Sunday, December 09, 2007

Why the Democrats Could Lose

By Robert Parry
December 9, 2007

National Democrats are upbeat about their chances in Election 2008, citing George W. Bush’s unpopularity and the weirdness of top Republican presidential candidates bogged down in squabbles over who has the right religious outlook or who is the most hostile to illegal immigrants.

But the smug Democratic hierarchy may be inviting defeat, again, by ignoring the fact that many Americans want leadership that appeals to them on the higher plane of principle. Instead, Democrats often treat Americans more like consumers than citizens, selling them new social programs rather than articulating an uplifting national cause.

Read on.

15 comments:

mam62 said...

Wow!!! You and the majority of men are really freaked out by the idea of a strong woman (who does not pander to the male to be accepted) becoming President of the USA!!!!
I have read your (not just you but many other men) attacks on Hillary and they are superficial and personal.
All the Democratic candidates--except Dennis Kucinich) have the same principles and values so why not go with the woman for a change.
I know that women in other countries have become leaders and not effected the changes---but then again they were mostly Nancy Pelosi types and not Hillary types!!
Get some courage---go with either Dennis or Hillary!!!

Mary Ann Maikish
511 E 20th St
12F
new York, N.Y. 10010
212 228-9327
mamaikish@yahoo.com

Blue Pilgrim said...

Mam62,
This has nothing to do with men or women, but principle, the Constituion, and law. I will not vote for Hillary because I oppose the occupation of Iraq, and she will not end it (she has said that) -- and neither will any of the other "front runners". I will be voting third party or independent because neither party will be putting up a candidate who understands principle, law, or morality.

I have little hope that anyone not put forth by the two major parties can win, but I will vote for them anyway -- and be able to sleep at night. I refuse to support genocide, war crimes, or fascism. To argue a fascist woman is better than a fascist man makes no sense to me.

Perhaps someday the majority of the country will figure out the true nature of this fasicst hegemony, as supported by the main stream media, and put an end to it, but in the meantime I'm certainly not going to condone it or support it.

mam62 said...

Maybe you want to live another eight years with a Bush but I have learned my lesson!!!!
When I chose the lesser of two evils--I got Carter and Clinton and I did sleep at night--not well but I was able to sleep.
When I stuck to my principles, I got Nixon, Ford. Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2,Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Rice and was not able to sleep at all!! and was left with permanent damage to the infrastructure of this government.
I have learned that in a democracy--there is no majority---just a getting together of minorities. It is called compromise for the greater good.

mam62 said...

and I forgot to add--THESE ARE ALL MEN!!!!

Blue Pilgrim said...

Talking about if they were men or women is just sexism, and I oppose sexism as well as the occupation.

There is a fallacy running through what you say, as if it was just you who were voting or one vote was significant, but "you got Clinton" and the Iraqis got illegal 'no-fly' zones',and eight years of sanctions and as many as 2,000,000 dead because of that.

The point of voting is to vote for someone you want, not an evil, greater or lesser. Voting for a 'lesser evil' is dishonest, and also leads to such absurdities as the Abilene paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox which can be the worst possible outcome. By people always voting for the 'lesser of two evils' they guarantee that the opposing party will never be anything more than slightly less bad the greater of two evils, and so the nation spirals down into the abyss as the 'standard' deteriorates. This is what has happened.

You speak of courage? Have the courage to vote for someone who is worthy of the position. If everyone had been doing that all along we would not be in this fix.

Carol said...

I like Edwards, for many of the reasons you write about. he stands up for principles and the kitchen-table stuff too. I think he's got a better shot at pulling over disaffected repub.s, too. The nastiest things coulter et al have come up with to say about him is that he's too rich & too pretty. which just makes them look silly.

JZM said...

The real issue at hand here is the fact that Hillary, like her husband, as Parry has pointed out numerous times, has no regard for the truth. Voting for her simply to break the barrier as the first female president is outeighted by the prodigious burden we will have to face, having to deal with a president who panders to the neo-conservative agenda, disregarding international law -- that is continuing the Iraq war.
The best candidate is clearly Edwards, as he is not afraid to promote progressive, left-leaning policies; unfortunately, at this time his campaign has hit a speed-bump, but it is vital to ignore who the polls claim is winning, and support him, the best candidate available.

raymond said...

Why the demos could lose. They already have lost. They have lost the belief of their constituency, they have lost their own belief, they have lost their way. What do they stand for today, I defy anyone to answer that question clearly. They have consistently condoned, enabled, appeased and rolled over for the most corrupt, despicable administration in our countries history. To hell with the non-opposition party!

Blue Pilgrim said...

What do they stand for? That's easy: they stand for condoning, enabling, appeasing and rolling over. They stand for whatever capitulation or maneuvering they think will be immediately best for them, personally -- they are utter toadies and completely unprincipled. They stand for themselves (unless they think it's to their advantage to sit or lie down).

This is what makes it more diffcult to deal with the Democrats: the Republicans virtually always lie -- even when the truth would serve them better -- but the Democrats might sometimes tell the truth; still completely unreliable, but harder to catch.

mam62 said...

WAKE UP!!!!! All the democratic candidates pander and lie--especailly Barak Obama--the only exception is Dennis and he is not electable because he represents a minority of people in this country and he does not pander or lie.
SOOOOO either you are an idiot--which I do no think so OR you like most males( and unfortuantely some females) are freaked out by the idea of a female president like Hillary. Of course if it was a female like Nancy--one who is controllable like a Connie Rice then she would be acceptable!!!

Carol said...

Hey mam62- I don't think people are really that freaked out by the idea of a female president - but if they are, how to you propose to win the general election with Hillary?
It seems more like voters in the primary (at least) are looking at the voting records & policy positions and picking based on that.

Blue Pilgrim said...

Personally, I have no problem with a woman as president at all; sadly, because of sexism there aren't too many good ones in a position to run (such as those who have been calling for impeachment) -- but there are a few who could do the job quite well (although they are cast by the MSM as 'extreme left' or 'weird'like they do to Kucinich. Even Cindy Sheehan, despite her lack of experience, would make a better president than the so-called 'frontrunners'.

Check
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/11/there-is-no-lesser-evil-now.html and his other entries -- Silber is good reading and speaks truth.

This line about 'electable' is just the MSMs way of trying to control people with their corporate message. DK, Gravel, or anyone, is perfectly electable if people vote for the person -- it's not up the state media to pick a president. People must start researching and thinking for themselves if this country is to survive.

raymond said...

The sexist charges here by mama62 are rubbish. The issues and problems we face following the 8 years of neo-conservative mis-calculation, mistakes and mis-management require leadership. I question if any candidate that has been compromised by accepting huge campaign contributions from corporate America can or will provide that leadership. We need leadership that has not already 'sold out' before even getting into the office. Choose carefully people.

Katy said...

"Americans want leadership that appeals to them on the higher plane of principle".

Unless I missed it somewhere in the terrific article, I didn't see any mention of Dennis Kucinich and he is the only candidate in any party who stands on principle, has put his votes where his mouth is. Many more people are sick to death of the "mainstream" dem/repub party advice to vote lesser of two evils...dems over repubs, yet both have sold us down the river for 70 years.


In my mind, it is too bad most are tied to the past and can't or won't recognize what we truly need...most are still talking "electability"...well, I guess we will see. My vote goes to Kucinich. And, thankfully, many more are voting for him, as well.

Blue Pilgrim said...

Fun things to know and tell...

I got an email today -- I haven't confirmed this:
"Cynthia McKinney has decided to run for President as a Green Party candidate and is coming to Grand Rapids area for this evening (December 13!)."