Worried Democrats

The left ran out of ideas in 1968. Since then, free marketers have owned the world of ideas while the left kept its tired old nostrums alive only by animating them with anger and identity politics. Smart Dems know this. Effective Democrats have been of the DLC “market” variety. But now, fueled by Bush hatred, the left is on the march. Long leftward lurches end in graveyards or rubbish heaps and Dems must be careful not to be pulled into the vortex or vitriol yawning on their left.

The left never liked Bill Clinton (and they really do not like Hillary). Some actually wept when he supported NAFTA & welfare reform. Clinton's foreign policy was designed to make the world safe for American trade and investment. That is why you never see me write anything particularly bad about Bill Clinton. Smart Dems know that it takes a conservative Dem to win.

Democrats fielded conservative candidates the 2006 races. In my home state the winning Democratic senator is a proud gun owner who was Ronald Reagan’s navy secretary, openly praises the warrior culture and in a speech at the Confederate Memorial referenced his ancestor who rode with Nathan Bedford Forrest. The only thing he has in common with the average leftist Dem is a dislike of President Bush.

The transition from Bush hatred to Republican hatred will be hard in 2008. In 2006, Dems ran against George Bush, no matter who their official opponent. They will try to run against him again in 2008, but it will not be so easy. And will the lefty Dems accept more righty Dems when the money and energy comes from the left?

The electability lies on the right side of the Democratic Party; the energy and cash lies on the left. This is the danger for not only the Dems but for all of us. I expect most of the blog Dems here will not share my apprehension, since the netroots are leftroots, but I believe that this could take us through another cycle of fear and loathing when what we really need is to pull toward the center.

I have a theory about the left/right politics. I think we are still paying the price for the 1960s, but my theory is not the hippie/jock paradigm. The Kennedy assassination pushed the American electorate too far into the Dem camp. Johnson was elected by a landslide. This great victory made him arrogant. He pushed too far to the left in domestic politics and felt overconfident in Vietnam. The reaction pushed us to the right. Nixon won with a landslide in 1972 and his great victory made him arrogant. Two years later, Republicans were humbled and in 1976 we elected a strange peanut farmer who really screwed up. This brought on the Reagan revolution. Reagan was reelected by a landslide in 1984. He passed the mantel to Bush I, but the revolution ran out of steam and the country was divided. Nobody got a majority of the American vote in 1992, 1996 or 2000. Three elections in a row w/o the majority of Americans behind any candidate. The camps had solidified. Bush did not even manage to win a plurality in 2000, as Dems gleefully point out. We might have settled into an equilibrium, but then came 9/11 and started the whole swing in motion again. Bush's popularity swung from 70% to 30%. Here we go again.

In any case, the best qualified candidates for president are Bill Richardson and Tommy Thompson. Neither has a chance. But if the Dems can resist the leftward lurch maybe we can have a race between two decent candidates.

If the current front runners compete, it will be an interesting race. Hilary is polarizing, but she might have become a moderate. Our guy Giuliani will beat her, but maybe we can dispense with some of the hatred. Both these candidates live in glass houses, so maybe they will not be so enthusiastic about flinging stones. Of course right now I really have no idea who either party will nominate. Maybe we will get Kucinich v Brownback and American can stop being a serious country.

Posted by Jack at April 30, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #218896

LOL! Good article, Jack. I enjoyed it.

The electability lies on the right side of the Democratic Party; the energy and cash lies on the left. This is the danger for not only the Dems but for all of us. I expect most of the blog Dems here will not share my apprehension

I was worried about that too, but as long as the polls show Hillary and Obama (both moderates) leading — and kicking everybody’s butt in fundraising — our apprehension is unwarranted.

The day Kucinich scores more than 5% nationally in the Democratic primaries, I leave the party.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 30, 2007 11:36 PM
Comment #218906

This country was witness to unparalleled Republican arrogrance these last 6 years. They supported him, chuckled with him, lied with him, and ran rampant with him over our countries laws and institutions. I do not just blame Bush for our state of affairs, and I hardly think I am alone.

