Time for a Purge?

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (20)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  The party of the working man. The party of the disenfranchised…which can essentially mean ANYONE…because if your NOT one of the two percent holding the majority of wealth in this country you are disenfranchised from SOMETHING (education, employment, age, sex, race). The party of The New Deal. The party of the environment. The party of the COMMON MAN.

  This isn’t brain surgery. Of course the Republicans bitch and moan and whine about “class warfare” whenever the discussion points to how they exploit the weak. Because THEY ARE THE ONES waging the class war. They just don’t want it to get out!

  The Democratic Party needs to go back to its roots. They are going to have to be willing to give up a certain amount of PAC money, they are going to have to accept that because they won’t be putting big business FIRST, that that means that a portion of big business will not support them. BUT, they will find that that loss of money/support will be more than replaced by the support of the vast majority of the general population.

  Big business already has a Party. It’s called the Republican Party. It doesn’t need a “second rate” “party of big business”. The Democratics need to remember who their core REALLY IS.

  Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Dec 20, 2004 at 7:36 PM

  As it stands today the Democratic Party is an empty shell.  We didn’t have our own agenda during this last election cycle. Waging a campaign on “we’re not them” is not the way to win.

  We need to gather our pennies, nickels and dimes together and put some adds on TV that expose the issues that affect ALL Americans not previleged to be in the 2%.

  You now have to earn LESS money to be eligible for Pell Grants putting secondary education out of reach for even more people.  Not to mention a precipitous rise in the cost of public universities around the nation.

  Privatizing social security?  No way!  With the majority of Americans Just Over Broke, I can see the future . . . more homeless people or folk working until they die because they can’t afford to retire.

  Anyone can see that we exist in a state where there is govenment for the benefit of big business, not for the people.

  We need to collectively back candidates who are willing to ignore the persuasions from the lobbyists and fight for what’s right.

  “This town needs an enema!”

  Posted by chris on Dec 21, 2004 at 2:17 AM

  Liberal outfits like In These Times, The Progressive and The Nation magazine (and our Toronto Star) are part of the problem. They offer the solution of the Democratic Party to the problem of the Republican Party (and in Canada, they offer the solution of the Liberals to the Conservatives). Joel’s article, and I’ve read - profitably, I might add - many of Joel’s articles over the years, illustrates the reason why the solution offered isn’t the right solution.

  The real problem here is capitalism, and capitalists are not comfortable attacking a system that they’ve chosen to believe in and support. And so, Joel’s article, and zillions of others like it, doesn’t even use the word capitalism or any of it’s variants. You not only avoid discussing capitalism - the problem - but you protect capitalism, for you make it invisible. Out of sight means out of mind.

  If you can’t name the enemy, then I don’t think you’re going to rally the troops to confront it. And if you can’t name the enemy because it is you, then you’ve got issues, including an honesty issue.

  Yes, Republicans and rightwingers lack honesty, love their triumphalism and love to cause anger, their religiosity notwithstanding. They do what the apostle John said folks in the world (alienated from God) do. They show off their means of survival (1John 2:15-17)

  Clearly, You can be happy being happy or you can be happy being miserable.

  And so you have to deal with the way triumphant, happy Republicans lyingly refer to anyone or any group who doesn’t agree with them as communists or socialists, even when the target is someone, like Kerry, whose friends and partners are their own friends and partners. The Democratic Party is a pro business, pro war, anti working class Party, which is why it isn’t a solution to the problem of a pro business, pro war and anti working class Party.

  But while you’re harping on their lack of honesty, leftwingers, reflect for a moment on the fact that it’s not just Republicans whose ‘profits before people’ behavior is causing destruction. That’s because Republicans are also capitalists, like Democrats. And so, It’s also capitalists whose ‘profits before people’ behavior is causing destruction. And isn’t that what most of you are?

  Isn’t there something dishonest about harping on the damage that the Republican Party is doing and not mentioning capitalism? Isn’t there something dishonest about not qualifying your criticisms in such a way that you at least acknowledge that it’s hard to properly attack the enemy when the enemy is also yourself?

  There is indeed class warfare happening. But pointing that out and talking about it are two different things. One of those actions is a waste of time. The other is useful. But perhaps it’s harder to talk about class warfare when in fact you are part of what keeps it going.

