More Democratic Inactivity
I followed a link from human's site and found this link titled Clinton Scandals. Since Clinton is one of my favorite presidents I was interested and clicked it. i found this. (Make sure you go on to page 2, that page details what they Repubs did to Clinton and Gore and how the Democrats did nothing in response to Bush.)
The inactivity of the Democrats has been a much talked about topic. I think this is an especially glaring example of how much the Democrats let the Republicans run the show. The Democrats let the Republicans get away with the Iran-Contra scandals and with what's going on with the current Bush administration. Yet, whenever Clinton did anything, the Republicans were screaming scandal. Why is this? Why can't the democrats fight back and scream scandal every time the Bushies do something wrong? After all, what Bush has done has been much more serious than Monica or realeasing prisoners. Or just in general, why can't the Democrats fight back and stop their image of being the weaker party?
The inactivity of the Democrats has been a much talked about topic. I think this is an especially glaring example of how much the Democrats let the Republicans run the show. The Democrats let the Republicans get away with the Iran-Contra scandals and with what's going on with the current Bush administration. Yet, whenever Clinton did anything, the Republicans were screaming scandal. Why is this? Why can't the democrats fight back and scream scandal every time the Bushies do something wrong? After all, what Bush has done has been much more serious than Monica or realeasing prisoners. Or just in general, why can't the Democrats fight back and stop their image of being the weaker party?
posted by Ellie @ 12:13 AM
25 Comments:
At 6/19/2006 10:23:00 AM,
billie said…
in my travels, i think i have discovered why- we only really have one party in america now. the politicians in washington have been taken over by bigger interests- i will be posting my theory on journey soon- corportations, bankers, etc. there are many groups- policy making, defense, financial, etc that meet in secret and not so secret- and they are filled with reps from the western world not just america. if you think the parties as whole entities are different- well, look to the most recent race in virginia(i think) repub turned dem over iraq war and is running against- a republican. so, essentially you have 2 repubs running in virginia- win-win. happened here in my home town too- except we had a real dem run and win. it isn't so much inactivity as it is cutting out the vestiges of difference. i am beginning to think that the clintons are secret repubs.
At 6/20/2006 12:17:00 AM,
Ellie said…
I think all politicians have been overcome with greed and their own self-interests. When I was watching An Inconvenient Truth, one of the things that impressed me very much about Al Gore was how much he seemed to love the country. I got the impression that he would do what was best for the country over getting himself a new yacht or a new custom jet. I haven't seen that much recently in politicians.
as for Clinton being a repub I just don't see it. Maybe Hillary, but definately not Bill. At least not in my humble opinion. During his time in office he focused on the economy and the domestic issues that needed attention. He got our country in pretty good shape and seemed to really care about the country. I really admire Clinton and I couldn't see him selling out. Maybe I'm wrong, after all I never would have predicted the whole monica thing. but i'm pretty sure he wouldn't sell out.
looking forward to that post :)
At 6/20/2006 07:52:00 AM,
Dardin Soto said…
May I remind the audience that the economy was in full rebound the last 2 fiscal quarters of Bush 41. Clinton was in the right place and the right time to gather the applauds of the good times. Economic cycles care not who is in the office. Clinton did some great things, but the economy he got from the Bush 41 term was a engine ready to roll (albeit on a massive economic bubble soon to bust in the dot com bang, but that is another story). Presidents take way too much credit (or blame) for the economic shifts and tides of the American market. Reagan had a depression AND a massive increase in revenue(with massive deficits too...) Clinton had a huge market upsurge, fallowed by what was clearly an economy running out of steam in his las 4 quarters, and subsequently a soft-landing recession post 9/11.
Greenspan has said many times that the Fed and Goverment policies can only make slight corrections to the market forces. To think we have a cursory control of the beast that is the American economic engine the to be in the height of arrogance.