When Clinton moved center, the right moved to extremism. They claimed they knew all the answers, and could do everything better. To mollify moderates they made up syrupy lies about “compassionate conservatism” and “no nation building”. Then they came to power they screwed this country but good. It was clear these NeoCon ideas never had any credibility in the first place. It was clear the Republican party was the party of ineptitude, big spending, poor management, and lack of respect for anyone or anything other than their own twisted far right ideas.

And the bluster never stops does it? I’ve been waiting to see when a Republican like yourself would start admitting that war was a poorly planned bad idea or that Bush is not a fantastic leader. But it will never happen. Today’s Republicans view everything through a warped looking glass that does not show mistakes or middleground of any kind. Just like the hippies of old who thought love and peace were the answer to everything, today’s conservatives are locked into a far right ideology that keeps them sadly out of step with reality.

And I think the country knows it.

Posted by: Max at May 1, 2007 1:33 AM
Comment #218910

“The left ran out of ideas in 1968.”

Ageism again Jack?

Come on. If you believe this you than belive anyone born after 1968, who is of a leftist philosophy, has never had one original good idea. This really is offensive. This really is offensive. This really is offensive.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at May 1, 2007 3:25 AM
Comment #218911

Jack, the size of government and taxes has grown considerably since 1968 and it was your own party that added the biggest welfare program since the 1960’s in the Medicare Rx Drug plan, at maximum cost to the taxpayer, I might add, since it was formed by the pharmaceutical industry leaders and lobbyists.

The left did lose their way, but, free marketers have done nothing to end social programs in our nation since the 1960’s save to help Democrats see the wisdom of tying welfare to effort in the Clinton Administration.

But, now it is the GOP which has lost its way. And been given the boot as a result. If America had a no-confidence vote for Bush and Cheney, they too would be history. So, while you remorse over the loss of the GOP’s role as leaders in government, and sad state of the Left having lost its way since the 1960’s, you may want to take note that the American people believe the Left may have finally gotten the reality training they needed because in 2008, they will be in complete control again thanks to the Right having become the greater of two evils.

Democracy always smarts when your majority suddenly finds itself a minority again. Now for the long GOP exile in the wilderness of trying to come to grips with the reality that the voters are neither as gullible nor as sheepish as those on the Right assumed they were.

But, before you wallow in self-pity, try wearing the shoes of a third party supporter in America. Now, there are some true American political heroes, pressuring and shaping policy without ever having power in government.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 1, 2007 3:35 AM
Comment #218912


The war was poorly planned and poorly executed. If I knew today what I know now, I would not have supported it. Bush is not a fantastic leader. His inarticulateness has hurt him, his party and the country. He has been to loyal to failing subordinates and he has chosen friends and loyalists rather than the best people possible on some occassions. These are the failings of a man.

He (and people like me) overreached in Iraq. We did it for decent reasons based on what most people believed at the time and what we though was best for America’s long term security. All decsions are made with incomplete and sometimes incorrect information and not everything succeeds. The Bush presidency will largely have been a failure.

A loss in Iraq has the potential to be catastrophic. I think Dems are missing the point on this one. They talk about how poorly the war was executed. They are to an extent right. But that is history. We face a situation on the ground today that has consequences for tomorrow. Our decision should focus only on what is the best next move, not would have been the best last move.

Bush’s biggest domestic failure was his inability to pass SS reform. In that failure, the Democrats were not only complicit, but were the cause. All Americans will pay for Bush’s weakness and Democrats duplicity.

I suspect that we see the past in somewhat similar fashion. We interpret the causes differently and we propose different solutions.


Yes. Can you think of one big idea that doesn’t a rehash of some old war on poverty program? All the new ideas have to do with using market mechanisms to affect behaviors and choices. The left (NOT all democrats BTW. They are not exactly the same) has opposed this. They even opposed welfare reform (and some still do).


Yes. Nixon enacted many of the rules we now suffer under. He is largely responsible for affirmative action as we now know it. He thought it proper to impose price controls. Just as all Democrats do not behave as leftists in power, all Republicans do not support free market solutions. The Clinton Administration sometimes did a good job on free market. That is what you have heard me say on many occasions. Growing government spending was the biggest sin of the Republicans in the last six years and they Republicans in congress paid the political price. I hope the chastisement will bring them home.

