Democrats & Liberals Archives

Turning Congress & the New Silent Majority

JayJay has identified yet another reason to distrust the Republican leadership of Congress. Perhaps the new silent majority will step forward in greater numbers this November and rid our nation of this cancer.

I came of age politically when Richard Nixon was President, and dissent against the Vietnam war and his Presidency was noisy and noticed. Nixon spoke of the "Silent Majority" of Americans who were not outspoken and remained at home, presumably supporting his policies. Noise is more apt to draw attention, and one could sense Nixon's petulant indignance that these objectors got all the press, while regular folk went about their business unnoticed.

The conservative movement which has been building since that time learned that lesson, and has been all about creating noise of a different sort. Like the antiwar movement of the 60's, this one represents a minority, but unlike that movement, the conservatives have their base already entrenched in the power elite. There is some new noise on the left, but the "new silent majority" is one of cynical distrust of all politicians. It is an ideologically mixed majority, but if the question was the generic one of trusting politicians, the answer would be pretty overwhelming.

I'm not much interested in silent majorities. They prove nothing about what is right or wrong - but it is worth noting their presence when electoral results are used to prove a point about what "most people" believe. I'm much more interested in honoring the few committed individuals who act on their conscience to make real differences that silent majorities don't care to make. But we live in a nation where political power is real and does make a difference. So it makes a difference to me who wins these contests, even if it means supporting the campaign of someone I may view as "the lesser of two evils."

Which brings me to Congress - turning Congress, that is. There are those who just want to "throw the bums out", and they can make a compelling argument that if incumbents became an endangered species due to the distrust of voters, that in itself would engender real reform. But they stand no chance of convincing me that voting against my Democratic Congressman is any way to make a positive difference. Right now we are stuck with two parties in national elections, and there is a difference. While there are flaws all around, the Republicans in power are a scary breed - not as individuals, but as a group and as a force for maintaining the current imbalance of power and wealth.

I don't buy the suggestion that putting the Democrats in power would represent no change. Even to the extent that Democratic polititicians are also beholden to the money that puts them there, there is not the same strict allegiance to a corporate agenda which pays only lip service to the public good while being truly committed only to a program of, by, and for the established plutocracy. Some readers who have been peppered with the language of the failure of socialism, will roll their eyes at this suggestion, but the evidence seems clear enough to me. It's as if those in power use Marxist critique as a script for their behavior so that anyone who calls them on their misbehavior will sound like a Marxist, and thus be discredited. My own belief that the personal incentives inherent in capitalism lead to productivity and innovation which tends to be absent in a strictly controlled egalitarian economy, doesn't mean that Marx did not correctly identify some of the ills of Capitalism. Western liberalism, while not perfect, represents a better method of addressing some of those ills than Marxist revolution.

At least the Democrats are obliged to act like they represent common folk, even when we know it's often not true. The Republicans' focus on being steadfastly opposed to any hint of liberalism or mandated controls on business assures that the economic interests of common folk will be subjugated to the almighty power of the boardroom. Common sense balance is discarded in favor of ideological purity.

The rules of Congress give so little power to the minority party, that Republican control of the House has become the primary roadblock to any chance of econcomic justice for the growing population living in poverty in the United States. It is why at this point in time I would vote for any Democrat over any Republican in any Congressional race, regardless of my opinion of the individuals involved.

There has been a lot of attention lately to the possibility that the House could change hands this year. Even many Republican strategists are conceding the possibility, though there remain many reasons to doubt it will happen. It's not a very sexy issue, but it is very substantive, and if the right set of progressives get energized around the effort, there is potential for a very real stanching of the growing power of the corporate elite. Turning Congress is not enough -- progressive vigilance will need to follow -- but moving the leadership of the House to the Democrats represents a huge step in the right direction.

Posted by Walker Willingham at May 4, 2006 9:51 AM
Comments
Comment #145335

This may be off topic a bit, I do wonder what the silent majority will have to say about this ad run by a REP - running against Congressman Brad Miller. (I had planned to seriously vote anti-incumbent this year, but there’s no way in HELL Vernon will be elected…)

http://vernonrobinson.com/media/miller_mariachi.mp3

Posted by: tony at May 4, 2006 10:12 AM
Comment #145339

I just wonder if our votes will even be counted
We have diebold machines in ohio and due to a glitch no election results were even available until 3AM, and it wasn’t until 12 noon that anyone knew the full results. so i worry that with diebold our votes will not be counted and the elections will end up however the Repubs want them to.

