Tag Archives: Democratic Party

As goes Rush . . .

Oh Democrats my Democrats.

Just like that turtle in a slow boil pot of water (is that the right metaphor?), you never noticed when you capitulated. You now use in blithe ignorance words specifically designed to insult you. Words designed by a morbidly obese, four times married, college dropout, indicted drug offender and now iconic standard-bearer of the conservative movement. Words like:

  • LIBERAL MEDIA: In debate coverage, on bleeding MSNBC, I heard liberal pundits automatically refer to the ‘liberal media’. They’ve not only accepted but are now employing the very label assigned them by the morbidly obese, four times married, college dropout and indicted drug offender, a label he invented and employed over decades to discredit, denigrate and insult you. Throughout, if you even bothered to defend, your arguments were weak. “No we’re not” doesn’t do it. (Exception is Eric Alterman’s 2003 meticulously researched book What Liberal Media? – hurry, only two left at Amazon!). So you failed and now a good part of the country assume media to be liberal; they even believe that outlets like the broadcast networks exhibit bias in their vapid little 19 minutes a night of ‘news’.  Well done, Rush; fail, Dems.
  • DEMOCRAT PARTY: Same thing. The morbidly obese, four times married, college dropout and indicted drug criminal began some years ago saying “Democrat Party” instead of “Democratic Party”. Again an insult, meant to strip from the party’s name any suggestion that it stood for a democratic ideal or even process. You’ve no doubt heard it from Rush: Dems now say it too.
  • OBAMACARE: This one only took about five minutes. As soon as the morbidly obese, four times married, college dropout and indicted drug offender invented the name, it was universally adopted because, after all, it’s so much easier to say than Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

3-0. Three-zip. As Mr. Jackson said “wake the f**k up!”

A dime’s worth of difference?

POSTED BY ORHAN

So Obama offers a debt deal to the Republicans: he’ll cut Social Security and Medicare. In exchange, the Republicans will, maybe, allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. Or hike some other taxes; whatever.

Now the Republicans are saying no deal, they’ll only accept spending cuts; they’ll cut Social Security and Medicare, plus keep the Bush cuts, but deep-six the tax hikes.

So, let’s see, that means if Option 1, the Democratic plan, had been accepted, the rich would have been back to where they were under Clinton, and the poor and middle would have been worse off. But if Option 2, the Republican plan, is enacted, the rich will keep what they got from Bush, and the poor and middle will be worse off.

What can we say about America’s future from the horns of this little dilemma? If it plays out the way the health care farce did, we can make a few predictions:

The Tea Party will be left swinging in the breeze. The folks who screamed, “Keep your hands off my Medicare!” are about to have their Social Security and Medicare seriously FUBARed. Even the most hardcore non-rich Tea Partier will realize sooner or later there’s nothing here but, as the song says, the promise of an early death.

The Democratic base will be left swinging in the breeze, after having its veins opened, its throat slit, and a dagger slipped between its ribs. The new default “far left” bargaining position will start with Social Security and Medicare cuts. Obama will initiate his trademark “compromising” from there. Predicting which once-sacrosanct progressive program he’ll negotiate away next will be all the rage in DC.

Mainstream middle and working class Republicans will be left swinging in the breeze; it’ll just take them a while to figure it out. Sooner or later the most diehard trickle-down true believer will realize the upcoming corporate cash infusion (via “amnesty” or any other method) isn’t going to create any jobs for Americans, other than the corner-office and lobbying jobs for the politicians who sold us all down the river; but CEOs will no doubt receive some kickass bonuses over the next few years.

Life is about to get one hell of a lot harder for most Americans. Thanks to Democrats. And Republicans.

The Democrats’ 60’s legacy: will that become the Republicans’ 00’s legacy?

The Democratic Party is still trying to shake association with the student demonstrators, war protestors, flower children and the more radical leftists of the late 60’s and early 70’s. That ‘commie, hippie’ label comes from that long ago time – from events of 40 years ago.

I look at the Republican party today and wonder if they’ll pay a similar price for  embracing the Tea Party, the birthers, the creationists and the rancid religious right. Could this be their 60’s? I wonder if indeed they’ll pay a price – and for how long.

In fact, I wonder if they’ll survive the 2012 elections. If the conservative electorate is splintered enough, Democrats could get to pick up the pieces at all levels.

Most Americans back the unions

POSTED BY ORHAN

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll, “Majority in Poll Back Employees in Public Sector Unions”, shows some interesting results.  Americans overall are against cutting the collective bargaining rights of public unions by almost two to one.  Breaking out the results by political affiliation, a slight majority of Republicans supported removing some bargaining rights, but were outnumbered by opposing majorities of Democrats and independents.  On the whole, Americans (including close to half of Republicans) are not opposed to public workers engaging in collective bargaining.

I think both the politicians and pundits are in for a rude awakening.

UPDATE BY MOE: Public Policy Polling, a Wall Street Journal fav, says it’s about 52/48 in Wisconsin right now, leaning in favor of the unions. There will no doubt be more polls in the coming days.

With one hand tied behind his back . . .

Rush Limbaugh can claim success with an attack upon the language; he’s managed to change the name of a major political party. His efforts have been so successful that US Senators are now saying ‘Democrat’ Party on the very floor of the Senate, and no one – not even our dim Dems – is noticing, let alone objecting. Mr.Limbaugh of Palm Beach is very very good. Very good indeed.

He began some years ago referring to the Democratic Party as the ‘Democrat Party’. It was meant of course as an insult – Democratic described a benign admirable philosophy while ‘Democrat’ played on ‘Dixiecrat‘, an infamous and historical pejorative used to refer to Southern Democrats who still supported segregation; when the liberal wing of their own party passed the Civil Right legislation in the 1960’s, the Dixiecrats moved en masse to the Reublican Party. Today’s modern Democratic Party, by its actions, has redeemed itself from that past.  But Rush saw an opening and he jumped in. In so doing, he was no doubt also hoping to deflect racist charges leveled at segments of his own party.

I don’t think the association of  ‘Dixiecrat’ with ‘Democrat’ has taken  hold in the larger society, but the use of the denomination “Democrat Party’ in place of ‘Democratic Party’ has indeed taken hold.

Like I said above, Mr. Limbaugh of Palm Beach is very very good. Very good indeed.

My dear Democrats

The message failed because there barely was a message. So we need to define one, then refine it. We need to write it down so we don’t forget it and we need to  disseminate it widely. Then rinse and repeat and repeat and repeat. People do not know what the Democratic Party stands for. We can’t count on knee jerk demographics alone.