Last November 2, as progressives watched state after state turn red in the presidential race—and in Senate races that were supposed to be close—something funny was happening in Montana. The state that went for Bush by 20 percent handed a solid victory to a new Democratic governor, 49-year-old rancher Brian Schweitzer. And, unlike other elected red-state Democrats, it quickly became… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (67)Page 1 of 1 pagesThe only way for republicans to defeat democrats is to lie and cheat.
The only way for democrats to win (with any consistency) is to take back the media from corporate whores, and to take back the voting mechanism from the whore Deibold.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 12, 2005 at 10:14 AM While there is a glimmer of a turn around here in Utah, which is perhaps the reddest of the red, many of the party activists, with some inspiring exceptions, still don’t seem to get it.
Most “policy directions” seem to be from-the-hip, ad hoc pronouncements from the handful of semi-pro party leaders who have some particular axe to grind. An example, the new “galvanizing issue” being pushed is the minimum wage—a worthy topic in many respects, but not one that resonates with the middle class who have left the Democrats here.
There seems to be no effective mechanism or process—or inspired organizers—to take input from the public or other party members and make the natural connections between the middle class and progressives. For example, many are genuinely concerned about the huge, negative impacts of the massive illegal emigration on wages and quality of life, not only on the underclass but also the middle class. There seems to be no avenue for opening a discussion on this or other red meat progressive issues.
Posted by Blue in Red on Jul 12, 2005 at 11:19 AM ah, but you left out the marriage amendment that a lot of the Dems including Schweitzer endorsed. that will get you in trouble with the DC-socially liberal Emily’s List/HUman RIghts campaign crowd. I understand why he did it as political pragmatism, but the article should have mentioned it.
Posted by anonymous on Jul 12, 2005 at 12:17 PM Michael Hardesty, aka Martin, Mikey, Peter, Jack Barnes, etc., is a PAID CONSERVATIVE TROLL who has conversations with himself under numerous screen names (including using others’ screen names - like mine), in order to disrupt liberal dialogue. JUST IGNORE HIM.
Do a Google search for “Michael Hardesty” and you’ll see he does the same thing on other liberal forums - having conversations with himself even. How pathetic is that?
Posted by Lefty on Jul 12, 2005 at 12:57 PM In the mean time, IMHO, the Democrats’ survival turns on two critical issues. One, we have to get the mechanism of voting out of the hands of corporate whores who have an incentive to cheat. Two, the corporate whores, like GE, Viacom, Disney, etc., must be forced to divest of broadcast and print media.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 12, 2005 at 1:02 PM Hey, Lefty, would you please just get off the board ! We are all getting sick of these schizophrenic dialogues that you are having with
yourself. Enough already ! We are all sorry about
your apparent psychosis but is this really a public issue ? You are unable to string two coherent sentences or thoughts together. It’s
They Are All Conservative Crooks or they work
for Tom DeLay as paid trolls, etc.
WHO THE FVCK CARES ? Your racist views on Palestinians sound like DeLay’s so maybe you
work for him if we were to follow your goofy nonlogic ! I don’t agree with the libertarians
but at least they are interesting and worth debating. There’s no rule that this board is
for brain-impaled libs only. There is no “liberal
discourse” coming people like you. You might as
well be working for Bush and the neocons because
you do their dirty work including advocating the
next war against Iran. Nobody needs any instructions from a sick little turddropping like
you as to who they should or shouldn’t be exchanging ideas with.
Get a life, you pathetic little twerp !
Posted by Marlene on Jul 12, 2005 at 2:14 PM Go, Marlene, go ! I know of several
people who have dropped out of these
forums because of twisted little abortions
like “lefty” or whatever this object’s name
is. LEFTY IS A GOON. LEFTY IS A GOON.
No wonder his folks still have to spank
his stinky little butt.
Posted by Mikey on Jul 12, 2005 at 2:19 PM What is going on with this lefty thing? Anyway, the Democratic Party has got to get away from supporting these so called free trade agreements. The only free thing about these agreements are corporate freedoms to exploit the people of other countrys with low wages and working standards and to lower the standard of living for Americans. Any Demo that supports these agreements will have a hard time of winning.
