Apology owed. (political)

Wildcard Ky

Southern culture liason
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Posts
3,145
This is in response the Shers thread Dear People Who Didn't Think It Mattered Who Won the White House

I have submitted this piece to my local newspaper as a Letter to the Editor. I don't know if it will get printed or not, but I felt it was worth posting here. I titled it Apology Owed




APOLOGY OWED

As we move into the latter part of 2005, this country is coming to a great crossroad, one that will define us as a nation for the next several decades. That crossroad is the makeup of the Supreme Court. Justice O’Connor has already announced her resignation. Justices Stevens and Rhenquist are expected to resign in the near future, and now word is coming out that Justice Ginsbergs health may be failing. We are looking at the very real possibility of replacing 4 of the 9 Justices in the next year or two.

President Bush has a chance to make a mark on American history that few presidents have ever had the opportunity to make. He can appoint nearly a majority of the court. The course of our nation will be in the hands of one man, and the skill of his political team to get his nominees confirmed. To date, his political team has been masterful at getting what the President wants. With a Republican controlled House and Senate, the odds of Bush getting the people he wants on the court are better than any other president has had in over 40 years. This country could take a swing to the right not seen since the days of prohibition.

If you brand yourself as a conservative, this is good news to you. If you brand yourself a moderate, like most of us do, this causes you a bit of concern. If you brand yourself a liberal, this is horrible news.

In all of this, there is an honest and open apology owed to the American people. That apology is owed by the Democratic Party. The Democratic party has failed it’s purpose miserably since 1992. They have failed through a lack of vision, a lack of a plan for this country, the inability to produce viable candidates, and the lack of knowing what to do to put themselves back in touch with mainstream America.

In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected to office with a majority in both houses. The was the Dems one great chance to put their stamp on our future. They ran on such noble ideals as tax relief for the middle class. Once they were all seated, the ideals went away. Gone was the middle class tax cut. In it’s place was the largest tax increase in history. Gone were many other things that were promised. Two years later, the Democrats majority in the House and Senate was gone as well.

The Republicans had learned their lessons in the defeats of 92. They spoke to the American people and came up with a tangible plan. They set their plans into motion and won a majority in both houses. They found that the people liked it when a plan could be laid out for all to see. The plan promised success, but no one realistically expects for all plans to perform to perfection. The important part was having a plan, and being able to show a direction.

Bill Clinton was quoted as saying he “got the message from America” when the Republicans gained the majority in both houses. Perhaps he did get the message. The rest of his party didn’t.

The Democrats bemoaned their losses in 94. In 96, their president was re elected (remember, he got the message). However, the Democrats failed to regain the majority in either house. In the 98 elections, the balance of power remained unchanged. Throughout these defeats, the Democrats didn’t offer a counter plan of their own. Their campaigns were based on voting against the other side, not voting for them.

During Clintons second term, the Republicans began to flex their muscle. They impeached, but didn’t remove a sitting president. They were setting forth their course of morality for the nation to see, yet the Democrats never offered a plan of their own. The Democratic strategy seemed no more than to point to the faults of the other side without offering any type of plan or alternative of their own.

In a hotly contested election in 2000, George W Bush beat Al Gore by the narrowest of margins. The muscles that the Republicans had been flexing for years now had their final piece in place. They owned the complete majority.

The Democrats spent 6 years watching this shift in power take place, but weren’t able to come up with an attractive option of their own. They continued to rely on attacking the other side rather than espousing the virtues and plans of their party.

The Republicans have always offered a plan. Beginning with the Contract with America, and through the War on Terror. These plans aren’t fool proof. In some cases, such as Iraq, it’s proven that they aren’t even good plans. Yet they are a plan. People like plans. People want to know which way the leaders are going. The Republicans have hammered this point home since 1994. With the exception of Bill Clinton, the Democrats still don’t get it.

In the 2004 race for the Presidency, the Republicans were successful at labeling John Kerry as a flip flopper. That translates into someone without a plan. Perhaps a man without a plan was the perfect candidate to represent a party without a plan.

President Bush has offered a plan for revamping Social Security. I don’t know if it’s a good plan or a bad plan. It is a plan though. Democrats widely criticize Bush’s plan. They spend enormous amounts of energy criticizing it, yet they haven’t offered a plan of their own.

President Bush has a plan for the war in Iraq. Through good and bad, he has stuck to his plan. The Democrats widely criticize him for how he handles Iraq, but don’t offer a plan of their own.

