posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 03:35 PM
What is going to win the battle at the end of the day?
An Old Democrat or a New Democrat?
The new Democrat would appear to be more progressive like Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean. They seem to apply new logic to old status-quo questions
the Washingtonians haven't solved, even though they've been there.
Questions like: Where will the jobs be? Where will our healthcare come from? Where will America be in the international community, loved or hated? Are
the insider policies of the WTO and NAFTA faliures that need scrapping? Is the defense budget in need of a good cutting in time of waste and economic
The likes of Leiberman, John Kerry, John Edwards and Dick Gephardt must fall by the wayside and become a minority in the Democratic Party if Americans
are to make any real progress with the help of Washington. The old Democrat.
John Kerry, for example, is a prime example of the Washington establishmentarian. He voted for the war, made little or no criticism of Bush until
Dean's popularity grew, and said nothing about issues of universal healthcare or the dangers of the Patriot Act. Well, Kerry has gotten some movement
in the polls since he attacked Howard Dean so vociferously. Not so statesmen-like to go negative on your own party, as a cheap way to get poll
numbers. But what the hell, go negative, it works, right?
All those issues are on the minds of Americans. Bush has abused his authority and those Democrats were there in Washington when it happened. They
stood by. They voted in favor of the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Their in-action helped to stifle free speech.
If Dick Gephardt doing a photo-op in the Rose Garden with President Bush is not an indicator of where he is poltically, I don't know what is.
Gephardt is an old-time grandstander and Washington insider, ready to deal his values down the river. And he can stand there and wave his arms around,
and get "animated" but it is his status-quo, go along votes with Bush that make him irrelevant in this day and age.
Leiberman, poor chap. He is so out of touch with his own base, he thinks he can get moderate votes by pandering to Israel. Sorry Joe, gotta do more
than that. He doesn't have a clear view of an America he'd like to see, and thats why he can't express it. I don't think he's fully realized his
position on the Iraq War is wrong, and that Dean's vitriol against Bush does represent mainstream opinion. Too long in Washington, bye Joe.
There is really nothing wrong with John Edwards. That is, if you like people vacillating on their campaign platform. John Edwards got critical of the
war the same time John Kerry did, when pollsters noticed it had an effect. This type of politician doesn't have good instincts. They know what to
say, only because someone has told them to say it.
Funny how General Wesley Clark sounds more like a real Democrat than the ones who have been working there for a while. His views on Iraq, the economy
and healthcare are focused and front-and-center. He seems genuine and you get the feeling he cares about our economic plight. Perhaps, because he
isn't a multi-millionaire like John Kerry. Or it could be a sort of 'true believerism,' where he sees a problem and thinks he can make a
We need more of that in Washington.
[Edited on 19-1-2004 by darkwraith]