Posted by Ryan Compton on Jul 12, 2005 at 3:26 PM so, being pro-choice and an environmentalist makes one a true democrat? nonsense. where does schweitzer stand on: 1)the invasion of iraq? if he’s not against it, who needs him? 2) education? if he supports nclb, then he is not a true democrat. 3) labor and jobs? does schweitzer support unions and stand against nafta, gatt, and cafta? if not, he’s repubenron lite. 4)the patriot act? does schweitzer stand for full civil liberties for all americans, or does he support the neo-fascist patriot act, which has stripped americans of virtually all of their rights? 5) the welfare safety net? does schweitzer support the safety net, or is he one of those repubenron lite dlc’ers, who, following bubba’s lead, brought about “the end of welfare as we know it,” thus throwing thousands and thousands of children and mothers out on the streets to fend for themselves?
if those who today call themselves democrats do not stand for the core values of the demo party as expressed in the new deal, the new frontier, the great society, and the painful lessons learned from vietnam then they are simply repubenrons masquerading as demos. a vote for them is the same as voting for shrub and his cronies. we cannot save the nation until we save the democratic party.
Posted by fellow traveler on Jul 13, 2005 at 6:13 AM lefty, we know who y are. Keep pluggin’.
in regards to the article - and the last comment - we need to follow bubba’s and this schweitzer in hitting back hard and fast but not go towards the center. I think Americans know what’s right, they are just hoodwinked and battered down by corporate media’s lies. So some re-education should take place when some spindly Democrat does fight back and gets on CNN - like giving an education on why the estate tax is wrong, for example.
Posted by tw on Jul 13, 2005 at 8:51 AM TW said: “. . . I think Americans know what’s right, they are just hoodwinked and battered down by corporate media’s lies. . . .”
I take issue with lumping all “Americans” into the same collective pot. For example, I don’t take any blame whatsoever for the so called hate of America the corporate media claims motivates terrorists. I don’t think that’s true. I think terrorsits hate corporate whores and their CIA death squads, and I hate them too. Terrorist may, or may not, distinguish them from real Americans, you know, liberals. But, they should. I don’t take responsibility for the crimes of the Bush family, the biggest criminal enterprise on earth, in particular, by and through the CIA. I don’t take the blame for the murders commited by the CIA for the benefit of Bush and other criminal corporate enterprises.
BTW, a few Arabs that I know here in America have told me that OBL’s beef is with Bush and Saud, not America. The Bush family have been in bed with both of these Saudi families for decades. The Saud family told Bush, it’s us or them. You’ve seen the pictures of W holding the King’s hand? And OBL hates the despotic, fascist Saud family.
Now, I don’t if this theory is reliable, but it’s plausible.
Back to your statement, I don’t think “conservative” Americans know what’s right. Yes, they are hoodwinked, ying-yanged, in 20 directions at once by every kind of profiteer that crosses their path. I call them the idiots. The lying profiteers are the crooks. That’s what I mean when I say that there are only 2 kinds of conservatives: 1) idiots, and 2) crooks. A pejoritive, cynical, oversimplification. Yes, but not by much.
But, what separates them from liberal Americans? Why are liberals not the “all day suckers” that conservatives are? Are they just smarter? Do they just have a genetically more advanced sense of justice, right and wrong, truth and lies? Do liberals just worship the right God?
Fellow traveler,
I will just say that the notion of a true democrat is largely irrelevant. The democratic party has historically represented the little guy including the little plantation slave owning KKK Grand Wizard (Dragon, whatever). Little guys are diverse and have many divergent, sometimes conflicting interests. That’s why the party who represents the little guy will never be as single minded and coherent as the party that represents the corporate noise machine.
The bottom line for me is that I will support the party that places the interests of public health, safety and welfare (especially public education) above the interests of corporate profits. That’s the common interest that all liberals have. And, in my mind, PHSW are the only interests legitimate interests of government. Obvioulsy, the public welfare is theoretically infinite. Certainly it includes the national defense. Anyway, legislating morality is beyond the legitimate jurisdiction of govnerment. JMHO.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 13, 2005 at 9:36 AM I have to agree with “fellow traveler.” One of the biggest mistakes Democrats have made in recent decades is to shy away from the “liberal” label and the policies it represents. Democrats must embrace their historical support for basic economic and social justice.