The early buzz for Democratic candidates for the Presidency in 2008 include names like Kerry and Gore. Why come up with new and exciting candidates when you can recycle the old ones? They should still be well versed in 40 year old party mantra.

Now the Democrats are vastly afraid of the nominees that Bush will put forth for possibly four seats on the Supreme Court. They are now reaping the fruits of what they’ve sown through their own inadequacy as a political party. In 1992 they had complete control. They were only able to hold it for one election cycle. By 2000, they had completely lost all control. They show no signs of being able to regain any of that control. Meanwhile, the conservative Republican agenda marches on……..according to plan.

That agenda will soon manifest itself in Supreme Court Justices. Make no mistake about it, there is a plan. Everything from abortion, to civil rights, to privacy, to the right to die will be decided by conservative Republican appointees, not appointees agreed to by a split government. I’m not real comfortable with that.

The Democrats and Liberals aren’t happy with it at all. They’re probably willing to admit that they’re scared by it.

In the end, it’s their own fault. Through their own bumbling incompetence as a political party, they have allowed this super majority to occur. They haven’t offered us any plans for the future. They haven’t offered good candidates with a plan. They haven’t offered any fresh, energetic faces that can articulate why the Democratic party is good for America. It seems that their only campaign slogan right now is “Vote for us because Republicans suck”.

The time has come for the Democratic party to quit crying about their losses and do something about it.

The Democrats owe America an apology. An apology for falling apart as a party. An apology for losing everything that they had gained. An apology for allowing one party to gain this much control. And an apology for not having anything to offer in opposition to the other side other than criticism.

After the apology, the Democrats need to get to work on making themselves a viable political entity again. They could start by actually getting a plan.
 
Wildcard Ky said:
. . . In all of this, there is an honest and open apology owed to the American people. That apology is owed by the Democratic Party. The Democratic party has failed (it’s) purpose miserably since 1992. They have failed through a lack of vision, a lack of a plan for this country, the inability to produce viable candidates, and the lack of knowing what to do to put themselves back in touch with mainstream America.

In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected to office with a majority in both houses. The was the Dems one great chance to put their stamp on our future. They ran on such noble ideals as tax relief for the middle class. Once they were all seated, the ideals went away. Gone was the middle class tax cut. In (it’s) place was the largest tax increase in history. Gone were many other things that were promised. Two years later, the Democrats majority in the House and Senate was gone as well. . .

I will offer no opinion on your content. But before you submit this to the paper you should double check your usage of its/it's.

I marked two places where you should remove the apostrophes. People will take you more seriously if you have fewer grammatical errors.
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
I will offer no opinion on your content. But before you submit this to the paper you should double check your usage of its/it's.

I marked two places where you should remove the apostrophes. People will take you more seriously if you have fewer grammatical errors.

LOL - you are tough, girl! :D
 
CharleyH said:
LOL - you are tough, girl! :D

I know - I'm afraid that was pretty rude of me.

I apologize, Wildcard - that should have been sent in a PM.

:rose:
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
I know - I'm afraid that was pretty rude of me.

I apologize, Wildcard - that should have been sent in a PM.

:rose:

LOL. No offense taken. I don't mind being corrected.

I also don't mind if you comment on the content. That's why I posted it in a public forum. Feel free to tear into it if you think I'm wrong.
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
I know - I'm afraid that was pretty rude of me.

I apologize, Wildcard - that should have been sent in a PM.

:rose:

But, too polite. We apolgize when we offend, but never in voicing an opinion, my love :) Would you say the same to Amicus?
 
What is this CHarleyH...you wanna piece of me? Two separate threads no less.

WildcardKY As you may suspect I find most of what you said valid and a true approximation of the state of the democrats and the Democratic Party in general.

I do not share your position of desiring a 'middle ground' in either Congress or the Supreme Court.

I truly desire to see a strict Court that interprets the Constitution by what is contained therein. I would applaud efforts by the Court, should it be constituted that way in the future, if they were to go back through the past half century of social intervention and Court directed legislation and 'fix' the ills that have been done.

Secondly, I am not as kind toward the basic Liberal philosophy which I loathe and consider evil.

Also, it is not the fairly lucid proponents of socialism/liberalism that inhabit Lit it is the hoard of illiterate democrats, 90 percent of the blacks, 90 percent of the hispanics, along with the traditional labor union and fringe groups that trouble me.

All those groups want hand outs from government, free foodstamps, free medical care, free daycare, higher minimum wages inflicted on business, in other words, they want 'big brother' to look after them.