I feel sorry for you third party guys. You play a important role in helping frame the debate, but you have no chance of taking power. There are lots of things about Republicans I do not like. I buy the package because it is practical. In a third party, you give up practical accomplishment because you will not compromise. I can see the logic, but I do not accept the consequence of acting on it.

Re the left - the left cannot be functional until it adopts the market mechanism. When it does that, it becomes like Tony Blair or Rasmussen in Denmark. That is okay, but it has become practical, not leftist.

Posted by: Jack at May 1, 2007 7:56 AM
Comment #218914


You say that a “loss in Iraq would be catastrophic”. Could you define “loss”, please? I hate to get snippy, but when people use jargon usually reserved for sports to describe situations where people are dying, I get a bit disgustipated. Thousands of American soldiers have already “lost”, tens of thousands of Iraqis have already “lost”, and by using this term, you imply that there is a way to “win” Iraq. There isn’t. We walked in and set off a 1500 year old powderkeg that was only being held in check by a control-freak dictator psycho. This Humpdy-Dumpty isn’t going back together, no matter how many king’s horses and men we throw at it. The question that must be asked instead is “what is best for Iraqis” not “what is best for American interests”.


Posted by: leatherankh at May 1, 2007 8:30 AM
Comment #218915


If you are implying that Bill Clinton was a conservative, you forget that he ran on universal healthcare and gays in the military. People like to claim that the Democratic Party has been taken over the the left-wing fringe, but it is really almost the opposite. Gore was no more left-wing than Clinton, and Kerry was no more left-wing than Gore in his campaign.

The left never liked Bill Clinton.

I don’t think this is true. Consider MoveOn, the organization you guys like to say epitomize the left-wing “nutroots”. They started to keep Clinton from getting impeached.

It is true that the left opposed certain of his policies, but there was never personal animosity. The left may disagree with the Clintons, but it is conservative Republicans who really “hate” them, to use your favorite word.

Posted by: Woody Mena at May 1, 2007 8:44 AM
Comment #218917


If you say it enough, then it must be true.

That’s been the mantra of the conservative movement built by Grover Norquist & Richard Viguerie over the last 35 years, and you’re falling right in line.

Championing the market as the “be all-end all” is every bit as tired and failed as the leftist’s ideological attachment to a socialist state and nationalization of all industry.

Sure the untethered market can drive a lot of economic activity and generate displays of great affluence, but at whose expense. Real moderates have a healthy distrust of both economic systems, and a willingness to experiment with aspects of both to mitigate the excesses of the other. Johnson’s Great Society, imperfect as it was, brought real opportunity to millions, and the remnants of his programs and those of FDR continue to be relied upon by millions in this country to keep them above water.

The problem in ANY system is really about power. Your side’s love affair with the market has resulted in an abdication of government’s responsibility to govern in favor of just letting the market big corporations decide on the rules. In fact we’re moving away from a real market economy to one of big corporate control. 28 years of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, & Bush have cemented the power of industry leaders inside the government.

Many European nations have real mixed economies, and they’re not perfect either. But somebody like Kucinich, who is mocked as a leftist here, would be practically centrist there. Kucinich is hardly a socialist, but in an environment where corporate control of everything is our greatest danger, his talking points and mine SOUND socialist to the ears of those who have been listening to the corporate media and the free marketeer talking points regurgitated over and over for decades on end.

Your guys have done an excellent job of framing the debate and controlling the message. Such a good job that the Clintons and the DLC who look an awfully lot like the conservative parties of Europe, have become the main face of the Democratic Party here. My great hope is that someone like Obama who sounds like a moderate, can actually BE a moderate, and help return America to the balance she so sorely needs.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at May 1, 2007 9:10 AM
Comment #218918


I could take your post seriously if you could actually mention some policy issues of the left that faded after 1968. You write Johnson “pushed too far to the left in domestic politics.” Take health care. That started with Johnson (Medicare anbd Medicaid), and a majority of Americans now favor it in some form national health insurance. But raise the issue in any forum and a chorus of ads from the private insurers scare people with BS about government doctors (which, BTW, are fine for our fighting men and women).