Posted by: ohio at May 4, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #145345

In 2004 the machines were set to produce a 15% margin favor for Republicans. Exit polls (ssshhh!!! we don’t talk about those anymore) contradict the Diebold results, and the Deibold results were eerily consistent in their margins compared to preelection and exit polls.

Who could doubt that the machines are rigged if in October the polls still favor Democrats by double digits and the Deibold machines give victory to Republicans by a deviation from the polls of 15%?

It will be interesting to see if Republicans themselves begin to push for Diebold machine’s removal to save face in November if their poll numbers remain this low providing overwhelming evidence that the Diebold machine results are fixed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #145349

Walker

Silent Majority….let’s see….Micheal Moore,Howard Dean…Whoopie Goldberg…Al Sharpton…John Kerry..Ted Kennedy…Joe Biden..George Clooney……..

You mean THAT silent majority?


HAHAHAHA…wait a minute..I’m going to crash into a building I’m laughing so hard…tears in my eyes….hahahahah….

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 4, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #145353

Good Post, Walker

Jim Hightower said that contrary to what the Republicans would have us believe, this is NOT a right-leaning, conservative country. I agree with him, and you. Most people espouse democratic values and are greatly upset by the Republican highjacking of this country.

Posted by: tasch at May 4, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #145360

Walker
The only reason you think there’s an ‘imbalance of power’ is because the Republicans control Congress and the White House. I’ll bet you didn’t think that when the Democrats controlled both. And with a greater majority.
There aint no silent majority. If there was there wouldn’t be all these mislead folks out there hollering about how things are. They may not be making the news because they aint organizing protest. But they are there and making noise.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 4, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #145380


Silicianeagle: You are slipping man. You left out Bill and Hillary and Al Gore.

You also left out George Bush and Dick Cheney and Michell and Tom Delay and Fuzz Lintball and fox news and a whole host of others.

The silent majority is being heard. Take a look at the polls.

Posted by: jlw at May 4, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #145387

David:

I’m surprised to see you using such faulty logic. You’ve essentially set up a scenario where if Republicans win, you’ll chalk it up to Diebold having cheated. That sounds more like conspiracy theory than logic. Its certainly a possibility, speaking from a logic standpoint. So too is the possibility that mice prefer Democratic votes and damage the Democratic ballots at a greater rate than they do Republican ballots (assuming of course they are written ballots, or incredibly computer savvy mice).

Lets not get into a heated debate over Diebold and the comments of its president regarding Ohio in 2004, or how the 2004 election was won by fraud that apparently couldn’t be proven. Lets just not go there.

A McGovern supporter once proclaimed that McGovern couldn’t have lost, because everyone she knew voted for him. Her logic was similar to the logic you are using. That she didn’t know anyone but McGovern supporters didn’t enter her mind…she simply used faulty logic to create her conclusion. So have you in your post.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 4, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #145391

Just one note on Dieblod:

“The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O’Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O’Dell’s company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

O’Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president’s Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party’s federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.”

Yea, it’s better if we don’t go there… right? I mean, what could be gained?

Posted by: tony at May 4, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #145399

tony:

Since you’ve read posts from me in the past, you’ll no doubt recall that I’m prone to invite investigations, and if people are found guilty, then I’m prone to invite the proverbial book to be thrown at them. I’ve said that about Bill Clinton, Tom DeLay, Ken Lay and the Enron gang, Rush Limbaugh etc.

What galls me is the “guilty until proven innocent attitude that some people seem to have. In some cases, its ‘guilty no matter what, because even if you prove your innocence, I will believe you to be guilty anyway”.

Investigate Diebold mercilessly. Investigate O’Dell for impropriety. Investigate the 2000 and 2004 elections endlessly. But here are some questions for you: Why didn’t John Kerry or the Democratic National Committee make the claim that the election was stolen? If the evidence is so obvious, why did they give up so easily? Terry McAuliffe promised a DNC investigation into claims of Ohio voter fraud—why didn’t the investigation result in charges against Diebold and/or the entire Republican operation?