  Capitalism means class warfare, the way cows mean milk. Capitalism has blossomed and is now neoliberal capitalism. (Some would probably argue that neoliberal capitalism is merely one form of capitalism. If that is true, it doesn’t refute anything I’m saying here.) The neoliberal agenda of privatization and deregulation (that favors corporations) is alive and well. The socialization of costs and privatization of profits continues apace. The middle class is being slowly but surely absorbed into the ranks of the working poor, as jobs get outsourced and as the slave camps called ‘export processing zones’ (areas in a country where corporations get tax holidays on the theory, which had good intentions, that developing nations would catch up if they were more attractive to capitalists in this way) multiply and even pop in developed democracies. All of that is what capitalism means.

  I’ll throw in a few more items, since I enjoy thinking that capitalists will be annoyed if they read this. Capitalism means Big Pharma making huge profits catering to the affluent and fairly healthy population with lifestyle drugs and thrapies while ignoring the suffering of millions of AIDS patients in Africa. It means bloody and very destructive wars of conquest. It means offshore tax havens, where something like 5 trillion dollars (the American take is around $500 billion, the last I heard; See Ken Silverstein’s article about it which may still be archived on the Mother Jones magazine website) sit untaxed, while ‘leaders’ whine that they can’t afford social spending. While they have chosen to pursue their neoliberal agenda, and glory, they can’t afford social spending. (It’s really all a matter of choice.) They have decided that being a master in a rickety mansion in which most of the residents are their slaves is preferable to being an equal in a clean, safe and well organized mansion in which everyone shares fairly in the pain and the gain.

  Now, Here’s what I think you should ask yourselves. Have I just annoyed you or made a point that you can agree with?

  Posted by Arby on Dec 22, 2004 at 6:37 AM

  Spot on Arby!

  The challenge of opening a public discussion on the evils of capitalism would be convincing people that criticism of capitalism is not anti-American. In the American psyche, capitalism equals democracy. And democracy equals capitalism. We have to make it clear that run-away turbo-capitalism is actually a threat to the fundaments of democracy: a healthy public “space” (physical and mental) for discussion and freedom of expression, choice (be it choice of political ideas, life-styles, religious beliefs (or the choice NOT to believe…) whatever….), objective media (press, television, radio, internet….).

  We also have to make it clear that it is not a question of “pure capitalism or pure socialism”. Both economic systems offer certain advantages and disadvantages.—Personally, I’d be in favour of a “social market economy” similar to the one that has proved highly successful in Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia.

  But first and foremost, we have to convince people—average, every-day people—to think about the system and alternatives to it. Only when your average-guy-from-down-the-street and the girl-next-door begin to ask questions and work for change will the situation improve.

  Posted by Ben on Dec 22, 2004 at 7:54 AM

  Well said Arby. The article was about the future direction of the democratic party, which I hope involves a large fire and lots of dancing. I, for one, did get fooled again, as Bush mis-spoke the old adage, and I’m pretty pissed about it. To think they had the nerve to call a vote for Nader “wasted”. But to Arby’s point, which I agree with, there is no solution to any of the problems we face coming from the corporations that control our government, and the two major parties. There will be no end to the wars over oil, and soon food & water, as long as we refuse to re-order our priorities, and our society. And of course, we do and will refuse, until we are forced to do it in response to some future crisis. Frankly, I don’t expect any of us will live long enough to see such a shift, but it’s a nice dream. What I do expect to see is something like what happened in Spain, Italy, and, yes, Germany in the 1930,s. Wealth concentrated in a very few hands, Power in even fewer, suspension of our constitution and bill of rights, political repression, sham elections, oh wait, we already have those. Almost there kids!

  Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Dec 22, 2004 at 8:46 AM

  This will be offputting, but I believe in frank and full disclosure. I don’t believe in democracy. Democracy means mankind’s rule over mankind, and holds no place (in actuality) for God. George W Bush is a fervent believer in democracy. He is not a (full) believer in God. He has chosen a democratic path. And I hope no one thinks he’s honest. (I also like to remind folks that there’s the ‘operational’ definition of democracy and the textbook definition. The operational definition means ‘what you see a thing is’ and not what the dictionary, or someone or some organization says a thing is.)

  Socialism is a disaster - if you only consider the operational definition. We all remember the perversion of socialist principles that became Stalinism.

