Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Posted here Tuesday, January 04, 2005 at 3:13:26 PM       Reviewing the Democrats, the question of press bias, and why there is no left of center in the US.   January 2, 2005 DEMOCRATS ENTANGLED So What Happened in That Election, Anyhow? By ADAM NAGOURNEY   First example: For example, did Democrats lose because they were seen as lax on "values," which was the early verdict on the Kerry loss, or because they were seen as weak on terrorism?   Note how this precludes the possibility that they lost because they also seemed to support the war, and the polls show most people have had it with the war.   Note the definition of the "base" in the following   But the importance of values is disputed by more than a few Democrats, who obviously would prefer not to follow a plan that might irritate some fairly crucial parts of the base, be they secular Democrats, abortion rights advocates or supporters of gay marriage.   This precludes the possibility that the real "base" in the Democratic party is social fairness, less difference in wealth and income, support for social security, support for a more creative positive and peace inducing foreign policy.   He then quotes two Democrats without pointing out that their underlying position is strongly pro war in Iraq, and then fails to point out that Truman and Kennedy were much better at multilateralism, nor that the cold war was itself a bit of an invention.   "Values obviously are important," said Terry McAuliffe, the national Democratic party chairman, whose term expires in February. "But clearly, the overriding issue in this election was terrorism and national security. You don't get to those other issues until you have checked the box on national security."   Timothy J. Roemer, a moderate former Indiana congressman running to be Democratic chair, said: "We did not have a very compelling message about how to make Americans feel safer in a post 9/11 world. The message was more about Iraq, where our base voter was, than it was about talking through how, for instance, Truman and President Kennedy made Americans feel safe in the Cold War."   And to call Roemer a moderate is to say that anything let of center is not. As Kos tells us Well, he's a strong opponent of abortion rights. And he's one of only 20 House Democrats to vote in favor of social security privatization back in 2001. We're a big enough tent to accommodate differences on abortion (I'm not prejudging Reid because of his abortion stance). But Roemer's social security record is a deal killer. Roemer is not a Reform Democrat, and, beyond that, clearly outside the party's mainstream.   The point is, for the press, any democrat who is for social justice, legal justice, multilateral approaches to international security for all, and in favor of some constraints on corporations, is considered beyond the pale. How did this happen?   In debate, it is hard to make progress when one side is de-ligitimated, and only small differences are allowed. The point is, for the press, any democrat who is for social justice, legal justice, multilateral approaches to international security for all, and in favor of some constraints on corporations, is considered beyond the pale. How did this happen   My proposal is that we are in a corporatist state, it is winning, and everyone knows it. So live with it. Those who oppose it are going against the system, not looking for small reforms, because there are not going to be any .   There are no Democrats, only Republicans. There are two Republican parties. One fairly southern and rural plus suburbs called Republican, and one more urban and capital intensive called Democrats. Anything to the left of these positions is basically called socialist, and defined as out of the game       Meanwhile   From ABC news's The Note for today http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238 In fact, the greater long-range consequence of the events in Asia gives the Leader of the Free World and the Commander in Chief another extended opportunity to sit astride the world look tough and compassionate at the same time. It looks like Bush can do anything, and the rest of the country is powerless. Social security, environment, .. And it just might be that he will lose on social security, and while progressives are fighting its destruction, environmental laws, energy policy, court appointments, proceed under the smoke screen. For alternative voices we have things like   The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.   Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won’t; we will never be worthy). http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html   and The War on Terror is a conservative frame. It is a phrase that was invented by Bush speechwriters after 9/11 for the sole purpose of casting the upcoming shift in foreign policy in terms that would evoke the conservative worldview in both the majority of the nation and the majority of electorate. The War on Terror evokes specific conservative ideas that include, but are not limited to, all of the following: the need for continuing escalation of the size and influence of the military industrial complex; a simplistic conceptualization of identity revolving primarily around the notion of a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West; a view that threats can only be countered and tamed through the use of force; justification of any United States military action overseas, whether unilateral or pre-emptive. When Democrats and liberals argue that Bush is not properly conducting the war on terror, they end up supporting that frame and all of the ideas it evokes. When Democrats and liberal hawks urge their candidates and fellow party members to take the war on terror more seriously, they end up reinforcing that frame in the mind of the nation and electorate and all of the conservative ideas it carries with it. When Democrats and liberals argue that there is ore to the war on terrorism than military actions they end of enhancing the power of the "war on terror" frame in the mind of the nation and the electorate and all of the conservative ideas the frame itself reinforces. That so many Democrats are not only willing, but also chomping at the bit to go along with the conservative frame of the "war on terror," is the main reason why Bush won in 2004. By repeatedly and unquestioningly reinforcing the "war on terror" frame, we aided conservatives in their goal of pushing the country decidedly into the conservative camp when it came to foreign policy. That we continue to claim that Bush is losing the war on terror, that conservatives do not understand the war on terror, or that we do not take the war on terror seriously only serves to worsen the problem. By using the frame "war on terror," we continue to reinforce the conservative ideas I listed above in the minds of the electorate and then wonder why the country keeps voting for conservatives.   From http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/12/30/16138/652 ********