Paul Krugman does a good job of forewarning us Dems of what the future post-election holds: a bitterly cold war against the Conservative hate machine that wishes to obfuscate the very issues that brought a Dem to the presidency in the first place. They'll declare war on John Edwards populism, Obama's change and Hillary's pragmatism. They'll try to tell us the country is ruined and its failed economy a fault of the bleeding hearts. They'll ruin us for our patriotism and tell us we're all terrorists. Such are the desperate acts of meglamaniacs who see dollar signs in the eyes or babies.
Universal health care? "A socialist idea deserving not of the American patience," the Conservatives will insist. John Edwards's unemployment insurance will be likened to the froggy French (gasp!). Higher taxes on the rich--a conspiracy on Christians! Stronger environmental regs? Anti-competition and anti-creationist.
But why? Why do they hate poor people so much? Why are they so set on being divisive, un-human, and indeed--yes, I'll say it--un-Christian? Alternately, why do Dems allow this? Do we really have to even entertain such cruelty? No we don't, but the very nature of Liberals--who believe everyone deserves a voice, has a right to differing opinions and should be allowed an audience (i.e., the fundementals of a democracy)--necessarily makes them good targets for bully Conservatives--who believe in competition, selfishness and heirarchy--as they crusade to privatize every aspect of Public life in order that they may profit off human necessity. Charter schools, privatised health care, toll roads--they rationalize their greed by exhibiting a cripled government (created by a mired political process of bought votes and commercial tv news) that need only be unburdened of such responsibilities as the good of the people. Illiteracy, widespread diabetes and potholes are left in the wake--and poor people from the east, west and south sides of Indianapolis are brainwashed by their Republican-owned newspaper into thinking that less taxes are the answer. Then they vote out the one leader who has ever improved the neighborhoods and their quality of life (yes, I miss you, Bart Peterson); they vote out reason and humanity; they vote out good public schools, the arts; they vote out paved roads, healthy school lunches and programs for active living. And then the infrastructure declines, drop out rates increase, and big business plays the part of the charletan carpet bagger and sell us on private schools and two-tier medical coverage. And the money, oh the money, it comes a-pouring into the grubby hands of the Corporation, who then convinces government it needs incentives to continue selling us its fantasy. The taxpayer money that could have gone to buying me a textbook when I was 11 is then routed toward corporate taxbreaks and credits.
I wish we had a Conservative blogger amongst us who could convince me otherwise that neo-Conservatives are 21st century Nazis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
All true. But Don't you think ole' Kruggers is becoming a bit of a chicken little in his old age? Since most of us became politically literate during the Clinton scandals and have just lived through 7 years of George W actually being THE PRESIDENT, it's understandable that we are very, very skeptical about the dems being able to win against the no-holds-barred republican machine. But I think I've finally been convinced that Clinton or Obams or whoever would have to REALLY SCREW IT UP in order to not win in November. Democrats have never in our lifetime had anywhere close to this much of an advantage. And sure, a Clinton / McCain matchup is a little dangerous-sounding. but the more I watch John McCain, the more I'm convinced that he's a pretty bad politician and would make an even worse president.
So whatevs. Let Bill Clinton continue to be a racist. It's cool.
I though this op-ed was great when i read it this morning.
and its not so much electibility that matters (i agree that any democrat will probably get elected next year) ... but the ability to implement an agenda once in office. Obama is running on the idea that he will be able to use bi-partisan support to enact legislation once he is president. that simply will not happen and he is being naive if he thinks it will. republicans will call him a terrorist and a muslim and socialist, and block and filibuster everything he tries to do. even public support will not matter - republicans have shown time and time again that they dont give a shit what the public thinks and they are prepared to do everything in their power to stop legislation no matter how popular it is (i.e. SCHIP).
First, a quick rap on the knuckles to mike for implying the dem nomination is down to only two nominees. All over the Internet, people say the same thing over and over again: "I want to vote for John Edwards but not if he's not viable by the time my primary comes around"; and it is the media and conversations like ours in forums all over the web where Edwards is dismissed as a candidate--unmentioned and therefore silenced--that takes this vote away. Takes MY vote away. There are three candidates still in it to win it. Don't ignore the best one just because CNN does.
Second, I don't think it's safe for us to rule out McCain yet. Sorry to say but Americans aren't nearly as cautious as Canadians, nor is their memory as good. By the time, November roles around and the networks and news rags have their say, McCain will look like a very different candidate; he'll have a new campaign advisor (likely a Karl Rove-like gargoyle hanging off his shoulder) who'll make him clean up his speaking style (sloppy!), he'll be more conservative, more pro-war, more pro-life and he'll be haranguing dems about everything under the sun. I'm still holding my breath on the bet that even I have wagered, that a dem will win the presidency.
Rap on the knuckles? C'mon! I did say "Clinton or Obams or WHOEVER" in my original post! But honestly, I think John Edwards has about a 0%chance of being the nominee. This is simply my reactionary position as an observer. If I were actually a member of the media, I would consider it wholly inappropriate to write off John Edwards as long as he has a mathematical chance to win the nomination. So I totally agree with you on that front....it's the media coverage that's the problem. I really do think that John Edwards should've been given much more attention, and in terms of policy he's definitely my preferred choice for the nomination. But I still do think that he's done tons of good for the contest this year and he's also pretty much going to get to choose who becomes the eventual nominee. That's no small role.
As for Smokestack's comment, I'm pretty sure Obama is a politician like the rest of them and isn't actually that naive. The whole "Obama is naive" thing actually strikes me as one of the sillier media talking points. C'mon....a freakin' HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT with a vague interest in politics wouldn't even be that naive. To me it's just an obvious election strategy, and it seems to be working pretty well for him. Of course he'll try to take it as far as it'll go, but he'll play the game when push comes to shove. And with a democratic congress and a solid team behind him I highly doubt he'd have any more or less trouble getting legislation passed than either Clinton or Edwards would.
One more point. John McCain is done if the economy continues to be a big issue. Also, he's really really old and it really really shows.
Post a Comment