As to the main theme of your posting the Democrats are just afraid to use any bullets. They have been emasculated by the Republicans. The GOP has monopolized the term patriotism to mean nothing other than absolute and resolute marching in lock step with their agenda. Look at Murtha?... every time he stands up (and I give him props for taking the hits while the rest of the Dems hide in the bunkers) and says something the howitzers come at him from every angle and at the end of the day the term "cut and run" hands around his necks like a sausage rack.
Its not easy being a Democrat these days.
Great post girl :)
At 6/20/2006 08:04:00 AM,
Dardin Soto said…
p.s.
By the way, I agree with Betmo. Bill is a classic Democratic Blue Dog,... he was always very much centrist and was an avid fan of the Kennedy economic model. Remember, Kennedy's tax cuts were earth-shaking at the time, much more in GDG percentages than either Reagan's or Bush 43. The only reason Clinton RAISED taxes early on was because Greespan (as told in his book) told him that in order to keep the economic engine going he has to ensure the deficit did not grow... the biggest wool he ever pulled over his own party was that he was fully left. It was the Hillary pull to the left that kept him the darling of the progressives. If you look at his policies in Arkansas... they are mostly southern GOP politics.
At 6/20/2006 07:48:00 PM,
Ellie said…
true, Bill Clinton was lucky with the economy, but he was still aware that the economy needed attention. unlike this president who thinks its okay to give tax cuts to the rich, spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a made up war, and then cut social programs because there isn't enough money. and yes, presidents get way too much blame for the economy, like Carter. I'm not familiar with Clinton's policies in Arkansas. I only started following him when he ran for president.
I was very impressed with Murtha on Meet the Press. I think he really hit hard on what needs attention. I hope he wins as majority leader. I don't know if we'll get one, but I hope he becomes minority leader even if we don't. Pretty much anyone's better than Pelosi, but I think Murtha would actually make a good leader.
At 6/20/2006 10:15:00 PM,
Dardin Soto said…
so... using your "tax cuts for the rich" comment... were Kennedy's tax cuts not for the rich?.... just curious to hear your thoughts on that... :)
At 6/22/2006 12:47:00 AM,
steven rix said…
The american society has always been to my great disappointment a vertical society and none of the main political parties will be able to reverse the trend.
The Democrats have been quiet lately for the simple reason that the political system and infrastructures are all under control of the Republicans (DOJ, CIA, Supreme Court ... etc).
At 6/22/2006 03:13:00 AM,
steven rix said…
In reply to your older post about GWB and I will stick it in this thread to be sure you can read it.
We won't be able to send GWB to trial, that's for sure, although alot of us would love it. Europeans can't do it because it would put a war between Europe and the US, and it would get ugly. Besides there will be another President after Bush, we can't just turn our back to the whole USA, we have too many things in common, but nothing with the foreign policy. In the meantime I'm pretty confident that Europe will keep ignoring Bush and ask him to respect international laws but I am afraid that even if a Democrat is elected (H. Clinton) then the US troops won't be pulled out from Iraq. This war in Iraq was not a preventive war, it was a war of agression. I talked with international laws experts a few weeks ago and they all agree that the case for the war in Iraq is completely bogus. A friend of mine was digging up the UN resolutions to make her own case that this war was absolutely illegal. Personally I think we cannot really debate the UN res, it's up to the security council first and there is nothing to negotiate. Well that story of the UN resolutions was covered this way in the US to give you the illusion that everything was fine, and it's not fine at all. What has been done in Iraq cannot be undone and it's a huge problem. First Bush ternished the image of the US, it was already pretty bad in the past in the Middle-East and this President nailed it this time. And secondly it does open the door to a whole new different concept on Rogue States. I wrote a post about that on my blog, I may write it in English as well at a later time. Basically in a few lines my concept of Rogue States include Democracies as well and as long there will be this mistake of understanding multiculturalism. In any society, people of the society beleive their values is higher than the ones of the others, and it is normal in the survival of societies because it has to be cloistered for making such differences. BUT you can't use these values to invade a country, it's none-sense because you start converting people to your own values and that is what creates radical movement not only in the middle-east but all over the Planet. BESIDES rogue-state are classified as "evil" since they support terrorism. Guess what? Our Democracies themselves not only finance terrorism but they have no shame whatsoever in using terrorism against other countries and even on other democracies. That happened alot with Cuba (the US killed innocent civilians by bombing airplanes) and that happened in Europe (Italy...etc). What you may not be aware is the amount of people killed all over the world in the name of freedom by the US and they are millions. This is what I call usually "l'holocauste de la pensee americaine" (the holocaust of the american thinking): we are convinced we want to do good on the planet (sayings) and we kill people (facts).