Liberals value the dynamism and creativity of democratic capitalism, but they also believe in strong, active government to protect the interests of society. They understand that markets function best when properly regulated, and they also know that unchecked concentrations of private power encourage environmental pollution, financial fraud, and labor exploitation. Liberals see a broad social interest in ensuring real opportunities and decent standards of living for everyone, while requiring basic responsibilities from everyone.
Liberal policies made America the freest, wealthiest, most successful, and most powerful nation in human history. Conservatism in power always threatens to undo that national progress, and is almost always frustrated by the innate decency and democratic instincts of the American people. For more info on liberals/liberalism, see Joe Conason’s “Big Lies.”
Posted by Bud on Jul 13, 2005 at 2:29 PM Bud,
I don’t think anything you’ve said is inconsistant with what I said. I just defined liberal interests as public health, safety and welfare. Obviously, economic prosperity is an integral part of all three of these interests.
I completely agree with you on the issue of being proud to be liberal. I stated in more detail in another thread that liberals have allowed the conservative noise machine to pejoritize the word and have abandoned it. A mistake, IMHO.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 13, 2005 at 2:56 PM re: (most) all of the preceding comments.
1. tw, it is people like bill clinton,schweitzer, and the DLC who HAVE taken the demo party, not to the center, but to the right of center. despite what many think, clinton, a co-founder of the DLC, was the greatest disaster to ever hit the party. when he came into office, demos still controlled the congress and the courts. he, and his DLC cronies, managed to muddle the message, abandon the party’s core values, and to pander to the same wealthy interests who control the repubenron, that’s repubenron, party. (if i can find it, i will post a picture from the ny times a few years back showing “bubba” playing golf with that towering icon of justice, fairness and compassion...jack welch (ge, nbc, election manipulator)). bubba’s legacy is a reputation for poor personal judgement and a government totally in control of the reps for the first substantial amount of time since the 1920s (and two years in the 1950s).
demos certainly need to stop apologizing and start hitting back hard, but with the weapons that have characterized the party- since the days of the new deal. one doesn’t fight back by adopting his opponents positions. in addition to programs that address the needs of ALL middle and working class americans (not just some, JMHO, lefty, or whoever you are) such as job creation and protection, health care, education, welfare, civil rights, and others, “true” demos (call them “new deal” demos if you wish), progressives, and liberals have something on their side that the repubenrons don’t...the facts and the proven track record. one should remember that the last time the reps had unchallenged power for this long a time, the result was the great depression and the advent of the new deal.
there is a joke circulating around washington these days that goes: “Q:why are the repubenrons so opposed to stem cell research? A: they are afraid that the demos will use it to grow a spine.” the demo party has become an echo chamber for repubenron ideology, the “me, too! me, too” party.
numerous polls show that over half of americans oppose the war, no child left behind, and the patriot act. they think the economy, and the country, are going in the wrong direction. they want affordable health care, good secure jobs, and a decent education for their kids. but the demos support the war, nclb, and the patriot act. they promoted nafta, gatt, and, now cafta, and watched as millions of jobs disappeared (just as ol’ ross perot said they would). they acknowledge the sorry state of healthcare, but they won’t attack the real villains, the doctors, pharmaceutical companies, hospital corporations and big insurance companies. who is going to speak for all of us? the right wingers have two parties representing their interests. we have none.
only when we bring the demo party home and stop apologizing, not only for stating facts that upset the repubenrons, but for being liberals, as bud suggests, will we have a voice and a prosperous democratic party. bud’s further comments are an eloquent, and accurate, statement of liberal values. please re-read his post.
Posted by fellow traveler on Jul 13, 2005 at 3:44 PM Lefty,
I did not mean to imply in my post that I disagreed with you. I completely understand and accept your concept of liberalism. I was just saying that I thought fellow traveler hit the nail on the head with his/her remarks.
