NationStates Jolt Archive

This was put out recently by Molly Ivins. I realize that the mere mention of Molly Ivins turns the sand in some conservative's nethers into veritable pearls, but I was wondering what everyone else thought. I for one thought that this was dead-on.


I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.

If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, "Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes." Bobby Kennedy -- rough, tough Bobby Kennedy -- didn't do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry.

What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

I listen to people like Rahm Emanuel superciliously explaining elementary politics to us clueless naifs outside the Beltway ("First, you have to win elections"). Can't you even read the damn polls?

Here's a prize example by someone named Barry Casselman, who writes, "There is an invisible civil war in the Democratic Party, and it is between those who are attempting to satisfy the defeatist and pacifist left base of the party and those who are attempting to prepare the party for successful elections in 2006 and 2008."

This supposedly pits Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, emboldened by "a string of bad new from the Middle East ... into calling for premature retreat from Iraq," versus those pragmatic folk like Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.

Oh come on, people -- get a grip on the concept of leadership. Look at this war -- from the lies that led us into it, to the lies they continue to dump on us daily.

You sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I'm telling you right now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.

Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. I'm serious as a stroke about this -- that is the only reform that will work, and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do all the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace redistricting reform, electoral reform, House rules changes, the whole package. Put up, or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff politics continue to run your town.

Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news."

Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.

Well, then 87% of Americans should support a windfall tax on the homebuilders as well, because they are also "gouging" the American people. Unless you want another wonderful decade of shortages, stay away from windfall taxes. Those damn whiners don't want to give up that SUV and drive less or more efficently, hell no. This is 'merica...we've got a right to cheap gas goddamnit.

Honestly, I don't think this country is that strongly in support of some of those issues. Otherwise, we'd see a lot more liberal democrats in office.

Well, then 87% of Americans should support a windfall tax on the homebuilders as well, because they are also "gouging" the American people. Unless you want another wonderful decade of shortages, stay away from windfall taxes.

I was more interested in the discussion about whether the Democrats ought to grow a spine rather than the veracity of public sentiment, but suffice it to say that shortages aren't a problem, since we don't have OPEC restricting the supply and production of crude in just about everywhere but the Gulf of Mexico is up (which affects only markets in the South where the oil actually goes, not other markets in the US, but oddly enough, high gas prices were not a regional issue). Or are you suggesting that it's perfectly okay for Exxon to artificially restrict the supply if they aren't allowed to make record profits?

I was more interested in the discussion about whether the Democrats ought to grow a spine rather than the veracity of public sentiment, but suffice it to say that shortages aren't a problem, since we don't have OPEC restricting the supply and production of crude in just about everywhere but the Gulf of Mexico is up (which affects only markets in the South where the oil actually goes, not other markets in the US, but oddly enough, high gas prices were not a regional issue). Or are you suggesting that it's perfectly okay for Exxon to artificially restrict the supply if they aren't allowed to make record profits?

Oh, well then. The Democrats should absolutely grow a spine, or otherwise they aren't going to have more than 50% of the House/Senate at any time in the future.

It's okay for Exxon to make profits provided those profits are made according to market prices; for example, chargin $5 or $6 after hurricane Katrina for gasoline would be gouging because it's not justifiable by market prices. However, it's virtually impossible to determine what is gouging, since other industries like homebuilders are making the same profit margins and are driving up prices, but no one says a word.

Yeah. The dems are like a whipped dog. They've been so thouroughly demoralized by the Republicans that they will no longer bark at, let alone bite their rivals. Meanwhile, the Republican lobbying K-street project goes on despite the lobbying scandal, and dems simply won't use it to their advantage.

I was more interested in the discussion about whether the Democrats ought to grow a spine

No, they shouldn't. Instead there should be either:

A. more than two parties with a serious chance at the elections, and those parties should be spread out across the political spectrum. Currently it indeed is "right wing" and "right wing light". This would however require changing the US "winner takes all" system to one bassed on coalitions. This is a major change.

B. more than one presidential candidate per party, and parties that are much more spread out across the spectrum. This would make *individuals* more important than their actual parties.

C. Change in another way which no doubt someone will now post ;)

No, they shouldn't. Instead there should be either:

A. more than two parties with a serious chance at the elections, and those parties should be spread out across the political spectrum. Currently it indeed is "right wing" and "right wing light". This would however require changing the US "winner takes all" system to one bassed on coalitions. This is a major change.

B. more than one presidential candidate per party, and parties that are much more spread out across the spectrum. This would make *individuals* more important than their actual parties.

C. Change in another way which no doubt someone will now post ;)

I do agree that such a move (especialy from a winner-take-all system to a proportionate voting system) would, at least initially, represent greater voter choice, but in the end, you'd still have to have coalitions of parties to get anything done, and coalitions are about juggling interests to maximize group benefit. Ergo, I don't see much difference between a single monolithic Republican party now and a coalition between a Christian conservative party, a libertarian party, and a state's rights party.

Oh, well then. The Democrats should absolutely grow a spine, or otherwise they aren't going to have more than 50% of the House/Senate at any time in the future.

It's okay for Exxon to make profits provided those profits are made according to market prices; for example, chargin $5 or $6 after hurricane Katrina for gasoline would be gouging because it's not justifiable by market prices. However, it's virtually impossible to determine what is gouging, since other industries like homebuilders are making the same profit margins and are driving up prices, but no one says a word.