As for candidates mentioned, you ignore that the Democrats had great candidates in 1968 (Bobby Kennedy) and 1976 (Hubert Humphrey) who were virtually assured of the nominations. Kennedy was killed and Humphrey did not run (in 76) because of cancer (he died in early 1978). Both were skilled legislators and extremely popular nationally (Humphrey’s stature rose once Vietnam was behind). And both would have continued Johnson’s domestic agenda.

Posted by: Steve K at May 1, 2007 9:10 AM
Comment #218921


What is with the title? Do you really believe that Democrats are worried?

I’m not seeing it. Republicans are far more nervous about 2008 than Democrats, and for good reason.

Posted by: Woody Mena at May 1, 2007 9:34 AM
Comment #218922

I like some of the article, some, well I will leave it at that.

Problem with either party is that the best person does not always run, because now days it is how much money you have in your war chest, and how much TV time you can aquire. It is not longer what is best for the country, but what is best for the party and those that support it, be it individuals or business. Once they give you money you are holding to them.

Both sides need to get off the I am better then you and the trash talk, and start talking about what should be done for the country. Make hard choices that might make party members mad, but overall is good for the country.

On Clinton, people complain that he signed NAFTA, which is true but it actually started with Bush I, and even though I was/am against NAFTA, I am for welfare reform, stop giving away the money, and send all the illegals back to where they came from. (hey it’s May day, now is the time for BP/Immgr. to get them)

Posted by: KT at May 1, 2007 9:40 AM
Comment #218925

Faint hearted critcism of Bushco. He failed because he is inarticulate? Please.Bush hatred? No,neo-con hatred. I hope they are purged like Baathist in Iraq. Rooted out like communist in the Cold War.”Are you now or ever been a member of the Heritage Foundation?”
His greatest failure was not being able to steal trillions from SS for his Wall Street cronies? That damned left wing. Do not just blame the Dems. Also blame the left wing extremist of the AARP who foolishly came to the defense of the greatest,most successful and efficient social program in history.

Posted by: BillS at May 1, 2007 10:42 AM
Comment #218926
The war was poorly planned and poorly executed. If I knew today what I know now, I would not have supported it.

You could have just listened to me and saved yourself a lot of grief. In fact, you could listen to me now and support the change of tactics in Iraq spelled out in the funding bill, and the change of strategy that includes a “soft” partition as spelled out by Sen. Biden.

…But what do I know, I haven’t had a new idea since I was three. ;)

Posted by: American Pundit at May 1, 2007 10:53 AM
Comment #218928

I am afraid that it is the Right that has imploded. The country took a geniune lurge to the left after the November 2006 elections, and the Republicans are going to be in the minority status for awhile to come, especially after the census in 2010 and congressional re-districting.

The Republicans run back to the picture of Ronald Reagan everytime they get into electoral trouble. Reagan is no longer a role-model, he is an icon. The 1980’s are now history and they must confront a new world wityh new ideas.

Unfortuneately, it is the Democrats that are on the march. The Republicans, at least with George W. in the White House, don’t have a clue to which direction to follow. They are the ones lost in the wilderness, and will be for sometime to come.

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

Posted by: Danny L. McDaniel at May 1, 2007 11:00 AM
Comment #218930

As it relates to Walker Willingham’s comments, “Johnson’s Great Society, imperfect as it was, brought real opportunity to millions, and the remnants of his programs and those of FDR continue to be relied upon by millions in this country to keep them above water”

Above water at what cost? Above water for the sake of never having to learn how to swim. I often reflect on our welfare system being not much different than feeding pigeons in the park. For thousands of years those pigeons had to find food. Fast forward to modern day Central Park. Pigeons just wait for the handout.

The welfare system has failed it’s constituency, those people who truely grasp the concept of rugged individualism and are just victims of poor timing and circumstance. Those hard workers feel a sense of shame for having to use the system and this should not be the case!