I don’t believe that Republicans are so damned smart that they could pull off not one but two consecutive fraudulent elections, and do so cleanly enough that Democrats would not even bother to file a charge against them. Maybe you see Republicans as being evil enough to do so, but you’d also have to admit to the ‘genius’ side of being able to pull it off.

For the record, O’Dell was a fund raiser for Bush, and his comments were made in that context. Poorly said, but certainly understandable in context. I’ve told clients that I’d do anything to earn their business. Those who know me understand that “anything” means anything ethical. I suppose someone could brand me as unethical simply based on my statement, but they would be wrong. If they based their entire claim on the statement, they’d prove themselves wrong.

When I see proof of fraud, then I’ll demand punishment. When I see faulty logic being employed as proof, I’ll wait real proof.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 4, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #145401

This is where we differ - not on the conspiracy theory or stolen elections, but on the appearance on impropriety. How can we allow something as important as fair elections be tainted by such reliance on an obviously biased vendor. And the same people who pushed to have Diebold machines also went against a paper record of those votes.

It’s not guilt or innocence, but it’s avoidance of major issues by not preventing them upfront. I know everyone has political bias or tendencies, but those businesses who are so ardently in favor of a single candidate should not be given the opportunity to slant an election.

Case in point - the only 2 states that went against exit polls were Florida and Ohio, the only 2 states to use Diebold voting machines. THAT’s the appearance on impropriety.

Would you allow - say for the Super Bowl - to have your opponents coach pick the judges or hire the company in charge of the video playback? No. That’s not calling the other team guilty… it’s being proactively smart.

Posted by: tony at May 4, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #145404

tony:

DNC Study Finds No Vote Fraud in Ohio
“A five-month study for the Democratic National Committee found that more than one in four Ohio voters experienced problems at the polls last fall, but the study did not find evidence of widespread election fraud that might have contributed to President Bush’s narrow victory there,” the New York Times reports.

Excerpts from the DNC study:

The statistical study of precinct-level data does not suggest the occurrence of widespread fraud that systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.The tendency to vote for Kerry in 2004 was the same as the tendency to vote for the Democratic candidate for governor in 2002 (Hagan). That the pattern of voting for Kerry is so similar to the pattern of voting for the Democratic candidate for governor in 2002 is, in the opinion of the team’s political science experts, strong evidence against the claim that widespread fraud systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.

The DNC report showed voter problems, but none of them were related to Diebold, other than that the new technology (touch screens) was harder to use. That’s to be expected with new technology.

The report states unequivocally that there was strong evidence AGAINST fraud. If the DNC’s own study shows no proof of fraud, why in the world would someone suggest differently? Perhaps my earlier comment is a correct one: Guilty no matter what, because even if you prove your innocence, I will believe you to be guilty anyway”. In this case, the Democratic National Committee leveled the allegations, and to their credit investigated and reported the results.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 4, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #145409

Joe,

Damn you. Opinion/statement and facts to back it up! Get off this board. Dont you know that the only people allowed to post on here are those with mindless conjectures and healthy sprinklers of wild allegations. Facts? Proof? Who needs that when I can just use conspiracy theories and baseless accusations to validate my points.

Shame on you Joe!

Posted by: b0mbay at May 4, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #145411

JBD -

You’re missing my point. It’s the fact the a company with such biases were allowed to have such POTENTIAL power over our voting that’s the problem. Again, it’s not guilt or innocence, it’s simple proactive prevention. Or is it because you support their beliefs that your OK with their being awarded the contracts.

It’s the appearance on impropriety… that’s my point.

Posted by: tony at May 4, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #145413

looks like a rat, smells like a rat…must be a rat. Is that your argument tony?

Posted by: b0mbay at May 4, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #145419

Looks like a rat, smells like a rat… better not hire it to guard my cheese.

Posted by: tony at May 4, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #145421

tony:

I agree with you about the appearance of impropriety. Sometimes even just the appearance can taint the process.

However, my intial comments—and yours too—were as a result of David Remer’s statement: ” In 2004 the machines were set to produce a 15% margin favor for Republicans.” That’s not a statement about appearance of impropriety, but rather a statement about impropriety itself.

If you are saying that the use of Diebold looked bad, but really had no impact, then I’m with you all the way. That’s a long way from the “Diebold stole the election” kind of statements that many are making.

