-sum us vs. them game. Like you said, we should be aiming to grow the pie for everyone. Obama is not espousing a new brand of socialism, just a healthier mix of capitalism than we currently have — one in which that pie does grow for EVERYONE.

A real leader will find a way to actually get this accomplished (where so many others have failed by pandering to self-interested parties). That leader needs crossover appeal and the credibility to ask both sides to work towards a common goal. Of course this is much easier said than done, but I do believe that Obama is showing the moxie and wherewithal to be that leader. However, I will reserve official judgment until his platitudes on the podium become reality in Illinois and Washington.

This is the worst crap I’ve ever heard. This Union would be a lot better if we didn’t have liberals like John Kerry poluting this country with bad ideas. The only President we need is George W Bush. Plain and Simple!!!!

Joseph, you’re definitely a “glass is half full” individual. I like to think of myself as the same type of person.

*puts his “realist” hat on*

… Unfortunately, not everyone who lives in this country can be placed in what you might call the “good” category (maybe “honorable” or “moral” is a safer category.. we want to keep religion away from government, right?) As your disclaimer “the positive view” might suggest, you are aware that Americans take advantage of these “programs” that are simply meant to “enable personal responsibility”. While we’re always trying to close loopholes as a society.. the phrase, “make something idiot-proof, and someone will invent a better idiot” comes to mind.

The plain and simple realistic point here is, while it’s very commendable to want to help people, is asking every human being to play the cards the were dealt the best they can without using the word “fair” too much to ask? Where does one draw the line with how much help to give.. and who to give the help to?

Mr. Spin. I have an answer for you. Every American adult who exerts the effort to fulfill their potential as a contributing member of society, should be entitled to sufficient resources to live in a healthy environment, with sufficient means to sustain their existence with a modicum of hope and dignity. All children deserve a support system to further their growth and development toward becoming productive citizens of our nation.

How is that for an answer?

Eric, you seem to be suggesting we clean up this polluted environment by exporting Kerry and his supporters, and anyone else who does not support your God! How very ……. (fill in the blank)!

Who said WB is not without humor! Thanks, Eric.

David, a well-thought response. Unfortunately, government isn’t that easy. If we’re going to figure these answers to my questions out, we now have to define a bunch of things:

- “Exerts the effort to fulfill their potential as a contributing member of society”
I wish I had a statistic or a number… but I’ll just settle with: There are MANY people out there who would define this by saying that they worked a couple weeks during the summer, so now they’re looking forward to a few weeks off while they enjoy their unemployment check.

- “entitled to sufficient resources”
Using my above reference group, they might define this as that unemployment check they get if they can just work one or two weeks here and there.. ya know..they don’t want to burn themselves out.

- “with a modicum of hope and dignity”
How does one feel when they fail at something? Perhaps sad? I’m willing to bet how they feel has something to do with how hard they tried. How hard they tried relates directly to “responsibility” or even “effort”. If you lived your life… failing all the while…. not wealthy… but you TRIED, without any handouts.. couldn’t you still have your dignity? Perhaps you always had hope because regardless of which rung you started out on in the ladder of life, you believed in yourself and knew that you tried your best?

- “All children deserve a support system to further their growth and development “
I think support system here might include a good education.. and maybe… Parents? Last time I checked, children weren’t born without a little bit of effort. With a few exceptions, humans have a choice as to whether that will occur. So, is it too much to ask to put some RESPONSIBILITY on a parent.. and say that if you’re going to have a child… can you please do a little PLANNING… or make sure that you can support them first?

Soo… let’s clear up these other questions that your answer has raised. You’ve got a lot of positive thoughts in there.. but remember.. we’re’ wearing our “realist” hats at the moment…

Andrew L., be gentle with the word socialism. Socialist programs in America include the Interstate highway system, public schools, our military, FEMA, National Flood Insurance program, Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Public Lands and Monuments, Tennesee Valley Authority, Police, Fire Departments, county and state emergency services, and the list goes on. All of these take money from all tax payers and distributes goods and services to only those who need them. That is the very definition of applied socialism. And what would capitalism be without these programs? Think about it.

The fact is we are all interdependent upon each other for safety, security, goods and services. Where American society has needs that cannot be fulfilled affordably or adequately by private enterprise, socialized programs are the only viable alternative to just letting the society go without its basic needs being met. Can you imagine what would happen to commerce without the Interstate Highway system being maintained by federal standards, and instead left up to each state to maintain?

Socialized programs are not inherently bad for society. Capitalism without some socialized programs would inevitably result in a collapse of infrastructure, ethical and regulated conduct in business, and divisions among the populace that would threaten civil war eventually. To the extent that socialized programs can fill voids that capitalism cannot or will not, in furthering the goals and welfare of society as a whole, socialized programs are necessary and justified.

Mr. Spin, thanks for the response. Your answer premises that a solution should be easy and implies that it should be clean and uniform in application. That however, is a valid premise only in Nirvana or Heaven. Here on earth, in a democracy of almost 300 million people, concensus will never be easy, nor will applications of policy ever be clean and uniform, human nature being what it is.

Someone famous once said something to the effect that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others. That wisdom is the reality we face in trying to answer questions about quality of life and opportunity for all 300 million people. No answer is going to appeal to all citizens. No policy is going to benefit everyone. Concensus that avoids civil conflict and anarchy are the only measure of a policy’s practical success on the macro and historical level.