The majority of the system is now made up of people who have figured out how to take advantage of it and countless numbers of people who are not legally here, or paying into the system, yet get to take advantage of it.

As long as the social saftey net is so accessible, the growing number of people who will not bother to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and take responsibility for their own place in this great republic will grow. Generations have known nothing but handouts, that is the real tragedy. The tragedy in never knowing what one is capable of because there is a system in place that rewards a lack of effort.

Posted by: sambeauregard at May 1, 2007 11:05 AM
Comment #218933
Above water for the sake of never having to learn how to swim.

So… Nobody in America over the age of 65 ever learned how to swim? BS.

The majority of the system is now made up of people who have figured out how to take advantage of it

Any proof of that sam? Again, pure BS. Speaking of lazy, let me know if you ever bother to get hold of a fact.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 1, 2007 11:24 AM
Comment #218937


Here is tongue in cheek approach to the ‘08 presidential election.

Have Bush and Cheney resign from their offices. Then Polosi would be president. After a year and a half the republicans would be a shoooooo in for the presidency.

Posted by: tomh at May 1, 2007 12:07 PM
Comment #218939

Got news for ya Jack. The Democrats aint the only ones that’s run out of ideas.
The Republicans ran out of them right about the same time the Democrats did.
That’s why there aint a dimes difference between either party. Can’t have differences without ideas.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 1, 2007 12:23 PM
Comment #218940

“The left ran out of ideas in 1968” ??????
“Since then freemarketers…”

Jack your post is confused and delusional.

There is NOTHING about the righ that is remotely free-market.
The right is lying it’s ass off while suppressing the ideas of the left.

Posted by: RGF at May 1, 2007 12:24 PM
Comment #218952


YOU are worried about Democrats? That’s a switch. Don’t you have more reason to worry about Republicans? They went so far right that they are now falling off the cliff.

But then, you are worried. You are afraid that somebody on the “LEFT” will win. It does not matter who wins, even if he or she is a Republican, the winner will be to the “LEFT” of the current Republican Party.

I don’t know why you worry so much about the “LEFT.” You use a lot of logic - until you think of the “LEFT.” Please substitute some logic for “LEFT” bashing.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at May 1, 2007 2:22 PM
Comment #218953

As novelist George Higgins puts it: “Politics is the choice of enamas.”

Posted by: Danny L. McDaniel at May 1, 2007 2:40 PM
Comment #218957


Thanks for saying that the war was poorly planned and executed and that Bush is not a fantastic leader, though I would disagree with you that he made his decisions based on all the available information. I believe he fixed the facts around his decision, and I think that’s criminal.

I agree with you that our withdrawing from Iraq will have consequences, but the burden is on this administration to prove the surge is working and outline what exactly the consequences could be. All I’ve seen from the administration is Bush asking the people to trust him. In wartime I would normally trust a president implicitly, but Bush has used up his credibility.

If Bush wants people to get behind the surge he needs to build a convincing case. I’m not holding my breath.

Posted by: Max at May 1, 2007 3:12 PM
Comment #218960

Total Free Market Capitalism is evil in its consequences for workers and unemployed. Total Socialism is evil in its consequences in giving a few in power ownership of the product of everyone’s labor.

Thankfully, in America we have neither, and will have neither. In America, as in all major industrial or technological nations in the world, we have what is known as a Mixed Economy, in which Free Markets are not entirely free of regulation and oversight (thank Buddha), and social policy is bounded by the limits of the taxpayers and concepts of private property upheld in law, as well as the need for competitive advantage in an international marketplace.

Differing nations have differing ratios of the mix, and within those nations debate is constant over what the right mix is. This is important to remember when the extremists of socialism or capitalism tout eliminating the mix for one extreme or the other. For the absence of a mixed economy which preserves the value of the lowliest individual while protecting the valuables of the wealthiest, results in evils that lead to revolution and civil war.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 1, 2007 4:02 PM
Comment #218983


The free market includes rule of law, reasonable regulation and the market mechanism.

I cannot think of any country that touted “pure” capitalism. The term itself tends to be the domain of leftists and academics (and Forbes).