I’m much more in favor of dealing in the truth, rather than appearances. To paraphrase Andre Agassi, “image isn’t everything”.


bombay:

Forgive me, for I have sinned. But please give credit to tony for understanding, clarifying and accepting the truth of the matter, rather than simply arguing against it. Many would not have had the character to do that.

I shall sin again as needed. :P

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at May 4, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #145424

JBD -

I guess it would be very similar to allowing George Soros to get the bid on the next round of voting machines.

Just imagine - you loose that next election, and there are quite a few oddities with the results, but no one proves anything. OK, so no one goes to jail, but that’s not going to settle resentment over the voting process… and just imagine if it was simply a case of getting away with rigging the election rather than just having the election looking tainted. I just don’t like that kind of process.

I have the same issues with Haliburton for that matter. More so for Haliburton, because it’s been proven that they have been fraudulent.

Posted by: tony at May 4, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #145439

Tony - touche. point taken.

Joe, discussing a topic sure is easier when people take their head out of the sand and the blinders off. Sin away my friend.

Thanks for the spirited debate.

Posted by: b0mbay at May 4, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #145448


I would like to go back to voting machines for a minute. In Ohio, not all voting machines are the same. On the democratic web site there was a article about voter rage. A man had turned a voting machine over in the floor. The machines in the picture were the touch screen type. You touch on the candidate of choice and the computer counts your vote-no paper trail.

Where I voted, we had large cardboard ballots. (ABOUT 14” BY 8”) Each candidate has a large oval by the name. With a pencil you color in the oval by the candidate you want to vote for. When you are finished, you take your card over to a large box like machine, place your card up to the opening and the machine sucks it in. If there is a challenge to the results, the large ballots can be counted by hand. Much better.

Posted by: jlwilliams at May 4, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #145508

Walker,

I lean left (even more so since I’ve seen what the right has done over the last 8 years) but I’ll never blindly vote for a party as a whole over an individual. I have voted across party lines on several occassions. Sometimes due to ethics or actions of one of the candidates but more often than not due to what I think the candidate will do for the country. Lately, I’m looking for some good old fiscal conservatives. There are obviously very few on the right. They like to talk a good game…check their record…hell, check out the national debt.

I think blindly voting for a party is against the progressive way of thinking. If one truly wants to be progressive one makes an enlighted decision based on individuals rather than parties. There’s been some pretty rotten democrats elected to congress in the past just like there exist many now that are republicans. make an enlightened decision based on issues or records….not party. Look beyond what is said…I think that is why we are where we are now…we listed to the s%it that the right spewed over the last decade. You know, stuff like, “we’ll make the government smaller”, “We’ll cut goverment spending”…..

Posted by: Tom L at May 4, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #145526

Tom,

I don’t think you will find many that can disagree with your statement (i I lean way to the right fiscally - more middle of the road on social issues - I live in San Francisco after all…)

Fact of the matter is, most people that would be voting democrat in the 60s are conservative today. The left leaning libs of today are mostly socialist/communist. And who knows what happened to the conservatives. Im all for compassionate conservatism, but when that changes your whole ideology, what have you really become? I truly feel tht both parties are one and the same - with the exception of those on the fringe on both sides.

What happened to the good old days when you could tell red from blue and an ass from an elephant??? I guess the only question left is what to call them (democans or republicrats).

Posted by: b0mbay at May 4, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #145533

Well stated bOmbay….I find something we agree upon to a “T”.

BTW, I’m neither socialist nor communist

Posted by: Tom L at May 4, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #145542

Tom L,

My bias for CONGRESSIONAL voting has absolutely nothing to do with blind partisanship, but with a sober understanding of the way our government works. I too have crossed party lines, and will continue to do so for many races, such as statewide officeholders in my state of Washington. But one member of the House of Representatives is far less significant than which party has the majority there. Far too few Congressional Districts are swing districts, so those that are become very significant for the national picture.