And creativity and productivity are the only measures of success regarding the measure of a nation’s culture and ethical efficacy of its laws and constitution.

Bottom line is, to the extent that a society can develop the productivity, harmony, and enrichment of all of its citizens, it can be judged as a functional society or not. Given that each and every member of society comes with a unique blend of potentials, capabilities, and handicaps, it is never going to be an easy or efficient process of achieving potential for all citizens. But, to the the extent that a society holds that goal clearly and obtrusively in front of it in making policy and developing programs to foster that goal, that society can be the greatest in history. Such as ours has been.

Thanks, David. And thanks Mr.Spin, too. I am rather “glass half full” though I prefer “the glass is twice as big as it needs to be” which puts kind of a pragmatic efficiency spin on it.

Yes, I’m an optimist but I’m no Pollyanna. I know there will be cheats, as there are in any system. But the cheats only represent a small percentage of those who use the system. They won’t bankrupt it and they can be prosecuted. The point is to look beyond the cheats and see the genuine and appreciative folks we actually do end up helping. And we can hope that these folks will go on and share their success with others. It’s a numbers game.

…is asking every human being to play the cards the were dealt the best they can without using the word “fair” too much to ask? Where does one draw the line with how much help to give.. and who to give the help to?

These are great questions and I want to address them, but I can’t put the thought into them I would like to here at work, so I’ll get back to it.

“make something idiot-proof, and someone will invent a better idiot”.

This is very funny.

Hey Martin,

But I, or any Republican, would never say that [‘hey, bub, your out. America isn’t for you’] to anyone.

I hear Republicans say that all the time. They tell protestors, “If you don’t support our president, then leave.”

They tell non-Christians, “If you don’t accept this country’s Christian values, then leave.”

They tell gays, “If you want to get married, go to Europe.”

They tell Democrats, “Love it or leave it.”

They tell immigrants who don’t yet speak English to, “Go back where you came from.”

They tell us, “This Union would be a lot better if we didn’t have liberals like John Kerry poluting this country with bad ideas.” - thanks Eric H.

Martin, maybe you’re out of step with your party. Didn’t you get the ‘hate’ memo?

…is asking every human being to play the cards the were dealt the best they can without using the word “fair” too much to ask?

It’s not too much to ask. But should we ask it? Is that the kind of great society we want? Asking folks to just make the best with what they’ve been allotted is the equivalent of a caste system. But I’m sure that’s not what you meant.

As I mentioned, statistically you just aren’t going to have a society where everyone lives this Stepford existence of doing everything exactly as they should. Providing assistance to help as many people as possible overcome their economic hardships makes humanitarian, statistical, and economic sense.

Look at your question applied to business. Why can’t businesses just deal with the cards they’ve been dealt? After all, businesses are artificial, they don’t have any inherent worth, they require demonstrated worth in order to survive. Humans, on the other hand, do have inherent worth. Well, that’s what I’ve been told.

I think those on the left understand that since it is prudent for the federal government to support business through subsidies and tax incentives, then it’s equally prudent to provide assistance to individuals in need. This goes to ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare. To us, it’s not a question of whether or not we should have social entitlements, it’s a question of how do we make them economically viable and socially valuable.

Where does one draw the line with how much help to give.. and who to give the help to?

You ask this as if we don’t have any way of measuring cost of living, as if we don’t know what anyone’s income is. We, in fact, have many methods of tracking this data. Of course, I even think our measures of poverty need some upward adjustment.

Again, we already give hundreds of millions of dollars to businesses that make billions of dollars a year, so obviously our sense of who qualifies for assistance and how much is flexible.

To think that America should just dismiss the needs of millions of citizens and justify it with statements like, “Why should I care?” and “It’s for their own good,” is just heartless.

“Who said life is fair?” I used to think civilization and rule of law implied it.

Joseph, I think I like your response to my initial thoughts the most. I should point out that everything I wrote wasn’t so much to argue a point, but to legitimately ask questions. I was raised a Republican, but am taking a very active role to see where my values stick best.
I think you explained the left and made your points with the least spin I’ve seen on these blogs. Well done.

Thanks.

>>…is asking every human being to play the cards the were dealt the best they can without using the word “fair” too much to ask?

>It’s not too much to ask. But should we ask it? Is that the kind of great society we want? Asking folks to just make the best with what they’ve been allotted is the equivalent of a caste system. But I’m sure that’s not what you meant.

I think that is well put and touches on some of the issues mentioned earlier regarding the unfortunate discrimination in our society. Discrimination generates an inbalance in which race/gender obtains most of the wealth and power and as a result, who is in a position to in fact deal cards to others. There is still a ways to go before the cards everyone is dealt is truely random and not tainted by society’s prejudices.

Given this, I think it is a bit insensitive to ask everyone to play the hand they’re dealt. Particularly if one doing the asking is one who has benefitted the most from the prejudices of our society.

Where does one draw the line with how much help to give.. and who to give the help to?

Ahh… That’s the real question, isn’t it? How do you answer something like that? Giving no help to those who need it is morally repugnant. Giving massive handouts is distasteful (and demeaning). The answer is: the line gets drawn somewhere in the middle. And it changes on a day-to-day basis.

Hope that helps. :)