There are still a few links in english on my blog to present 2 different opinions on the term "Rogue State". I had no idea there was people thinking alike in the US as well.
At 6/22/2006 03:47:00 AM,
Cranky Daze said…
If "screaming" would solve the problem, it would have been taken care of long ago. Dems/Libs have made quite a bit of noise about the scandals and corruption in the Bush administration. The real problem is that the MSM ignores most of it and focuses on the Republicans.
Tonight the conservatives are all a-glow over Frist's announcements that WMD have indeed been found in Iraq. They're completely unconcerned with the fact that nothing has been found recently; what Frist is talking about is chemical junk, found several years ago, which has completely lost it's fizz. Neocons are desperate to prove that Team Bush didn't lie to Congress in order to get permission to attack Iraq, and they'll grasp at anything.
It's an election year, and the Pubs are nervous over the very real possibility that the Democrats will take control of either the Senate or House...which will give them subpoenea power that they will probably use. We have five months to go, and I predict more scandals and revelations of yet unknown corruption. If and when the liberals gain the majority, the Republicans are in deep doody. And, ditto, if the Dems take over the White House in 2008.
Liberals, and especially bloggers, need to work hard to keep the country aware of the skullduggery of the Republicans. So far, they're doing an excellent job. I suggest we all select our favorite candidate, whomever that may be, and get loud and positive in keeping their good points in front of the public. Forget the Republican propaganda that claims the Liberals are in disarray...that only serves to underscore what they're claiming. Liberals need and deserve our support, so lets give it to the with whole-hearted energy.
At 6/23/2006 01:32:00 AM,
Mr. Natural said…
It sure can be DISHEARTENING, can't it? I honestly don't know what to do...vote and push for Democratic candidates, because I know in my heart it is the right thing, but where oh where are the liberals? I mean, AMERICA is a liberal idea!
At 6/23/2006 09:51:00 AM,
Obob said…
I hate to be the dark side of the force here, but the democrats have no "real" heart. I don't see them fighting for anything they really believe in. They can raise money, influence, be corrupt as the gop. Look great on paper like the prevent defense with two minutes to go, but there lies in the problem. They look great on paper. Running a flawed zove coverage, they leave gaps to be exploited and manipulated by Rove and the gop pundits to pick apart like Tom Brady in crunch time. Once they get picked apart, they start getting flustered and allow the big play. Game over
Plus to much infighting, low self esteem and a general fear that moderate America will look deeply at the agenda.
If you want a change, look deep inside and do not let hate make your choices.
At 6/23/2006 08:40:00 PM,
steven rix said…
Hey I finally added you to my blog.
At 6/24/2006 10:07:00 AM,
Dardin Soto said…
ellie,...? you've been out of circulation for way too long GF!
At 6/24/2006 02:41:00 PM,
Ellie said…
truth-pain - yes, I think Kennedy's tax cuts were for the rich. I never really liked Kennedy as a President. True he was a dynamic speaker and such, but I don't think he did a good job. He claimed that the tax cuts were for demand-side economics and they were probably meant to be that way. But needless to say they benefited the rich very much. And now people are saying that supply-side economics, which came through from Reagan, originated from Kennedy's tax cuts. I don't think that was Kennedy's intention to start us onto this nightmare of supply-side economics. However, he managed to do that. Now Bush and Reagan supporters get to say: Kennedy started it...he's a democrat, why are you democrats having such a problem with this?