I have always felt that is the shameful side of democrats; take from some, give to others. They have no respect whatsover for the rights of the individual.

Anyway....thought I would offer a comment on your post....


amicus...
 
comments

well, the punctuation, as noted, is odd.

generally the point seems to be that the dems 'blew it' and lost touch with the American people. there is an element of truth to that, but i don't think it requires 1300 words, even with a few examples. of course the other side is that the Reps shamelessly appealed to every right winger, evangelical and racist, besides exploiting the fears and patriotism around 9-11. one might also comment on the quality of Rep. plans, e.g., in Iraq (what plan?).

anyway, you're right that the Americans didn't have too appealing a choice in Kerry.

these 'blame games' in the end arent all that interesting to me, but certainly even some dems agree about blame. your mistake is in equating the public perceptions favoring Republicans, with reality (i.e., that America really is dealing with terrorism; that it's safer; that a good plan for the world war on 'terrorism' exists (and that such is possible); that Bush and co. besides being strong leaders are wise and effective.)
 
Pure said:
your mistake is in equating the public perceptions favoring Republicans, with reality (i.e., that America really is dealing with terrorism; that it's safer; that a good plan for the world war on 'terrorism' exists (and that such is possible); that Bush and co. besides being strong leaders are wise and effective.)

I don't think that the public thinks Bush and co are strong, wise and effective leaders. Based on latest polling numbers, just the opposite is true. Where I gave them credit was for having a plan they could articulate. They have laid out several plans, and they pretty much stick to them, sometimes to their discredit. Iraq is the prime example of that. They had a plan going into Iraq. Part 1 of the plan was defeating the Iraqi military. They did a pretty good job at that. Part 2 was a plan to win the peace. That plan has pretty much sucked from the beginning. They haven't changed the original plan. It didn't work then, and it isn't working now.

They had plans that they specifically laid out for the American people. Not all of them were good plans, but they were plans. The Democrats haven't offered a plan on anything. The public wants to know that someone has a plan. I didn't mean to construe that as saying that the public FAVORS the Republican plans.

In reality, the Republican plans are the only ones the public knows about. The Democrats have yet to articulate a plan on anything.

Here's a blurb that I just picked up off of a Green Party website that backs up my thoughts on the Democrats. It is an article dated July 1. It is the Green response to the Presidents speech last week.

Democratic Party leaders avoided criticism of the war itself, and instead focused on Mr. Bush's military strategy and leadership style. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), House minority leader, said, "The president missed an opportunity tonight for straight talk to the American people." Sen. Ted Kennedy (Mass.) called the President's Iraq policy "adrift." A statement by Democratic Chief Deputy Whip Diane DeGette (Col.) accused the Bush Administration of "poor planning." Sen. Joe Biden (Del.) said, "I really do think [the war is] winnable, but you've got to keep the American people following with you. That's why I urged them to give the speech."

There's a bunch of Democratic leaders saying "Bush sucks", but none have anything to offer. There is no alternative plans offered, no suggestions of a different course. All the Democrats can do is criticize. I find it a bit ironic that Ms. DeGette accuses the Bush administration of poor planning. Where is a better plan from her party?
 
Last edited:
amicus said:
I truly desire to see a strict Court that interprets the Constitution by what is contained therein.

Interestingly, pretty much every person in every party says that. Such is the nature of textual interpretation. We all read it with our own glasses on.
 
Last edited:
CharleyH said:
Which piece my love? I am happy to Domme you, anytime.:)
Oh sweet jesus, there's an image. :D

No offense to anyone, please, (there's that damned politeness...must be contagious ;)) but the personalities involved have me laughing to the point of tears at the mental image that evoked. :catroar:
 
minsue said:
Oh sweet jesus, there's an image. :D

No offense to anyone, please, (there's that damned politeness...must be contagious ;)) but the personalities involved have me laughing to the point of tears at the mental image that evoked. :catroar:

LOL I was laughing when I wrote it :D. I have also discovered polite is good :D and juicy sarcastic ;)

OH SAD DAY when goslings dont get it! POUT :(
 
I'd pay to see that action. In fact, I think we should set up a fund specifically for that purpose. It's in the interest of the public good.

Shanglan
 
Definitely,

the man needs a domme, preferably of one of the despised groups, women, Latinas, lesbians, etc.

Amicus: I truly desire to see a strict Court that interprets the Constitution by what is contained therein.

P:Minus those pesky amendments after the Bill of Rights. Blacks citizens. Blacks and women voting. Income tax.