  The problem with democracy is that everyone and every kind of person, just about, believes in democracy. Going by that, democracy doesn’t mean anything. It also has a very rightwing smell to it, if you sniff carefully. Democracy is like individualism, but not any sort of positive individualism. Reaganism was all about the rugged American, capitalist individual. Remember the Marlboro Man riding high on his horse, presumably engaged in the (collective) action of civilizing the savages of North America who didn’t know what to do with the wonderful hinterland in which they were born and lived quite well in for some time prior to the arrival of their white visitors? Democracy, in which everyone’s view is equally valid, is similar - if you think about it.

  Anyone can claim to be championing democracy. While I take the view that ‘that’ is democracy, and problematic, I also appreciate that not only bad people, but good people too have embraced democracy. They are the ones, like those who are responding to my above post, who are not happy with those who they see as having hijacked democracy.

  The first political book I bought - because I was ‘not’ a believer in democracy - was titled DETERRING DEMOCRACY and was written by Noam Chomsky, who I wrote to after reading the book and discovering that the author was well known and controversial. He graciously responded to my letter, which he enjoyed, pointing out that in all honesty he could not agree with me that there is a God when there is no way for that to be proved.

  My letter wasn’t specifically about God. (Can Chomsky prove that he has a mind?) In fact, my letter was a very conversational, spur of the moment thing in which I ranged over a number of subjects, including the reticence of politicians to converse with those whose votes they seek, an observation with which he agreed. Unlike most other letters to world and other leaders that I’ve sent (a hobby of mine that I no longer pursue), Chomsky responded to every point I raised. It took him maybe a year to respond - he’s impossibly busy, as he noted in his letter to me - but he actually ‘responded’!

  Well, Chomsky has taught me much, not least which is to be skeptical. He would, and does, tell his audiences to not believe even what he says. Not, that is, before you’ve proven to yourselves that what he’s saying is the truth. My God, Jehovah, has similar advice. We are admonished in the (Christian) Bible to buy truth itself and never sell it. In other words, Christians are not to buy some organization, or some charismatic individual or even their own wisdom, if examination of the source reveals falsity.

  Such skepticism is not to be confused with extremism. Sometimes it’s not easy to decide whether to go with something, on the basis that extremism is not good, or not go with something, on the basis of principle. I also like to be critical (thoughtful), rather than negative. A principle, in fact, comes into play here. The principle is humility. The critical person examines all things and honestly reports on his or her findings. One needn’t be unduly blunt here. You can be tactful, but honest, for example, when dealing with criticisms of people. The negative person criticizes everything, or most things, automatically. He or she wants to be regarded as possessing sufficient knowledge to be able to easily pass judgment on assorted matters and persons. Nothing, and no one else’s opinion, is worthy of prolonged consideration. The negative person has it all figured out.

  Many of those who believe in (choose to believe in) democracy say things that I, a theocrat, agree with. And conversely, this theocrat often pronounces on political matters in a way that others approve of. The bottom line is this: If you care, then don’t worry about the details. Keep caring. I will support you, regardless what you believe. It’s not about how we can change the world. It’s about deserving to be here when that world is removed.

  I used to be a Jehovah’s Witness. I haven’t been one for some time. That doesn’t mean, though, that I’m not a witness of Jehovah. (Whether he agrees with me or not is another matter.) In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses would be horrified to see my involvement in politics. But that attitude might be simplistic and extremist.

  I’m not disagreeing with them that the democratic ‘man alone’ approach to problem solving and civilization building can’t work. I just happen to be interested in what’s going on around me. I wouldn’t make a good cult member. I agree with people who say that politics is disgusting. But many of those who have that reaction to politics are coming from an uncaring position. Politics is about rulers and those ruled. You are in one camp or the other, and so to pretend that you can set politics on a shelf and not bother with it at all is a bit unrealistic.

  On the other hand, folks (Chinese leaders?) who insist that if you don’t vote, then you can’t complain, are being extremist and have a simplistic view of matters. When I didn’t vote (last year was my first time), I was still more interested in what was going on - and therefore paid attention and learned more and could discuss politics with others, and did so - than many voters who I spoke with who didn’t have a clue because, in fact, they didn’t care enough to follow events, candidates and issues. If my informative discussions with others led to positive voting outcomes, even though I personally didn’t vote, What is the difference?

  If voting is as important as running a nuclear generating facility, which seems to be the view of many, then why would simply increasing the number of voters, rather than focussing on informing them and encouraging them to care as well as vote, be right? Would we think it’s okay to have blindfolded people watching monitors and operating controls in that nuclear facility? There’s also good arguments, beyond anything religious, for ‘not’ voting. One could argue that voting legitimizes a screwy, manipulated electoral system.