Liberals keep pushing for tax cuts because they want them for the middle and lower classes. They want the rich to be forced to pay out, because they are the ones that can. Then they want to use the extra money to make everyone's lives better.
politiques usa - yes, everything seems to be controlled by the repubs. absolutely everything. I still think that the Democrats could make their opinions heard more than they already have.
First of all, I really hope Hillary is not elected president, or even nominated for that matter. Last week I started reading Cobra II, which my friend had recommended highly to me. Because of a lack of time I only got through the first few pages, but it was about how the Bush administration switched their focus to Iraq right after 9/11. and also how Rumsfeld modified the plans of the generals and there was no objection from the joint chiefs, they were just onlookers. In Against All Enemied by Richard Clark there was a specific passage right after 9/11 where Bush said something along the lines of "we're going to kick some ass". not we're going to get the people who were responsible for this...but a totally different reaction. It'll never cease to amaze me how many people were fooled by the stupid excuse of WMD. He did a masterful job of it but I felt like I was the only one reading the papers and thinking "oh no, we're really going to invade this country for no reason".
I think it really depends on how you define terrorism. I grew up an irish catholic and my father was always going on and on about how the English labelled the Irish as terrorists. And he always said that it depended which side you were on, because to the Irish, the English were the terrorists. The Iraqi's probably think that we're terrorists because we invaded their country and kill many innocent people for pretty much no reason.
yes, the american thinking is all wrong. my friend said to me the other day "we should just kill all these terrorists". The terrorists have killed people which is very bad and I don't support terrorism, however if you look at it what else do they have to fight back with? Their only means of fighting us is suicide bombers.
what you were saying about rogue states is very interesting and I agree that America should be in that category. However I don't think many other people share that opinion. It wouldn't occur to most people that their government kills hundreds maybe thousands of people unknown to them. and i'm not only talking about Iraq. I'll swing by your site after I finish this comment and check that out. I might be able to figure out the post in french, I took it a long time ago then switched to spanish. I'll see if I remember anything. :)
cranky daze - hopefully the democrats will use that subpoenea power if they get it. I agree with the fact that the liberals need to get behind one candidate and support them. Traditionally the Repubs usually get behind one candidate and then play up their good points and then they're not divided come election time. It's time the democrats started doing that. AL GORE '08!
mr. natural - thanks for visiting :) yes America is liberal and yet they all seem to have vanished. I think the best thing we can all do is get behind the Democrats and as cranky daze said support one candidate and push their good points so we're not divided come 2008.
obob - the democrats seem to have a problem with taking a position and pushing it. When Rove et al. comes out and tells them that they're wrong and that they hate america they just back down. That's one of the many reasons why I admire Murtha. he doesn't seem afraid to take a position and push it even though he knows he'll receive criticism from the right.
politiques USA - thanks for the add :)
truth-pain - I've been very VERY busy. everything just about tripled this week. I took today off from everything, just decided that I'm going to do nothing today. It feels great. I woke up this morning around 10 for the first time in sooo long. Gonna get some well needed sleep and should be back in circulation soon...everything should lighten up next week. although i'm gonna have to pay for taking today off...rather not think about that though. :)
At 6/24/2006 08:08:00 PM,
Dardin Soto said…
... Thanks for dropping in :) No worries, I am only taking a break from Polical banter, not blogging!... you're right its too addicting NOT to write :)
At 6/24/2006 08:09:00 PM,
Dardin Soto said…
...er, I meant political banter...
At 6/24/2006 10:54:00 PM,
Ellie said…
scie-kid - as for domestic policy we're over $9.3 trillion in debt for starters. and the fact that you haven't heard much about this can be attributed to Rove's brilliant powers of distracting the American people's attention away from the domestic issues that need attention and onto issues like Iraq. Unfortunately for him, Iraq hasn't been going that well and people are starting to realize truly how incompetent he is.