A:I would applaud efforts by the Court, should it be constituted that way in the future, if they were to go back through the past half century of social intervention and Court directed legislation and 'fix' the ills that have been done.

P:The past half century developed the concept of privacy, e.g., in using birth control methods, in rules about wire taps, in terms of NOT being involutarily sterilized.
These are key developments--in the penumbra of the orginal constitutional principles, as they say-- for any who really care about 'liberty.'


A:Secondly, I am not as kind toward the basic Liberal philosophy which I loathe and consider evil.

P:No doubt; being unable to state it lucidly.

A:Also, it is not the fairly lucid proponents of socialism/liberalism that inhabit Lit it is the hoard of illiterate democrats, 90 percent of the blacks, 90 percent of the hispanics, along with the traditional labor union and fringe groups that trouble me.

All those groups want hand outs from government, free foodstamps, free medical care, free daycare, higher minimum wages inflicted on business, in other words, they want 'big brother' to look after them.


P:What's needed is sterilization of the inferiors, as most of those of your political stripe have recommended. And, as noted above, you'd have no problem with that, on 'original' constitutional grounds-- since a right of Black non-persons against sterilization (or 'concentration,' deportation etc.) cannot exist.

P:Incidentally, Bush drew about 20% of the Hispanic votes, so your animus is so indiscriminate--or maybe just ignorant-- as to hurt your own candidate. (Why do you think he wants open borders with Mexico?).

A:I have always felt that is the shameful side of democrats; take from some, give to others. They have no respect whatsover for the rights of the individual.

P: I think you mean "for the rights of the rich white male individual,' Rand's mythic Robert Ruarks with whom you identify, as a 'self made' man.

P: I appreciate your being explict about the links between your 'freedom' to buy and sell, and measures including the control of the lower orders of humanity, eugenic methods, and so on. These are fitting for parasites.
 
Last edited:
BlackShanglan said:
I'd pay to see that action. In fact, I think we should set up a fund specifically for that purpose. It's in the interest of the public good.

Shanglan

LOL HOW MUCH? ROFL :D I doubt he is willing. lol. ALL the better!
 
Pure said:
the man needs a domme, preferably of one of the despised groups, women, Latinas, lesbians, etc.

Amicus: I truly desire to see a strict Court that interprets the Constitution by what is contained therein.

Minus those pesky amendments after the Bill of Rights. Blacks citizens. Blacks and women voting. Income tax.

I would applaud efforts by the Court, should it be constituted that way in the future, if they were to go back through the past half century of social intervention and Court directed legislation and 'fix' the ills that have been done.

The past half century developed the concept of privacy, e.g., in using birth control methods, in rules about wire taps, in terms of NOT being involutarily sterilized.
These are key developments--in the penumbra of the orginal constitutional principles, as they say-- for any who really care about 'liberty.'


Secondly, I am not as kind toward the basic Liberal philosophy which I loathe and consider evil.

No doubt; being unable to state it lucidly.

Also, it is not the fairly lucid proponents of socialism/liberalism that inhabit Lit it is the hoard of illiterate democrats, 90 percent of the blacks, 90 percent of the hispanics, along with the traditional labor union and fringe groups that trouble me.

All those groups want hand outs from government, free foodstamps, free medical care, free daycare, higher minimum wages inflicted on business, in other words, they want 'big brother' to look after them.


What's needed is sterilization of the inferiors, as most of those of your political stripe have recommended. And, as noted above, you'd have no problem with that, on 'original' constitutional grounds-- since a right of Black non-persons against sterilization (or 'concentration,' deportation etc.) cannot exist.

Incidentally, Bush drew about 20% of the Hispanic votes, so your animus is so indiscriminate--or maybe just ignorant-- as to hurt your own candidate. (Why do you think he wants open borders with Mexico?).

I have always felt that is the shameful side of democrats; take from some, give to others. They have no respect whatsover for the rights of the individual.

I think you mean "for the rights of the rich white male individual,' Rand's mythic Robert Ruarks with whom you identify, as a 'self made' man.

I appreciate your being explict about the links between your 'freedom' to buy and sell, and measures including the control of the lower orders of humanity, eugenic methods, and so on. These are fitting for parasites.

Apologies. You can't get anywhere, but go on. :)
 
Last edited:
Amicus said:
Also, it is not the fairly lucid proponents of socialism/liberalism that inhabit Lit it is the hoard of illiterate democrats, 90 percent of the blacks, 90 percent of the hispanics, along with the traditional labor union and fringe groups that trouble me.


