Blogia
umachacuy

Politica

Death of the Democratic Party

The Democratic Party, born 1792 to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, died Wednesday after a long illness. The Party is survived by thousands of stalwarts who refuse to admit that their party is dead. However, a second failure to defeat the least competent presidential candidate in Republican history, whose record at home and abroad is one of dismal failure, coupled with broad legislative and gubernatorial losses, leaves little doubt of the Donkey's demise.

A post-mortem is in process at the Great Divide. Preliminary results indicate that cause of death was two-fold:

1) Cowardly Messagitis: characterized by loss of ability to speak to one's base, without fear of backlash from the Heartland, which isn't going to vote Democratic anyway. The deceased received an early diagnosis of Messagitis in the Great Divide, but took no action;

2) Chronic Suppression: characterized by invalidation of large numbers of Democratic votes due to dropped registrations; discarded ballots; understaffed/under-equipped polling places; and outright intimidation---all occurring primarily in areas likely to vote Democratic. The impact of widely used electronic voting machines manufactured and operated by GOP "Pioneers" and "Rangers" may never be known due to secret programming and an absence of paper trails.

Over the next few weeks, we'll present the results of our post-mortem, including speculation that the victim might not be dead at all, but rather in a zombie stupor, mimicking death, presenting a slight chance of recovery under certain conditions.



The Editors

¿Y esta publicidad? Puedes eliminarla si quieres.

'Don't Mourn, Organize'

'Don't Mourn, Organize'

by Meteor Blades

Wed Nov 3rd, 2004 at 10:10:13 GMT

OK. I read thousands of comments and dozens of Diaries last night and this morning. And you know something? I’m going to forget I read most of them. Just erase them from memory along with the names of those who posted them. Chalk them up to adrenaline crashes, too much rage and reefer and booze.

Because what I found in my reading was a plethora of bashing Christians, bashing Kerry, bashing gays, bashing Edwards, bashing Kos, bashing America and bashing each other. As well as a lot of people saying they’re abandoning the Democrats, abandoning politics, abandoning the country. This descent into despair and irrationality and surrender puts icing on the Republican victory cake.

Why were we in this fight in the first place? Because terrible leaders are doing terrible things to our country and calling this wonderful. Because radical reactionaries are trying to impose their imperialist schemes on whoever they wish and calling this just. Because amoral oligarchs are determined to enhance their slice of the economic pie and calling this the natural order. Because flag-wrapped ideologues want to chop up civil liberties and call this security. Because myopians are in charge of America’s future.

We lost on 11/2. Came in second place in a crucial battle whose damage may still be felt decades from now. The despicable record of our foes makes our defeat good reason for disappointment and fear. Even without a mandate over the past four years, they have behaved ruthlessly at home and abroad, failing to listen to objections even from members of their own party. With the mandate of a 3.6-million vote margin, one can only imagine how far their arrogance will take them in their efforts to dismantle 70 years of social legislation and 50+ years of diplomacy.

Still, Tuesday was only one round in the struggle. It’s only the end if we let it be. I am not speaking solely of challenging the votes in Ohio or elsewhere – indeed, I think even successful challenges are unlikely to change the ultimate outcome, which is not to say I don’t think the Democrats should make the attempt. And I’m not just talking about evaluating in depth what went wrong, then building on what was started in the Dean campaign to reinvigorate the grassroots of the Democratic Party, although I also think we must do that. I’m talking about the broader political realm, the realm outside of electoral politics that has always pushed America to live up to its best ideals and overcome its most grotesque contradictions.

Not a few people have spoken in the past few hours about an Americanist authoritarianism emerging out of the country’s current leadership. I think that’s not far-fetched. Fighting this requires that we stick together, not bashing each other, not fleeing or hiding or yielding to the temptation of behaving as if “what’s the use?”

It’s tough on the psyche to be beaten.Throughout our country’s history, abolitionists, suffragists, union organizers, anti-racists, antiwarriors, civil libertarians, feminists and gay rights activists have challenged the majority of Americans to take off their blinders. Each succeeded one way or another, but not overnight, and certainly not without serious setbacks.

After a decent interval of licking our wounds and pondering what might have been and where we went wrong, we need to spit out our despair and return – united - to battling those who have for the moment outmaneuvered us. Otherwise, we might just as well lie down in the street and let them flatten us with their schemes

Thank you for fighting for us, John Kerry

Thank you for fighting for us, John Kerry Thank you for fighting for us, John Kerry

He said he'd fight, and he did. I know people will debate tactics, question the clarity of his messages, etc. But I think he fought his heart out for Americans, he showed a lot of grit, and he peformed well in the debates. His messages, however, wouldn't resonate outside the reality-based community. Bush's supporters, when polled, could not even identify the major elements of Bush's record and agenda (they thought there was WMD in Iraq, they still thought Saddam was conspiring with OBL etc.)
I'm so depressed, because if this didn't work this year, when Bush's record was so incredibly indefenslbe, I'm not sure the Democrats can ever win again.

