Pull Up a Chair, Pop Up the Corn
It looks like Democratic rifts aren't just ideological. According to this piece by Jay Cost over at Real Clear Politics, the Democratic Party has competing organizational priorities. The result of the conflict between Howard Dean's "party building" approach and Rahm Emmanuel's emphasis on funding candidates is a strategic incoherence that may cost the party at the polls this November.
Again -- what's that EJ Dionne has been saying about the Republican divisions?
Again -- what's that EJ Dionne has been saying about the Republican divisions?
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:15 AM
11 Comments:
These divisions tend to occur when party activists are allowed to think for themselves and then have debates out in the open.
This, of course, is in contrast with handing over control of the party machinery to the "Moral" "Majority," followed by the Christian Coalition, followed by Karl's Kristian Koalition.
No. I am a Christian too. I simply despise the decidedly cynical way certain individuals like Rove and Ralph Reed (and many others) have manipulated Christian conservatives to advance their own political or financial endeavors.
They cash in on the zealotry they've whipped up and then laugh as it rips apart our society.
Why do you support Ralph Reed? Do you see him as a good person?
Have they read ANY of Abramoff's emails on Faux News?
In a word Cliff, yes.
In more words, speaking for my colleague, Mr Clifford, to maintain your privilege in society those who feel much like you do about immigration, the Geneva Conventions as they apply to terrorists in Gitmo or even the Voting Rights Act are in some measure racist. And in this I mean they want their race through Christianity in "control". Once America decides the Constitution is a document that is no longer living and inclusive freedom and democracy will die at the hands of ideologues, whether they be religious in public and evil in private or just evil, period.
Take a moment and Google (tm) the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005. And then tell me why America would possibly need such a law in a nation of over 200 million Christians?
Qu'ul cuda praedex nihil!
Cavalor Epthith
Editor-in-Chief
The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
Oh, but those people are brown, so it's okay.
What is the deal with "brown"? Other than coming from the Left side of the aisle, I never hear it. Ever.
So what's the deal? Y'all say it so glibly.
Republican policies by and large just happen to negatively impact a disproportionate number of people with dark pigmentation. It's really just a coincidence, but one worth pointing out.
But why the obsession over "brown" or "brown people" specifically. What is it supposed to mean?
Is it supposed to be clever in some way I don't grasp?
If I may, it "brown" covers a broad swath of people in America the disenfranchised African Americans Latinos and Native Americans who have had to suffer at the hands of the majority, for clarity white persons, dedicated to preserving their privilege, control and dominance of all sectors of life in America. Conservatives, who were democrats in the 40s 50s and 60s were of the same stripe they are now as members of the GOP, deeply religious, assuming the moral high ground on most issues but now quiet on their desire to distance themselves from the painful issues of race and class facing America.
The phrase comes from the "left" so often because the "right" has nothing to gain discussing race and does not seek to pass any legislation restoring faith in government for "brown" people. The attempt to water down the Voting Rights Act just this week past bears this out. A lot of Southern republicans for and every one else against.
Correct, Cavalor. I should have been more direct and less wry in my post.
There are no coincidences, as Our Great Leader and members of his party would have us believe. After LBJ signed the civil rights legislation into law, a great number of Democrats, especially southern "yellow dog" Democrats, began switching to the Republican Party.
They were wooed by the Republicans' Southern Strategy, an open attempt to cultivate, and then reap from, white disenfranchisement and hostility for the societal changes wrought by the end of Jim Crow.
Now the Republican Party wishes to pretend like that era never occurred, or at least that it is ancient history that should be forgotten. Ken Mehlman recently made a lukewarm apology to the black community for this ploy.
The problem is that its echoes are alive and well in the policies of today's Republican Party, from the minimum wage, to health care, to yes, the resistance of Southern Republicans to re-upping the Voting Rights Act. All of this, of course, is couched in the rhetoric of less government and free enterprise, but is really a way of preserving the status quo that has served them so well.
And a crucial element of its continuing success is everyone's silence about race.
Curious there is no comment on the unspeakable topic of race. Then again how can anyone defend unearned privilege, or worse crownless hegemony derived from one's skin pigmentation?
Post a Comment
<< Home