Ugh. Admittedly, I didn't trouble myself to read Amicus's post in its original presentation to us. Thanks for pointing this one out, Pure. I think it's finally cured me of braying back.

Shanglan
 
Agreed.

[quote from 'green' article]Sen. Ted Kennedy (Mass.) called the President's Iraq policy "adrift." A statement by Democratic Chief Deputy Whip Diane DeGette (Col.) accused the Bush Administration of "poor planning." Sen. Joe Biden (Del.) said, "I really do think [the war is] winnable, but you've got to keep the American people following with you. That's why I urged them to give the speech."

Wildcard: There's a bunch of Democratic leaders saying "Bush sucks", but none have anything to offer. There is no alternative plans offered, no suggestions of a different course. All the Democrats can do is criticize. I find it a bit ironic that Ms. DeGette accuses the Bush administration of poor planning. Where is a better plan from her party?

You're right, Wildcard. Dems have a problem with extricating US from messes. The obvious, phased withdrawal to a definite deadline (say a year) cannot be stated at this point. Of course part of the problem is that of any opposition party in a time of war and patriotic fervor; especially in the present case, accusations of treason and traitorism would immediately follow any serious criticism of the Bush non-Plan.

Historically, we know it took an Eisenhower to settle Korea, and a Nixon to withdraw from Vietnam-- for some reason Republican retreats or accomodations--do not engender accusations of treason. ('Cuz we know Republicans are macho men, not fag commies.)

By the way, Wildcard, I appreciate your temperate postings--ones containing actual thoughts rather than Rush or Rand 'dittos'-- regardless of their 'right' content.' I don't detect these little misogynist and eugenic barbs found in certain other self styled 'conservatives' or 'libertarians' in this thread.
 
Last edited:
BlackShanglan said:
Ugh. Admittedly, I didn't trouble myself to read Amicus's post in its original presentation to us. Thanks for pointing this one out, Pure. I think it's finally cured me of braying back.

Shanglan

This ONE? LOL. I beg to differ.
 
CharleyH said:
LOL HOW MUCH? ROFL :D I doubt he is willing. lol. ALL the better!

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we can sell tickets.

And set up a betting pool. How long will it take Charley to train Ami?

And I'd like first refusal on the beer concessions.


Eddie The Entrepreneur

.
 
Excellent editorial. Sums up about 80% of the problems I've had with Democrats going all the way back to the early 1980s. I've actually gotten to the point where I can honestly say that no one will ever see me vote for a Democrat. I have to hold my nose most times to vote for a Republican, but the thought of voting for most Democrat politicians actually makes me nauseous.

In the future of American politics, I actually think things look brighter for the Republicans. I think that with Bush's re-election, we've seen the last gasp of far-right conservatism. The candidates likely to win the presidential nomination in 2008 will be of a more moderate stripe. The party that can publicly get back to the center the fastest is the one that will win a landslide. The Democrats are, I think, too beholden to the liberal base, and the likely standard-bearers for 2008 all seem to be liberal or moderate in name only like Hillary Clinton. The Republicans are just as beholden to their conservative base, but I don't see a strong standard-bearer of conservativism arising in the Republican party, and I do see some moderate or Libertarian-minded individuals who could wrest control of the party from the far right.
 
Edward Teach said:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we can sell tickets.

And set up a betting pool. How long will it take Charley to train Ami?

And I'd like first refusal on the beer concessions.


Eddie The Entrepreneur

.
We all know it won't happen, but nice huh, to beat him into sanity?
 
Pure said:
You're right, Wildcard. Dems have a problem with extricating US from messes. The obvious, phased withdrawal to a definite deadline (say a year) cannot be stated at this point. Of course part of the problem is that of any opposition party in a time of war and patriotic fervor; especially in the present case, accusations of treason and traitorism would immediately follow any serious criticism of the Bush non-Plan.


I can't see that withdrawing with Iraq in a state of disorder and torn by civil and insurgent unrest will really get us anywhere. We'd just end up with another Taliban regime or similar. Even if it was possible to extricate ourselves without creating a situation that would come back to bite us, I think it wrong to destroy the existing government of Iraq and then leave without establishing order and rebuilding the infrastructure necessary to support the Iraqi people. I can't see that it's right or beneficial to either us or the Iraqis to rush out of the country, however much we might regret having rushed in.

Shanglan
 
Shang

then leave without establishing order and rebuilding the infrastructure

and how, one may ask, are these projects going?
 
Back
Top