I'd agree to a point, but I do think its much more obvious than you that gouging did occur: after all, supplies of gasoline here in Nevada were unaffected by Katrina, yet prices still spiked by about $1.10 and still aren't where they were last year. If so, it isn't market forces that are generating those fluctuations. Moreover, the fact that other industries (which are generally very different, since gas and homes are two very different commodities) such as the house construction industry is also making a crapload of possibly gouged profits does not excuse the oil industry: I don't know about you, but the "everybody else does it" excuse flew like a brick doesn't with my mother.

B. more than one presidential candidate per party, and parties that are much more spread out across the spectrum. This would make *individuals* more important than their actual parties.
Unless I'm putting a different spin on your words in my mind (which is possible, 'cause I just woke up about 20 minutes hence), isn't that the point of primaries? That the party puts out mutiple candidates, and the party decides amongst its members who moves on, like a cheap, C-SPAN-esque reality TV show?

Ergo, I don't see much difference between a single monolithic Republican party now and a coalition between a Christian conservative party, a libertarian party, and a state's rights party.

You are forgetting about the opposition ;)

Simonist']Unless I'm putting a different spin on your words in my mind (which is possible, 'cause I just woke up about 20 minutes hence), isn't that the point of primaries? That the party puts out mutiple candidates, and the party decides amongst its members who moves on, like a cheap, C-SPAN-esque reality TV show?

Actually I am suggesting to drop the primaries in this scenario, and actually let them run for presidency. So people could vote for Republican-A, Republican-B, Republican-C etc, as well as Democrat A till Z. Person with most support gets presidency, his party gets power.

I *vastly* prefer option A though.

I am just glad that Molly Ivins keeps writing. That woman can smell bullshit regardless of the direction from which it's broadcast. She's spot on with both her calling out the Bushies and their cronies and ferreting out the all-to-absent Democratic backbone. I'm as sick of politics-as-usual as she is, but she says it a whole hell of a lot better.

This was put out recently by Molly Ivins. I realize that the mere mention of Molly Ivins turns the sand in some conservative's nethers into veritable pearls, but I was wondering what everyone else thought. I for one thought that this was dead-on.

One wonders why the Democrats 'need' a hero in this hour.

War? Well - Bush started it... it wasn't there before, it needn't be there after.

Terrorism? Most of our current problems are caused by our CONSTANT interference in the Middle East. We've destabilised the power there, and now we are standing there with an 'oh gosh!' face, as though we are surprised that bits and pieces keep unravelling. Get the hell out of the Middle East, and it seems pretty likely the Middle East will be content to leave us alone.

Tinpot dictators? It doesn't take Einstein to point out that almost ALL of our overseas 'adversaries' are, and HAVE BEEN, our OWN constructions. We made Saddam. We made bin Ladin. We made Pol Pot.

The US is becoming progressively MORE right wing. The 'centre' is moving further and further to the right with it. Only in a political climate as f@$#ed up as this, would a blowjob be an impeachment issue, but domestic spying / faked war intelligence / corruption scandals / war profiteering.. be mere discussion points.

The PEOPLE need to get informed. They need to look at the war mentality that is being given to them. They need to look at the policy of fear that they are being sold as election material. Then THEY need to get a spine. Then THEY need to say NO to political corruption.

Hillary is irrelevent. A 'mere politician' is NOT a bad thing for this country.

One wonders why the Democrats 'need' a hero in this hour.

War? Well - Bush started it... it wasn't there before, it needn't be there after.

Terrorism? Most of our current problems are caused by our CONSTANT interference in the Middle East. We've destabilised the power there, and now we are standing there with an 'oh gosh!' face, as though we are surprised that bits and pieces keep unravelling. Get the hell out of the Middle East, and it seems pretty likely the Middle East will be content to leave us alone.

Tinpot dictators? It doesn't take Einstein to point out that almost ALL of our overseas 'adversaries' are, and HAVE BEEN, our OWN constructions. We made Saddam. We made bin Ladin. We made Pol Pot.

The US is becoming progressively MORE right wing. The 'centre' is moving further and further to the right with it. Only in a political climate as f@$#ed up as this, would a blowjob be an impeachment issue, but domestic spying / faked war intelligence / corruption scandals / war profiteering.. be mere discussion points.

The PEOPLE need to get informed. They need to look at the war mentality that is being given to them. They need to look at the policy of fear that they are being sold as election material. Then THEY need to get a spine. Then THEY need to say NO to political corruption.

Hillary is irrelevent. A 'mere politician' is NOT a bad thing for this country.

I believe it is because while the American public can create the pressure, it still takes a spark to start an explosion, and usually that spark comes from what generally might be considered a "hero". This might be someone as simple as an old lady refusing to sit at the back of the bus, or it might be the President of the United States. The big problem, at root, is that the American people are looking for someone to say where we go from here, and the Democrats simply refuse to provide one: the fact that Hillary can honestly be considered a front-runner at this point speaks to the fact that business is still going on as usual over at the DNC.

I LOVE Molly Ivins. If she's ever said anything I disagree with, I'm not aware of it.
I wish the Dems would quit acting like Republican-lite and quit being so afraid of offending anyone.

I did hear something from Clinton's former advisor James Carville that rang true.

And I think that a lot of people on NS need to take it to heart.

The Democrats need to simplify their message - if you ask a Democratic candidate what he stands for, you get eight or nine things in rapid succession.

And the Democrats need to stop being "we're the party that hates Bush, so vote for us".

Sage advice from Carville.