  Again, Just care. Then take it from there wherever your path goes.

  Posted by Arby on Dec 22, 2004 at 6:05 PM

  The problem is obvious: the DNC is being defined (and subsequently minimized) by the RNC. The battle to continue defining (and thereby limiting) the DNC is still being waged by conservative pundits, as this article illustrates. They are keeping the DNC on the defensive, preventing the DNC from gathering steam and momentum. Blanding down the DNC will only result in further emasculation.

  John Edwards was the only candidate that wrested control of the DNC’s image from the RNC. He was also the only DNC candidate who was not on defense and it showed.

  Start a movement to Ban Computerized Voting Machines.

  Posted by Constitution Is My Bible on Dec 22, 2004 at 7:37 PM

  Sounds great Arby! Only one problem, without basic democratic rights to elect a right-winger like Kerry how could we possible elect a true leftist.  Only when millions of Americans peacefully assemble on the streets and shutdown our corrupt government will we ever have a chance at democracy.

  Posted by Jim on Dec 22, 2004 at 8:50 PM

  It’s something for democrats to worry about. I’m not a democrat. I’m just someone who cares and who believes that the real task that lies before us, if we should wish to accept it, is to deserve to be here when this system of things is destroyed. That’s not a plan for doing nothing. You do not become deserving for doing nothing. But there’s actions I’ll take and actions that I won’t take, and my actions won’t always be the same as others. In fact, I’m very much a non conformist. But I’m a sociable one.

  Posted by Arby on Dec 23, 2004 at 1:55 PM

  Good thoughts, Arby, thanks for making them here.
  Unless we can get of the DLC and TNR types, there
  won’t be a Democratic Party worth saving.
  We need to be forceful in shifting the debate
  to the Left, particularly as regards the key
  class warfare issue and the battle to retain separation of church & state. Most importantly
  an unrelenting anti-war, anti-imperialist position.
  Otherwise, the GOP will sink us on god, gays and
  guns forever. We have to stop trying to argue
  on their terms. Kerry would have been better off
  by coming out for gay marriage. I personally think
  gun control is a loser because of the tens of
  millions of fanatical gunowners. Let’s move on.

  Posted by Michael Hardesty on Dec 23, 2004 at 6:15 PM

  What the Democrats need to do is quit trying to be wanna-be-neo-cons. I am of the school of thought that this middle way strategy is all bullshit. The Bob Shrums and Bill Clinton’s of the world have been failures at rallying any sort of overwhelming grass roots support for a reason. They do not capture the hearts and minds of core democratic voters. They have reduced liberal politics to sex appeal and not policy and if you aren’t Bill Clinton you cant pull it off. Its not enough to just attempt to piece together a winning strategy every 4 years. You cant run a party who’s only reason for existence is to just try and stem the tide of conservatism in this country. Liberals must create their own movement, and stop beig defensive just in an effort to keep power and if in doing so they have to be the minority party for a generation so be it the party itself must evolve and mature if it is to survive. Progressive, Liberals, (Democrats?) must embrace their legacy. Throughout history the significant presidential players in America, the ones that are remembered as successes are the real progressives. Indeed the only Democratic presidents that were effective were the ones who had unabashedly liberal policies. Consider the Democratic president of the last 25 years. Carter and Clinton who some might argue were failures politically.  I don’t care about politically I am concerned with their “policy” legacy and from that standpoint they certainly would not be considered successful. One could make the argument that Carter and Clinton were just leftovers who governed like 1950’s Republicans. They just happened to preside during a relatively moderate period in an overall conservative reflex that began with the end of the Nixon administration. Now that Clinton has been shown to have been largely ineffective from a long-term policy perspective (no significant programs no sea change in public attitudes) in addition to being a self serving dumb ass, the democrats need to abandon all this corporate garbage and get back to being a legitimate labor party. If they cant do it then somebody else needs to.

  Posted by Boss on Dec 24, 2004 at 6:22 AM

  I couldn’t agree more with Boss’
  comments early this moring. His arguments coincide with mine when it comes to “what’s wrong with the Dem Party”.
  The DLC has had too much power because they were successful and won 2 pres. elections with Clinton, HOWEVER, The Dems have lost these elections 1994,96,98,2000,2004 for control
  of Congress. No bragging rights here. With these losses the party
  will forfit fillibuster rights,
  to try to defeat right-wing judges. Predictions are that the powers in the party are even willing to give up on Roe v Wade.
  What’s next? Civil rights,voting act? equal pay,GI bill,Medicare,
  Why not just give it all up to the conglomerates now and save all the
  time and energy wasted in writing these comments. Saul Alinsky and I paraphrase;
  “the only way to fight corporations is when the people will come together and march in the streets. 
  Obviously, our national nightmare has not arrived at the point where
  marching in the streets will happen. I mourn for the nation I grew up in even though I was fooled as well. Liberty and Justice for all…only if you are rich, this even makes the color bar i.e. OJ Simpson.