Allow me to explain with a specific example. In 2004 my belief was that Tom DeLay was a extraordinarily corrupt politician with far too much influence nationally, but I don’t live in DeLay’s district. Say I live in a swing district and the Republican is some reasonable fellow like Leach of Iowa, and the Democrat is a demagogic mouthpiece who shows little evidence of independent thought or compassion. I will likely have a much higher opinion personally of the Republican, and it will rankle me to vote for the less honorable candidate, but I would do it because my district just might be the one which changes party control of the whole body. If one vote in one district caused the House to switch parties that changes the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader (DeLay), and the Chairmanships of every committee, not to mention who controls the rules et cetera, and so on. I might be sorry that one of the 435 Congresspeople is less honorable than would otherwise be the case, but removing one-party control of our government is far more significant.

Sicilian Eagle (if you’re still around),

It certainly appears that you didn’t bother to really read my post. The collection of Democrats and celebrities which you list is certainly neither silent nor representative of a majority. No, I’m talking about the majority of Americans who are cynical about politicians generally, very possibly don’t vote, and may be anything from conservative to liberal. Most are neither fans of Bush nor of Ted Kennedy. Sadly establishing an electoral majority in this country is a very different phenomenon than winning the hearts and minds of the populace at large.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at May 5, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #145565

“The left leaning libs of today are mostly socialist/communist.”

Bombay,

That’s total BS. I’m extremely liberal when it comes to humanitarian issues. How does that make me socialist or communist? The true conservative simply believes that if they have all the food they should be able to eat what they want and then force the poor to grovel for the rest.

The neo-con would piss on the leftovers before anyone else got any just because he could. Then he would still try to convince you that you were blessed to recieve his gift. So, who’s the communist?

Maybe I am somewhat socialist if that means I believe there is enough food in the world to feed the world, and there is enough manufacturing capability to produce the drugs and vaccines to protect and cure most of the people in this world.

I’m almost surely socialist because I believe we all have a responsibility to help our fellow man as much as we can. That is if being a socialist means you care about society and not just how many Platinum cards you carry in your wallet.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at May 5, 2006 2:26 AM
Comment #145567

Walker: What an excellent post! Thank you.

ohio: Ditto, and: Noshit.


Which brings me to this:

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O’Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O’Dell’s company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.


[voice of Joe Lieberman (or Droopy, take your pick)]

“Oh dear!” [handwringining] “There’s already been a Coup d’Etat and now it looks like there might be another one…” [more handwringing] “I wonder, whatever shall we do!?”

[dropkicks Droopy and most of the spineless wretches trying to be “Republican-Lite” into the next county]

Well, for a start, you could grow some f#&king B@!!s, you lily-livered, limp-wristed, milktoast-easting despicable excuse for WORMS. And prepare for a Goddamned Trench Fight - if that’s the way the Regressives want it!

Jesus! I’m JustAGurl® and I have more cajones than these wriggling, softly-whining pukes who are “questioning the Propriety” of letting the God Damned Nazis take over once and for all! In Broad Daylight no less!!!

Y’know, they raise better Men in Ireland. They may get dhrunk; they may fight and sing and carouse: but By God They Stand Up And Fight when pushed into a corner by Jackals in Suits and Uniforms.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE DNC?????

We gave you a Stand Up Screaming Manic Coffee-Achiever to lead the way out of the “we got beat” malaise - WHY DON’T YOU LISTEN TO HIM?!?!?

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 5, 2006 2:30 AM
Comment #145570


This is the richest nation on Earth bar none. As a matter of fact it’s richer than just about any 10 nations put together. And yet, poverty persists. It must be intentional.

Posted by: jlw at May 5, 2006 2:45 AM
Comment #145644

betty - yes that makes you a socialist.

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

We have fundamentally different views on how an INDIVIDUAL can contribute to his or her own wealth.

jlw - just because i go out and make a living does not mean that I am taking food out of the mouths of anyone else. Everyone should be responsible for their own welfare.