Posted by Bud on Jul 13, 2005 at 5:06 PM Lefty,
Sorry, but I am not familiar with that abbreviation. Would you care to spell it out? Thanks.
Posted by Bud on Jul 13, 2005 at 5:20 PM I am new to the weblog community and from reading this blog it seems one’s identity can be “stolen” or misused. So, I am a bit gun shy.
Being a liberal makes me a member of a very diverse group, making it impossible to agree on every issue. It is the gray areas where we must find the common ground on which to unite both parties. However, the black-and-white issues are used and re-used by the group in power in order to divide. They need to divide.
I agree with much of the others in this forum. I only underline that the wealth gap has grown, and is as wide as the 1920’s, and the unempowered remain so. And, no, it is not in the Bible that the government should help the poor, as I heard one [over]zealot recently proclaim. So, we should let private charities and tax-exempt churches handle it?
Some non-Christian Roman emperors were quite broad-minded and generous to the poor. I guess one might label them liberals. I don’t hear many neo-cons sacrificing much these days.
Posted by BugEater on Jul 13, 2005 at 6:31 PM Bud, that was Michael Hardesty hijacking my screen name. He’s a conservative troll. Just ignore him.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 13, 2005 at 7:21 PM Hijackiing sounds like it can consume a lot of time.
With all that time, why not join up and go fight the “war” on terror? With so many with such a hard-on for “fighting the war over there so we don’t have to fight it here,” the recruiters should be turning them away. They have raised the age limit, too. Toby Keith looks healthy.
But this is for another forum topic.
Posted by BugEater on Jul 13, 2005 at 8:24 PM BugEater,
Michael Hardesty gets paid to spend his time doing this. It’s his job. He’s paid by the GOP to try to sabatoge liberal message boards. Do a Google search for his name.
As for fighting the war on terror, conservatives are cowards by nature - draft dodgers. Why would you seriously think that conservatives actually want to personally engage in fighting, do you?
Posted by Lefty on Jul 14, 2005 at 7:06 AM “As for fighting the war on terror, conservatives are cowards by nature - draft dodgers. Why would you seriously think that conservatives actually want to personally engage in fighting, do you?”
Lefty, get your head out of your ass. The ranks of every branch of the military are overwhelmingly conservative.
Posted by Randolph on Jul 14, 2005 at 8:24 AM I’ve two domestic male dogs currently in the icebox…
one of them’s a...whatever you call it that’s always a passenger in a fire-engine...with the black spots upon white coat...roughly 10 kilos, 450mm height, 800mm length, and the other is a small mix-terrier of approximately 3 kilos, only 200mm tall x 350mm in length.I’m currently looking for a “home” for both. They are both in mint condition, (only thing is, broken necks), frozen, with all blood and feces still inside.
I will sell the pair together or separately. 60 UK Pounds + ship for both. 40 UK Pounds+ship each. Email for trade.
These dogs are so cute. You can literally utilize them for any purpose you could conceive… and they’re both quite suitable for mounting (by taxidermist, ok COURSE!)
Posted by Lefty on Jul 14, 2005 at 9:03 AM I’m reading the comments and I’ll be back to discuss the race a bit more as I see it. I appreciate the feedback. Unfortunately, I’m super busy right now, but this weekend or early next week, I’ll be back.
Again, thanks for the feedback.
Posted by Matt Singer on Jul 14, 2005 at 9:14 AM With all due respect to my many fine Democratic friends in Montana, I think there are many things for Democrats to learn from the recent Montana elections, but I think it’s dangerous to think that there is a “Montana model”. Brian Schweitzer won because a) the Republicans made a total mess of Montana for over a decade (incumbent R governor Judy Martz’s favorability ratings were less than 20% before she announced that she wouldn’t run for re-election, and b) Brian Schweitzer is a particularly charismatic and hard-working man.
Posted by Jim Fleischmann on Jul 14, 2005 at 9:34 AM Randolf,
Get your head out of your ass. The ranks of conservatives are overwhelmingly a bunch of mouthy chickenhawk cowards, in particular, conservative politicians.