I don't think the US is controlling Iraq. Quite the opposite actually I don't think they have any control at all. I think we set off most of the violence in Iraq. and I dont' think it's Bush's attention to Iraq that made it a powder keg. The divides between the Sunnis and the Shiites have been going on for hundreds of years. After muhammad died they had a disagreement over whether the caliph should be one of Muhammad's descendents or someone outside the family. This initial disagreement started the two groups which have been fighting for years. The Kurds are also another group that have been fighting. I think the violence and potential for outright civil war was already there when we invaded. We just set things in motion and the situation got out of control.
truth-pain - I'm glad you're still going to blog. :) I'm going to miss your political opinions though. can't wait to see what you come up with that's unpolitical. :)
At 6/24/2006 11:51:00 PM,
Dardin Soto said…
....ask, and thou shalt receive, come on over :)
At 6/24/2006 11:52:00 PM,
Ellie said…
haha coming right now :)
At 6/25/2006 07:55:00 PM,
Mr. Natural said…
Aint it the truth tho? I mean NOBODY would even stand BESIDE Fiengold when he called for a simple damned censure!
At 6/25/2006 11:26:00 PM,
Ellie said…
It's really disgusting how no one stood beside Fiengold. He impresses me very much how he stands up even though he has no one beside him. We need more liberals like him.
At 6/26/2006 09:25:00 PM,
steven rix said…
I went to Ireland (Eire) in the 90s from Cork to Clifden. I remember that people over there use to ask about my religion and there was naturally a reason behind it. I wrote “naturally” because religion until these days remains a characterized tool to contain and control people inside the survival of any defined society. At some extent it is also a reflex when it becomes an easy violent catalyzor to turn people against other people for socio-political goals because it encapsulates shared values. For the case of Ireland, in peace time religion became a legitimate tool to identify a society in rupture between catholics and protestants. This phenomenon was omnipresent and had been branded by wars.
In the US we are at some critical point in History where everything may break loose. I also noticed Bush went to war based on values and these values ( “the bring ‘em on! sentence”) are not particularly accepted by everybody in Iraq. The dawnfall here, in not even 6 years, the transformation of the US society has been completely out of proportion and changed at a very high pace:
1) The Church and the State for example are flirting together
2) Darwinism vs Creationnism
3) Pre-emptive and wars of agression
4) Values that are not anymore universal but fascist and narcistic
5) The lack of respect for international treaties and laws
6) A bad image of the US all over the world.
7) The ongoing torture that feeds terrorism.
8) No interest for the KYOTO agreement. No interest for preserving life.
9) Unilaterral approach that changed the geopolitical world.
And so on and so on.
There is also this pattern to pre-empt on everything nowadays, not only under foreign policies but in the "homeland". Each day the Bush administration is removing liberties to Americans so that they can expand their foreign policies abroad and I don't call that freedom.
At 6/27/2006 02:20:00 AM,
steven rix said…
http://politiquesusa.blogspot.com/2006/06/and-let-freedom-reign.html
;)
At 6/27/2006 02:20:00 AM,
steven rix said…
http://politiquesusa.blogspot.com/
2006/06/and-let-freedom-reign.html
;)
Sorry links are broken.
At 6/28/2006 12:22:00 AM,
Ellie said…
Irish people have been controlled very much by religion. During the famine people died for their religion, and refused to give it up for food. In todays world I find many Irish people are rejecting their religion. I find myself on the same path. Maybe it has something to do with the corruption of the church, or maybe its just that the religion itself was not made to control people of this day and age.
It's disgusting how Bush is taking away our civil liberties and restricting our freedom and people don't even notice, or care. And they disguise it so cleverly too. Today I was reading that Bush signs bills such as McCain's immigration bill and then signs something else so he can legally ignore the bill that he just signed into law. This way he prevents a veto and doesn't get all the publicity. I was pretty sure that McCain had backed Bush into a corner on torture, because if he vetoed it then the headlines of the papers would be: President supports Torture. But this allows him to get around it so no one notices and he doesn't have to obey the bill he signed into law. How can that possibly be constitutionally legal?? And since it's obviously not, why isn't something done about it?
thanks for the link, that's a REALLY great picture. ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home