The danger is often that “capitalists” use to government to subvert the free market. Somebody like JP Morgan or John D. Rockefeller were no friends of the free market. They wanted it controlled and regulated on their terms.

No matter how powerful a firm becomes, it really cannot compell you to do anything unless government colludes.

Posted by: Jack at May 1, 2007 9:12 PM
Comment #219014

Wow! Good defense of government rgulation, Jack. Thanks!

Posted by: American Pundit at May 2, 2007 12:17 AM
Comment #219018

Jack said,

“Our guy Giuliani will beat her,…” Umm, have you listened to Giuliani lately? He sounds just like W regarding the played out “Democrats will get us attacked” and to an electorate that is profoundly tired of W I don’t think he wants to sound like him. And as ambivalent as I am about Hillary, she can handle herself as well as any candidate and certainly better than Rudy.

Of all the candidates it is Hillary and Barrack who are surprising me. I don’t think either is the most qualified but politics is the art of the possible and that is what getting elected is about after all. Romney is a true flip-flopper and the religious right is not ready(ever) to elect a Mormon. McCain courted the Bush campaign regime too forcefully and now looks like the supporter of a failed presidency, no longer the straight talking Maverick. Giuliani looks like a disaster waiting to happen once people get to know him better. Richardson and Biden are smart and practical with plenty of experience but woefully uninspiring. Biden in particular took his candicacy from the basement to buried alive with his Barrack statements.

Don’t underestimate the legacy of W on the next election either. Democrats will likely further their hold on both houses. They certainly are not going to elect a president who reminds them of the disaster of W.

Posted by: chris2x at May 2, 2007 1:42 AM
Comment #219031


I repeat my mantra re the free market regularly. You cannot have a free market w/o the rule of law, since you cannot plan or protect contracts. Reasonable regulation keeps the big boys from grabbing all the marbles, but the regulation should be for those economic - not social - reasons.

Posted by: Jack at May 2, 2007 8:10 AM
Comment #219033

From a Worried Republican, Bruce Bartlett in the National Review:

As each day passes, it becomes increasingly clear that the Democrats will win the White House next year. It’s not quite 1932, but it’s getting close to a sure thing. All the energy is on their side, they are raising more money from more contributors, and there is little if any enthusiasm for the Republican candidates — even among Republicans.

His conclusion is that Republicans should embrace Hillary Clinton.


Posted by: Woody Mena at May 2, 2007 8:52 AM
Comment #219066

Dems worried? Not likely Jack. Actually I can not remember when it felt so good to be a dem. The catastrophic implosion of republican character in the eyes of american voters has all but insured a comfortable future for dems. As I have said before republicans broke and lost the trust. Rebuilding that trust is a very time consuming endeavor. People do not like to feel used or looked down on as a subserviant class to those in charge. It is that arrogance that the last legislature and this administration so blatantly exhibited that so very much turns the stomachs of the american people. You folks have a lot of confidence building to do. And so far you are still going deeper into the hole of distrust. At this point in time the trust belongs to the dems, it is theirs to lose. All you guys can do is hope the dems blow it.

Posted by: ILdem at May 2, 2007 2:05 PM
Comment #219080


I’m with you. I trust the dems. I trust them to continue to screw up what they inherited from what the reps screwed up. Neither party has integrity—absolutely none. They are just there for the power and glory and money. What we need is for people to run on a platform to support and defend the US Constitution. None of those in office carry out their oath of office worthy of even a wooden nickle.

Posted by: tomh at May 2, 2007 2:54 PM
Comment #219103


“You cannot have a free market w/o the rule of law…”

That’s a pretty amusing statement, considering the Bush administration and the lap-dog Republican Congress did more to deregulate, eviscerate, and generally stomp on any governmental oversight of corporate capitalism for the last six-plus years. When that didn’t work, they made sure the foxes were in charge of the hen house at the FCC, FEMA, OSHA, NLRB, FDA, the SEC and just about any governmental agency that could possibly throw a monkey wrench into the laizze faire free-for-all we laughingly label ‘the free market.’ On the few occasions when that didn’t work, they bought off Congress. Presto! Democracy in the guise of a floozy prostitute with just a tad too much make-up and a few pounds too heavy.