It works like this, Randy, there are only 2 kinds of conservatives: 1) idiots, and 2) crooks. Conservatives that vote for crooks, and offer themselves up to die for the benefit of corporate profits would be the idiots, and I suspect you too.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 14, 2005 at 10:33 AM Jim,
You are probably right! I wouldn’t know any more about Montana than I know about . . . Montana.
But, there may be a model there. In every state where the conservatives in control have butchered everything from their respective budgets, public education, public health, urban blight, environmental contamination, tort reform, institutionalized religion, etc., etc., etc., it shouldn’t be too difficult for a hard working charismatic liberal to get elected.
Except for one little detail. No liberal can get elected if he can’t get his message to the public (because the media is overwhelmingly right wing - corporate owned, and can’t get an accurate vote (because the voting mechanism is right wing - corporate owned).
Posted by Lefty on Jul 14, 2005 at 10:43 AM My previous post begs the question, what is the liberal message? It’s not enough that liberals have access to the media, the message has to be cohesive. Although liberals are much, much more diverse that conservatives, and have many divergent interests conservatives don’t have, there is what I consider to be core liberal beliefs that must be effectively communicated to the public on an ongoing basis until it is established in the public mind.
The following is what I said in another thread:
It is essential for we liberals to keep focused on our values and core beliefs and distinguish them from the conservative idiots and crooks.
Liberals place the interest of public health safety and welfare above the interest of corporate profits. Conservatives place the interest of corporate profits above all other interests.
However, liberals understand that economic prosperity is an essential element of the public health, safety and welfare and understand that a balance must be maintained for the mutual benefit of these interests.
Conservatives don’t understand the notion of balancing interests. For them, profit getting is the only interest of value. Everything else is unimportant.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 14, 2005 at 11:10 AM Lefty, you are ignorant, narrow-minded, and intolerant. You can’t spell. You obviously have a chemical imbalance. I know you think your credo about the only two kinds of conservatives is clever, but throwing it out every time you’re confronted with a differing opinion is stupid. If you can reconcile your statement that conservatives are draft-dodging cowards with the fact that almost everyone in the military is conservative, have at it.
Posted by Randoph on Jul 14, 2005 at 12:30 PM Randolph,
Another credo of mine is that a conservative cannot make an argument without the aid of a false premise. I don’t have to reconcile anything, Randy. Your statement that “almost everyone in the military is a conservative” is a false premise. Everyone in the military is brainwashed. Rush Limbaugh, is the de facto voice of armed forces radio. But, the question is begged, were they conservatives when they got there. The military/industrial has a very large interest in recruiting fresh bodies to die in service of corporate profits. It can’t be accomplished unless the poor suckers who unwittingly volunteer for military service (read: sacrificing yourself for corporate profits), are brainwashed. Kinda the way you have been brainwashed.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 15, 2005 at 7:57 AM To the Fake Lefty,
Please stop hijacking Lefty’s screen name. If you have something to say, then use an original name. It is confusing to have to figure out who is the real and who is the fake lefty. I know plenty of democratic soldiers, my father being one of them. The Pentagon is the biggest upward distribution of wealth mechanism in the world. It takes money out of Joe Sixpack’s pocket and puts it into the coffers of Boeing, Bechtel, Halliburton, and Lockheed Martin. If there is one money hole in government, it is the Pentagon.
Oh, and I do not know of any communist Arab countries. Most of them are autocracies, but there is plenty of capitalism in those nations.
Posted by Bud on Jul 15, 2005 at 12:06 PM The fake “Bud” is Michael Hardesty, aka Martin, Steverino, Mikey, Peter, Jack Barnes, etc., etc., is a paid conservative TROLL who posts under numerous names (including hijacking other posters’ screen names), and has conversations with himself in order to disrupt liberal discourse. JUST IGNORE HIM.
Do a Google search for Michael Hardesty. You’ll find that he does the same thing on other liberal message boards. He’s on Tom Delay’s payroll.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 15, 2005 at 3:05 PM Bud, my advice to you is to stop adressing any of Michael Hardesty’s posts, whatever screen name he uses or steals. He’s obviously a paid conservative troll. He’s not hear to engage in meaningful discussion. His purpose is to do exactly you’re asking him not to do. You’re wasting your time.