Posted by: b0mbay at May 5, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #145779

bOmbay, (re: the definition of socialism that you gave)
perhaps maoist rebels in nepal still believe in government ownership and planning of the economy. i do not know of anyone else who believes in state ownership, and i’m not even sure about those maoists.
european union ‘socialist’ parties, for example, do not espouse the definition you gave concerning the production and distribution of goods, (as all eu countries have always been free market economies, and no party is arguing, or to my recollection has ever argued, differently.
they concentrate on programs that benefit society. in this context they call themselves socialist.
some programs like the national health service in britain are in need of revamping, but there is nothing that stops any briton from taking out health insurance, or from going to a doctor in harley street.
health care costs are not through the roof, even if you are paying for it out of your own pocket, and they do not have millions of people who receive medical care that amounts to nearly zero.
the latest really serious complaint i know of concerning a court case against the british national health service, was over an extremely expensive breast cancer medicine that the health service wasn’t providing, but the woman involved won the case.
is there anything wrong in stressing the need for healthy and educated citizens?
by the way, by way of another european manifestation of ‘socialism,’ a main priority of the norwegian government is, of all things, child care!
imagine, those stupid ‘socialist’ norwegians are promoting programs that directly benefit families, women even, at public expense!!!!
would you enroll them on a list as candidates for the looney bin? if you choose do so, consider the fact that norway, yet again, has been ranked as the best country in the world regarding its standard of living.
think about it.
with more ‘social’ programs to benefit working mothers we might even have a sustainable birth rate. perhaps we would not have an aging population. perhaps we would not be in need of unassimilabe aliens who do not share our core values and who might even have their own political agendas.
is child care ‘socialist’ baloney?
perhaps. maybe we should just let women keep fending for themselves. after all every woman, like any person, is responsible for her own welfare. but as women are not stupid, they of course, have fewer children. forget about the intrinsic necessity of motherhood to the survival of any society. any kind of help smacks of ‘socialism,’ to you, does it not?

Posted by: kme at May 5, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #145794

b0mbay:

What are you Smoking? Will you send me some?

What on earth that I posted in this thread has to do with Socialism or Capitalism?!? I wrote about the lame Democratic Response to Vote-Rigging by Republicans.

Oh, by the way: I am a Liberal, Progressive, Democratic-Socialist - and proudly so!

And your definition of Socialism is about 50 Years out of date.

:oD

(Which is only natural for a Conservative Regressive - building a bridge to the 19th Century!)

Here, look at the Top Ten rankings of the current Quality Of Life Index:

1.) Norway
2.) Iceland
3.) Australia
4.) Luxembourg
5.) Canada
6.) Sweden
7.) Switzerland
8.) Ireland
9.) Belgium
10.) United States

Wowee! Look at all those Heavily Socialised countries at the Top - and where’s the Younited States Of Amurrrika, with our progressive Death Penalty and our Creationist Curricula and our Evil Satanic Stem-Cells? Hey, whaddya know:

We’re Number Ten! We’re Number Ten! We’re Number Ten!

And falling…

:o0

What to do? What to do?!

Gee, maybe we better consider Socialising

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 5, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #145799

Yeah!

Posted by: Marysdude at May 5, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #145849

Here’s the thing. Democratic party candidates, as is seen in Hillary, go with the votes, and against Republicans. She is for a fence, but she didn’t come out with that view point until after the polls showed that WE the People favored one. Bush may be, and is misguided in some endeavors, I think his spending is ridiculous, and he’s dead wrong on the ILLEGAL immigration issue, but he makes decisions based upon reason, not poles.
Second, Democratic policies just don’t make sense. Poverty is NOT growing it’s down to historic lows, when you take things like WELFARE into account, it’s something like 5%. The Stock Market is at 6 year, that means when Clinton was in office, highs. Bush’s policies are working, but he can’t do good, because he’s a republican. Unemployment is DOWN. More people are buying homes, can an impoverished person or household buy a home? So if more people are buying homes, doesn’t that mean more people can afford them? and if more people can afford them, how is the wealth gap growing?

you democrats….you just don’t think.

Posted by: Bo at May 6, 2006 6:13 AM
Comment #145949

First, as for “poverty at historic lows,” why don’t you ask a Poor Person about that? Your “facts” are blatantly incorrect, and Real Wages are declining, as anybody who watches anything other than Faux “News” knows. Watch Lou Dobbs - he’s right with you on the Immigration thing, and he’s a bona fide Economist as well. Get your Facts straight.

Second, with regard to Unemployment: you do realise, don’t you, that once a person’s Unemployment “Benefits” run out, they are no longer counted in the rolls, don’t you? I thought not. They simply Vanish, like a Salvadoran Family during the Reagan Presidency, into Thin Statistical Air - even though the Real Human Beings continue to Exist On, for a while, at least…

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 6, 2006 9:33 PM
Post a comment