Not to mention the simple fact that the GOP and the neo-cons have made a mockery of ‘the rule of law.’

As Robert Jensen has said, capitalism is inhuman, anti-democratic, and unsustainable. Other than that, it’s a wonderful way to consolidate power for the few and make wage slaves and fools of the rest.

What the Right has been absolutely brilliant at in the last thirty years is convincing the American citizen that any other way of organizing an economy is insane, ridiculous, totaling out of the question—like criticizing the air we breathe. The American worker, and the Middle Class in general, is starting to smell a rat.

But nothing will be done about it until the upper Middle Class starts suffering. That prerequisite may come sooner than any of us think. Stay tuned.

Posted by: Tim Crow at May 2, 2007 5:59 PM
Comment #219116

Tim Crow

You keep referring to the classes in this country and using the dollar sign in shaping your argument. This is a bogus basis for an economical argument. This country is supposed to be a class-less society. Nobody holds the rank above the rank of citizen. Therefore from your statements above it sounds more like a socialist approach to an economic situation. Socialism has never been successful over the long term. So there has to be a different solution to those aches and pains and suffering you refer to. Robert jensen has given you a crutch to lean on. He is really not a very good reference for an economic belief structure.

Posted by: tomh at May 2, 2007 7:13 PM
Comment #219118

“This country is supposed to be a class-less society. Nobody holds the rank above the rank of citizen. “

What unmitigated nonsense!

Posted by: Tim Crow at May 2, 2007 7:38 PM
Comment #219121

Tim Crow

If that is nonsense, what is your rank?

Posted by: tomh at May 2, 2007 8:01 PM
Comment #219148


The working people in America are doing just fine and have been for the last 30 years. The lower 20% of the U.S. population is not doing so well but they generally are not working, so you cannot call them the working class even if you believe in classes.

Posted by: Jack at May 2, 2007 10:23 PM
Comment #219214

Jack: I don’t think Democrats need to be worried when the WH is announcing their support for hate crimes. Sort of the Monica Goodling approach to life.

I’m still trying to figure out where the 1st amendment (speech & religion) plus the 14th amendment becomes a license to murder people.

By WH standards, it should be open season on GOPers.

I guess Dubya needs to throw out a few scraps to appease the bigots who “brung” him and whom he has subsequently bent over the Oval Office desk without even the benefit of a little vaseline.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at May 3, 2007 12:01 PM
Comment #219488


“Desperate for a Mideast breakthrough, Palestinian, Jordanian and Israeli academics and officials have begun secret talks on forging a confederation between Jordan and a future Palestine, ABC News has learned.
According to the plan, Jordan would assume future security responsibility over the West Bank and perhaps Gaza alongside the Palestinians — possibly facilitating the declaration of Palestinian independence before President Bush leaves office.
The three sides reason that Israel is more likely to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state with a Jordanian guarantee that a future Palestine will not rise up against it.”
ABC News

So much for Bush’s War on Terror accomplishing nothing! If Bush accomplishes peace in the Middle East, Democrats better be scared!


Posted by: JD at May 5, 2007 10:22 AM
Comment #219511

Hilarious title here! Very Neocon in the sense that so much of what they say actually means the complete opposite thing. You know: Clear Skies. Healthy Forests. War on Terror. Etc. Thus, “Worried Democrats” in fact means Worried Republicans. IMO, they have enormous cause to be worried — terrified even.
Thanks for the chuckle, Jack.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 5, 2007 2:45 PM
Comment #220133


Posted by: Paul at May 12, 2007 12:42 AM
Comment #220134

so why should the rich be taxed at all?? if the rich are not taxed, it provides them with THEIR EARNED resources to invest and create jobs for others. This is a better handling of money than the government can do. government can be paid for through a national consumption tax that gives every citizen the power to determine their tax bill based on what they spend. Simply put…you tax what you spend, not what you earn. fairtax.org …check it our and get educated on what true freedom is.

Posted by: paul at May 12, 2007 12:46 AM
Post a comment