In any event, the substance of his posts are easy to distinguish from mine. I call myself a lefty because I am a lefty. Another tell tail sign is that Michael Hardesty often (but not always), posts from a handheld that prevents him from using the full margin of the space.
The goal should be that all serious arguers (liberals and consrvatives), should learn to recognize his posts and just ignor him.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 15, 2005 at 3:11 PM Both of the above posts courtesy of the ITT Troll, Michael Hardesty.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 15, 2005 at 11:30 PM “In the waning days of the election, the Republican Governors Association (RGA) hammered Schweitzer with an ad accusing him of bogus business deals. “The RGA had already been kicked out of other states for deceptive advertising,” says Martin. “At the last minute, they ran an ad with a man who had tried to deceive money out of the Schweitzers, a wealthy landowner portraying herself as a destitute widow, and the cousin of the Republican nominee for Governor.” The three Montanans alleged bad business activity on Schweitzer’s part, but failed to disclose their own conflicts of interest.”
Lying, cheating, stealing - the conservative stock in trade.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 15, 2005 at 11:33 PM Until liberals take back the media, and take back the voting process, all other issues are moot. Even if you can convince a supermajority of citizens to vote liberal (throught alternative media outlets), it won’t matter if Deibold is fraudulently miscounting the votes.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 16, 2005 at 10:51 AM I wonder if anyone could find a telephone number or home address for this Michael Hardesty guy so we could publish it online.
He doesn’t play by the rules, why should we?
Posted by Matilda Gatsby on Jul 17, 2005 at 4:46 AM A few thoughts on the criticisms of the article:
I was probably wrong to ignore CI-96, the anti-marriage amendment on the ballot here in Montana. The amendment surely had an impact on the race. But the politics of it could not have been honestly explored and, compared to the factors I focused on (many of which have been ignored elsewhere), I considered Schweitzer’s CI-96 decision to be of little importance in the outcome. Many would disagree, but I was stating what I thought the important lessons here were.
As for using only the environment and choice as my tests of progressivism, that’s simply not true. I made it clear that Schweitzer is a champion of middle class interests. Much of his campaign was focused on economic opportunity and protecting the economic life of Montana’s rural communities. Fellow traveler lays out so many litmus tests that the Democratic Party would soon be reduced to a handful of people, but I think Schweitzer actually passes most of them. Schweitzer has been leading the charge lately as a critic of how the Pentagon’s handling of Iraq impacts state government. Beyond that, I’m not too aware of his Iraq policy, largely because he is focused on governing Montana, which means foreign policy is not within his purview. On education, Schweitzer has been deferring the anti-NCLB leadership in the state to Democratic Superintendent of Public Instruction Linda McCulloch, who is quite ably using her bully pulpit to criticize that egregious act. On labor and jobs, Schweitzer just provided his overt support to a candidate for Chair of the party who spent the last year organizing against CAFTA as part of a progressive rancher organization. And he has had great support from unions in the past because of his staunch support for their work, even though his primary and general election opponents had longer histories within the union movement. On the PATRIOT Act, the Montana legislature passed a resolution backed by the ACLU extremely critical of the act. The resolution was passed with large, bipartisan majorities and later signed by Schweitzer. As for the welfare safety net, Schweitzer was the first and harshest critic of Bush’s proposed Medicaid cuts, earning himself national attention. His running mate, John Bohlinger, was well-known for his impassioned defenses of our duty to help those most in need.
Jim Fleischmann, who has had a great and admirable career in organizing, resorts to the Martz and charisma argument. If we’re saying charisma beats incompetence, we need to start looking for a better explanation of what happened in Oklahoma last November in the Senate race. I hardly think that there is a Montana model. I use that term once to describe an organizing method. Rather, I think there are lessons to be learned.
Posted by Matt Singer on Jul 17, 2005 at 3:29 PM I overlooked something in that last post. Schweitzer has said that if he won his Senate race in 2000, he would have voted against authorizing force against Iraq in 2002. He says that he didn’t find the evidence persuasive.