  Posted by Florence Murphy on Dec 25, 2004 at 5:02 PM

  it’s high time that “progressives” make actual PROGRESS and stop dillydallying with the death cult that is electoral politics.

  back in 2000, they were saying “yeah, we don’t really agree with Gore, but vote for him anyway, because Bush is worse.”  and then, in 2004, “yeah, we don’t agree with Kerry, but vote for him anyway, because Bush is worse… and we’re trying to save democracy”.

  so.  i call you out on your bullshit.  NO MORE!  never again will i yield any power to any representative.  i want direct democracy, direct action, and i want it NOW and FOREVER!

  Posted by auto gnome on Dec 26, 2004 at 8:00 AM

  Ralph Nader was right and you democrats finally fucking get it!
  The Democrats can no longer take the money of Big Business, they must do what Nader has done and only accept individual donations.
  The Democrats can no longer ignore that the minimum wage is a fucking sham, that allows millions of Americans to live in poverty, they must champion a living wage for all Americans as Ralph has done.
  The Democrats need to stop being fucking moderates, get your damn act together you bastards are ruining our fucking nation with your near right wing bullshit while the republicans are controlling the world with their neo-con billionairre paradise notion of the world.

  Posted by Richard on Dec 27, 2004 at 1:37 AM

  Nader is the answer!
  NADER IN 2008!
  ITS TIME TO SHOW THE DEMOCRATS WE ARE TIRED OF THEIR LIES!
  www.votenader.org
  (Please Visit and email or contact the campaign to encourage Ralph’s inclusion in the 2008 Presidential Election and Debates)
  Thank You

  Posted by Richard on Dec 27, 2004 at 1:47 AM

  Richard my brother you are right about democrats not being moderates but easy with the other stuff bro I happen to know who my father was.  It speaks volumes that John Kerry couldn’t even say that he was against an illegal war.  A war by the way that Hillary and Bill Clinton both supported. Don’t get me wrong I did vote for Clinton twice and Gore.  But when I saw Kerry fumble around for 3 months trying to defend a war that a fake-ass-photo-op-fighter-pilot of a president had no explanation for I was blown away.  Dude I spent 7 months active duty Army (on stop loss by the way) and I got my Operation Iraqi Freedom medal to prove it, so believe me I know this “war” is bullshit and the soldiers deserved a real advocate for them that was willing to say “pull the plug and bring em home”.  Sad but true I believe that Kerry probably would have made a better president than Gore or Clinton but man why the fuck did he forget all the lessons he learned in Vietnam? And why the the DNC push his campaign if it didn’t reflect the majority of Democratic sentiment?

  Posted by Boss on Dec 27, 2004 at 5:28 AM

  Karl Rove’s campaign appealed to emotions. John Kerry’s campaign appealed to our better senses (with some half-hearted emotional appeals). Emotions (fear, anger) trumped rational thinking. Always does with the masses.

  Democrats don’t need to change who they are. They just need to get better at selling who they are.

  Posted by Constitution Is My Bible on Dec 27, 2004 at 3:57 PM

  Wow, trying to Elect Nader - or Capitalism As The Enemy [you can respect both POV’s but for Dems to take power in this lifetime neither will fly in Peoria] - ->  Has anybody else here ever read Sun Tzu??!!! You take the battle to the enemy where he is weak, and disappear where he is strong or else you get wiped out. Jeezus, this stuff is elemantary strategy but here goes [most people probably get it but it doesn’t hurt to recap]:

  1. Develop a Long-Range Message and stay on That Message until it explodes the fuck on impact. Absolutely right that it is no strategy to simply play tactics every 4 years, when the other side is thinking strategically in 10-year increments. Also get tactically ruthless about delivering our message; For example:  “SOME people think it’s OK to pile deadly toxins into the bodies of our children by poisoning our air and water. Now George W. Bush may think it’s OK to poison our kids, but I will FIGHT HARD for the right of EVERY American child to breathe clean air and drink clean water FOREVER!!!”  —(enter patriotic music and loud applause with flags waving behind our candidate).

