Log in

No account? Create an account
Hogarth judge

February 2018



Powered by LiveJournal.com
Hogarth judge

Political meditations (Clichés, I know. . . .)

> Because you can't get everything you want when Dems win, you'd rather
> get nothing you want, and a lot of things you don't, by not supporting
> them. This is a responsible approach to politics?

This rather reverses the burden of persuasion, don't you think? It is the Democrat party's responsibility to persuade us why we should vote for their candidate rather than another.

What the national Democrat party leaders have actually done is to sabotage the candidacy of one of their own, one who actually wanted the party to stand up and oppose the Bush presidency and its policies. They chose to manufacture his downfall, and instead to choose a well-connected senator who has failed to oppose the Bush presidency on the issues that got people talking about the Democrats. They mean, apparently, to manufacture "unity" behind their flawed but "electable" candidate, another Skull and Bonesman. They fail to grasp what seems fairly obvious to me out in the sticks: having debate within the Democrats means that they get more media coverage of Democrat issues, while "unity" and the coronation of the insiders' choice means that the public's attention will wander back to Lacy Peterson or Michael Jackson.

The Democrats need Nader; they need a scapegoat for their own ineptitude. Democrat anger that Nader has announced his candidacy underlines what a pathetic bunch of losers the national Democrats are. "If you don't want four more years of Bush, we are the only legitimate and credible alternative! We're entitled to your vote, regardless of who we nominate, and how incompetent we are!" This is supposed to make me happy to dutifully queue up and vote for John Kerry?

The veterinary textbook provides only one remedy for all the ailments of a sick donkey. Time to take down the shotgun. You can cry if you wish, but do your duty. Then maybe we can have a real opposition party once more.


A good post, I agree with you for the most part.

We seriously though lack a choice of who will gets the nomination in the first place. The pool of water down democratic candidates keeps getting more water thrown into it. Now lowering the shotgun as you say, as in total reform of the party, would defiantly be a step in the right direction. The democratic party needs to get it’s shit together instead of trying to mirror there republican counterparts.

I simply think that we need to end the chants of freedom forever and liberty for all. It’s obvious that this will be another busted election that we can only hope will end Bush’s reign. I hate Kerry, out of that pool of democrats he was my next to last pick.

Now short of just complete anarchy the only way to reform out democracy in general is from the inside out. Which I dare say we lack the political presence right now to accomplish that objective. We’ve been told our only hope lies in the democratic candidate, which is true but only by looking at the bigger picture than this election.

The two part system doesn’t work, and hasn’t worked in nearly a century, and it scarcely benefited the people prior to that. The people don’t have enough power and the politicians have far too much of it. We need to reform the party, and make into something that it was intended for, a party for the people.