We have a majority of Bible thumpers in this country that won't vote what is - empirically - in their own interests. They're more concerned about "George loves Jesus and has been touched by the Holy Spirit, like me" than they are interested in reducing the deficit, controlling corporate giveaways, fixing health care, lowering prescription drug costs, and raising the minimum wage.

It's not just the "faith-based presidency" versus the "reality-based communty"; it's now the morally righteous uninformed who comprise a majorty of the voting electorate. The American public is getting the Administration they deserve. Ironically enough, only God can help us now.....

Also, I think the Republican operatives (their academic elite supporters, their lawyers, their media gunners, etc.) are cynical people ruining this country. I doubt if 10% of them sincerely respect the new Rove evangelical base that's doing ther bidding.

There are few options for unity now, despite Kerry's call for it. Kerry's supporters have to continue "speaking truth to power" until the willfully blind see the consequences of their choices.

The Republican elite are endangering our nation's security, screwing over the poor, violating the liberties of the vulnerable, demonizing their political opposition, lying to their own citizens, committing war crimes and as a result recruiting a new generation of terrorists eager to kill us all, failing to stop nuclear proliferation, and killing young men and women fighting in a war that was planned out on a cocktail napkin. Evil, cynical bastards.

We don't need to offer baseless accusations and demonize the Republicans. The facts speak for themselves. The hard question is: How can we make the "moral majority of the 21st century" listen or give a damn?
¿Y esta publicidad? Puedes eliminarla si quieres.

Un país dividido

Un país dividido RETOS PARA próximos cuatro años

07:24 AM CST on Wednesday, November 3, 2004


Por ARNOLD HAMILTON / The Dallas Morning News


Un día después de la elección, la pregunta que todos se hacen es: ¿Cómo es que George W. Bush o John Kerry espera dirigir una nación dividida casi irreconciliablemente?

Después de 11 meses de ataques publicitarios y 1,000 millones de dólares en gastos de campaña, varias encuestas preliminares a la salida de las urnas de la elección general del martes resaltaron un golfo político nacional que hace que el Gran Cañón se parezca más al estanque de una granja.

•Evidencia: el presidente Bush fue el favorito entre hombres blancos, Kerry fue la elección de negros e hispanos.

•Evidencia: lo que más le importaba a los partidarios de Bush eran los valores morales y la guerra contra el terrorismo; lo que más le importaba a los partidarios de Kerry era la economía y los trabajos.

•Evidencia: tres cuartas partes de los votantes blancos que se identificaron como cristianos conversos o evangélicos respaldaron a Bush, mientras que cerca de la mitad de todos los votantes opina que Kerry es alguien que generalmente dice lo que cree que la gente quiere oír.

"El próximo presidente", dijo el ex representante Leon Panetta, quien sirvió como jefe de personal del presidente Bill Clinton, "le hará frente a un gran desafío en términos de tratar de unificar a este país".

De hecho, el universo político está tan polarizado–tan envenenado–después de una década de debates cada vez más acerbos que pocos analistas de campaña y ex funcionarios electos esperan que una época de cooperación brote en un futuro próximo.

"Si tuviésemos un presidente con un temperamento y sabiduría de un Abraham Lincoln", dijo el ex senador George McGovern, candidato presidencial demócrata en 1972, "esa es una manera que podría unir al país de nuevo".

Algunos expertos sugieren que la división entre estados rojos y estados azules es asombrosamente similar a la de Estados Unidos antes de la Guerra Civil, y probablemente no se resolverá hasta que un lado supere al otro.

"Es como era en 1840 o 1850", dijo el ex presidente de la Cámara Newt Gingrich. "Esto seguirá y seguirá. Hay un desacuerdo genuino en cuanto al futuro del país".

"Este no es un gobierno dividido, es un país dividido".

McGovern dijo que el clima político –el cual tildó del más amargo en 40 años– deja al candidato vencedor en una posición poco envidiable.

"Digamos que Kerry gana, aún hay un Senado republicano, una Cámara republicana y una Corte Suprema republicana", dijo el ex senador de South Dakota. "Le va a costar gobernar".

"Pero Bush, si gana, puedo decirle que al menos en mi vida jamás he visto un presidente tan odiado por los demócratas como odian a este tipo".

¿Cómo fue que Estados Unidos se polarizó a tal grado?

Panetta, quien dirige un grupo de estudio en California State University–Monterey Bay, dijo que cree que ambos partidos están más interesados en ganar que en gobernar.

Casi ignorando al centro político, tanto demócratas como republicanos se concentran casi exclusivamente en su núcleo de partidarios, asumiendo que la asistencia es la clave de preservar o expandir el poder, especialmente en contiendas reñidas.

"Asumen que su base representa la diferencia entre ganar y perder el poder", dijo. "Apelar exclusivamente a la base crea aún más divisiones. Recalca temas divisorios que son emotivos y tienden a dividir al país aún más"
¿Y esta publicidad? Puedes eliminarla si quieres