Posted by Matt Singer on Jul 17, 2005 at 3:40 PM Matilda,
If Michael Hardesty’s home address was known, I don’t think he’d be posting on any forums.
Matt, thanks for your insights. I have said before, and I’ll say again that liberals must communicate a clear and consistent message that the majority of the electorate will relate to and agree with, and can easily distinguish from the conservatives.
Throughout American history, the liberal party (now the democrats), has always placed the interest of public health, safety and welfare above the interest of corporate profits. Conservatives have consistently placed the interest of corporate profits above all other interests.
Since Reagan, corporations have steadily taken over the government, the media and the voting mechanism. I don’t think that the majority of Americans realize just how completely their government has been corrupted by corporations.
As a result, public education is in shambles, the quality of U.S. medicine is a disgrace (and don’t repeat the propaganda that the U.S. has the best medicine in the world, that’s corporate propaganda), the cost of U.S. medicine is a disgrace, the safety of drugs is a disgrace (the FDA is a Pharma whorehouse), the quality of water and air is a disgrace (the EPA is a chemical corporate whorehouse), the safety of our food supply with its endless antibiotics, pesticides, and other poisons is a disgrace (the USDA is a whorehouse), the discrepancy of income of the poorest and richest Americans is a disgrace.
Do you think the average American knows that Bush likes to appoint industry lawyers to head up the agencies that are supposed to regulate the same industries?
Having said all that, liberals’ only chance is to regain control of at least a significant part of the MSM, now completely corporate owned, AND to take the voting mechanism out of the hands of corrupt, biased corporations like Diebold.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 17, 2005 at 5:42 PM God bless you Lefty, I wasn’t suggesting that Hardesty would just hand us his address on a plate, we’d have to go looking. There are ways and means, and if we threaten to spread his details around it might just get rid of this particular bag of shit.
Posted by Matilda Gatsby on Jul 18, 2005 at 3:20 AM Lefty, thank you for continuing to prove your ignorance and intolerance. Keep telling everyone who disagrees with you that they’re brainwashed. It’s a very persuasive debating technique and is sure to win your side plenty of support. Keep up the good work.
Posted by Randolph on Jul 18, 2005 at 9:10 AM This is the true Bud, posting not from a handheld but from a conventional stationary machine. Good idea Lefty, I will just ignore the postings of Michael Hardesty. I repudiate the comments posted under my name the last two times. I am sorry someone is using my name to disrupt decent discourse.
Posted by Bud on Jul 18, 2005 at 9:26 AM The true Bud is a leftist. He began posting on July 5 and only recently had his screenname hijacked by a conservative troll with nothing better to do. Red-Stater, your sardonic comments are duly noted, but lack the substance required to engage in a rational debate. For all those confused, I am the true Bud.
Posted by Bud on Jul 18, 2005 at 1:37 PM Randolph,
Ignorance and intollerance are the historical hallmarks of conservatism. Your postings so far indicate that you intend to continue that proud conservative tradition. And accusing your enemy of that for which you are most guilty - a Machiavellian tactic so worn and tattered by conservatives it’s almost cliche-ish.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 18, 2005 at 6:14 PM Sorry, Lefty. That last comment was not me at all. You know that I do not use such obscene language in my posts.
Posted by Bud on Jul 19, 2005 at 10:38 AM That last post was not me at all either. I never use childish language in my posts. Sorry Lefty.
Posted by Bud on Jul 19, 2005 at 11:17 AM Lefty, ITT (God bless them) took down the conservative troll’s response in between my two posts so it looks like in my last post I am invalidating what I wrote in the post before. That is not the case. Sorry about the confusion. I go by Liberal, not Bud, now.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 19, 2005 at 5:41 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Matt Singer
- Turning Back the Tax Revolt
Voters reject "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" spending cap measures and tax cuts across the country, paving the way to funding progressive priorities. - Man with the PLAN
- The Progressive Frontier
The governor of the Big Sky state has important lessons to teach Democrats across the nation
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