  2. Refocus on the COMMON SENSE values that we all share - even with *gasp* some Republicans. Throw almost all polls into the Round File immediately (sorry guys). Edwards got this instincively, and so did the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, may he rest in peace. Jesus Christ, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. also all managed to get their message out without the aid of polls or even the written word in some cases. For Martin Luther King Jr, any supposed polling would have actually worked to his detriment. It is true that the above examples were all exceptional and spiritual individuals or even worhsipped as a living God [not candidates for American President in 2004]. However, this does not invalidate the point: that polls are not a necessity to win hearts and minds.  We need less self-referencing sources of information in our decison-making and more tightness of our OODA loops [Google “OODA Loop”  for the interested].

  What is absolute necessity is more like the planning of a chess-master and ruthless execution of substance than abstract musings about what we could do if only George Bush didn’t win. This isn’t politically correct to say it, but we could have just asked Goebbels and Hitler if you need to be morally right to win elections. In the current conflict, both sides claim the moral high ground.

  Therefore, unwavering public projection of this certainty - almost akin to mass media use of the Jedi Mind Trick - is a mission-critical abojective.

  So: Less public questioning of ourselves and more projection of absolute moral authority, especially in areas like the environment and health care where the debate is ours to lose from the get-go. We hold the high ground here, and ceding it makes absolutely no strategic sense.

  To this end, several suggestions:
  A. Common-sense messages relating to our children’s welfare and family values for mass media
  B. Use A coupled with B - mandatory hyperbolic messages depicting the “true” nature of the other party as just one notch above Satan. . . They’ve been doing it to us for 30 years, and even Rocky Balboa only allowed himself to pummeled so far. Compared to what the DNC looked like after the last election, Rocky escaped without a scratch . Politics is not a sweet business.

  In closing, Sun Tzu might say: Hit them hard where they are weakest [such as on actual moral values like health care] and decline combat completely on “wedge” issues such as gay marriage where our side has been getting clobbered. Those issues will take a more refined strategy to get our message accross, and may just plain have to wait. . . Just do what Rove’s team does and refuse to talk about it or rephrase the debate.

  A brief demonstration: “In other words, sir, any question about bedroom behavior gets referred straight to the U.S. Constitution. And doesn’t this administration have a reckless record of disregarding the US Constituion, guarantor of freedom and liberty for our Great Nation? This Administration’s policies should worry every American, especially those with families.”

  PS - It is past time to get real guys. . . Even Rocky Balboa had a finite limit to the amount that he was willing to get his ass pummeled. I just wish I could say that getting pummeled has been part of our strategy as well. Of course we don’t have the same amount of “fixers” working on our voting machines as they do. . . But in the Real World this thinking is dismissed [rightfully so perhaps] as naive. They still won - and aside from the heroic efforts of Sens Grassley and others we may never know what really happened in ‘04..

  Still, this author hopes maybe the Ukraine could spare some of their exit pollers for our next US Election. . . In the meantime let’s concentrate and victory.

  Posted by Ed Mellon on Dec 27, 2004 at 10:18 PM

  No matter how much my homeboy Richard curses us Democratic voters out, I am not sold on the Nader thing.  Nader has had 6 years to build a viable party/alternative.  I have not seen him do it.  Nader has had 4 years to attack the Commander-and-Thief about his policies but he has yet to do so.  As much as I would like to believe in Nadar I still feel like he is on a big ass 6 year ego trip.  If he can make it happen so be it. Whatever happens SOMEBODY needs to step up and reclaim the LIBERAL AGENDA.

  Posted by boss on Dec 29, 2004 at 1:49 AM

  I like the Sun Tzu Reference. Totally agree with the analogy of Dr. King and the lack of popular opinion polls. If only our leaders were that sophisticated/courageous.

  Boss
  www.militantapathy.com

  Posted by Boss on Jan 1, 2005 at 8:36 AM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Joel Bleifuss

• Block ’Em, Sock ’Em
  
• Buy Back Our Government
  
• A Specter is Haunting Dems
  
• Bailout Bandits
  
• Building Utopia
  A new documentary profiles the rise and fall of a Depression-era utopian experiment in the Bronx.
• To Boycott Israel…or Not?
  Naomi Klein and Rabbi Arthur Waskow debate whether divestment will bring peace to the Middle East.