Krieger

LOL Toto. This is a perfect example of the myopia that so many "liberal" Democrats live in. All you worry about is the short-term, as in stopping the (*gasp*) Republicans (*evil sounding music*) from getting elected. In doing this, progress never occurs (and lately, the Democrats have failed to even get reelected). Neither of the ruling-class parties will ever support the kind of changes that this country needs. They prefer to keep the people divided and squabbling over silly Democrat vs Republican politics.

What did Clinton do for the working class during his time in office? Well, lets see, hmm, well he deformed welfare - oh wait, that didn't help anyone! Hmm, he supported NAFTA so that big business could relocate millions of jobs outside of the US where they can pay workers practically nothing. Yeah, Clinton's legacy, and Al Gore was even further to the right of Clinton, and Lieberman is to the right of Al Gore. Lieberman = Bush with better grammar.

Just face the facts, the social democrats like FDR died with FDR. The Democrat party is not progressive and that is why it is dying (as in more and more progressives are leaving it, and without those voters the Dem section of the ruling-class can't get reelected). The Dem ruling-class isn't going to change either; they didn't wake up and become more progressive after their failure in 2000 and because of that they failed again in 2002. I'll bet that they won't have changed any by 2004 either.

All we can do is hope that progressive forces (such as the Greens) can gain more power at the local/state level, and ultimately start to kick ass at the national level. The ruling-class is not just going to roll over, they (and their puppet parties) will have to be driven from power!

Retsyn

Um, do you think a Republican president would have deformed welfare more or less than Clinton did? Not to beat a dead horse, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it wouldn't have affected you personally.

And about NAFTA, cheaper consumer products would be more important to you if, like me, you had ever worked with people who worry about making their car payment or had to start saving as much as they can at the beginning of the summer so they could afford their children's school clothes in the fall. (I'm betting that would also make you more supportive of school uniforms, but that's neither here nor there).

Also, like me, you'd be a lot more supportive of NAFTA if you had an aunt whose sewing machine operator job was moved to Mexico, therefore she was eligible for a year or two of computer training (I don't know what other training was available) and now has a technical degree. She's well over 50, and has been relatively poor all her life, and now she knows more about the nuts and bolts computer stuff than I do. (I've got a master's in mgmt info systems, so the real network admin stuff isn't exactly by bag, baby, but still...)

Think GW would have made sure that provision was stuck in NAFTA? Think again.

And what is the deal with Greens telling Native Americans they should be able to kill whales? Bunch of jackturds.

msf

So I heard on NPR at 2:00 (CST) that this guy that our fundy in chief nominated for the panel has already withdrawn his name from being considered. Apparently the uproar coming from the gay community made an impression.

Godless Sodomite

Caps Lock never motivated me into a church and it won't motivate me into a voting booth, either. As of now, I can't imagine what Lieberman could say that would make me even consider voting for him; he's simply not an option.

There may be something to the argument that because I'm a middle-class white male I have privilege and options available to me that affords me freedom to vote my conscience--and if I were hetero and xian the country would seem tailor-made for me. I'm aware that my relatively cushy life allows me the time to explore my conscience in the first place since I've never spent a day in my life worrying where my next meal was coming from or where I was going to sleep. But whatever compassion I have for others isn't enough to compel me to vote for the status quo merely because things could be worse otherwise.

While I'm ideologically at odds with the Republican platform, very little, if anything, changes in my life by having them in charge. I'm never in a position where I'm asked to pledge allegiance to anything, nor am I ever expected to go to church for anything other than family funerals. As an openly gay man since my mid-teens, I've never personally encountered homophobia in any way that alters how I engage the world. I realize that the rest of the country isn't New York, but I'm tired of voting against ideas and not for them. I've not completely tuned out the Democrats (I'm still registered as one), but there are none in leadership positions who excite me.

-Jerry

Krieger

Cheaper products?! ROFL.

NAFTA only exploits workers in poor countries so that the US based corporations can rake in more profits. It also helps the US corporations, which don't want to relocate, be able to fight unions easier - they can just threaten communities with "We'll leave the country if you strike or demand better living conditions, so live with your shitty wages or you won't even have jobs!" That kind of BS goes on all the time. Thanks Clinton, thanks a lot.

So no, the US peasantry gains nothing from NAFTA.

Godless Sodomite

Yes, here's a related article:

http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp...58&sd=01/23/03

Stephen Maturin

Right you are, msf. What's more, the Administration is already scrambling to distance itself from this Thacker clown. Amazingly enough, it appears that Bush & Co. thought the appointment would sneak through unnoticed. Here's what the Washington Post has to say.

wildernesse

Your snide and patronizing comments work both ways. Once again, it's about what's wrong with the Greens, not the people responsible for the Democratic loss--the Democrats.

The Democrats will never become more progressive if all the progressives just give up and accept defeat and don't strive to influence the party.

Most of the Greens I know work their tails off for people that the Republicans want to kick to the curb. They are active in advocating for local low income housing and stricter environmental regulations. They work (usually for nothing or next to nothing) for people just like themselves--or for people that they never met but are treated unfairly.

If there's one thing that Greens are for, it's for local activism and grassroots power. The vision of the Green party is what has inspired me to think that I can make a difference, and that things can change. I'm not a Green--but their idealism is what makes me want to get out of bed in the morning and try a little harder today. Nothing worse than an old jaded cynic.

--tibac

Retsyn

Krieger, if you think that companies don't charge less for products made in China or Korea, then you really are beyond hope. Here's a clue you don't have to buy - if companies weren't charging less, then someone else would to steal their market share.

Also, my original point was that under Clinton, NAFTA contained a provision that workers whose jobs were moved to another country were to receive training in another field. Training paid for by the company, not taxpayers, btw.

hezekiah jones

... and appointing the federal judiciary. And that ain't short-term myopia. Quite the opposite, in fact.