Yesterday The Times published a highly informative chart laying out the positions of the presidential candidates on major issues. It was, I’d argue, a useful reality check for those who believe that the next president can somehow usher in a new era of bipartisan cooperation.
For what the chart made clear was the extent to which Democrats and Republicans live in separate moral and intellectual universes.
On one side, the Democrats are all promising to get out of Iraq and offering strongly progressive policies on taxes, health care and the environment. That’s understandable: the public hates the war, and public opinion seems to be running in a progressive direction.
What seems harder to understand is what’s happening on the other side - the degree to which almost all the Republicans have chosen to align themselves closely with the unpopular policies of an unpopular president. And I’m not just talking about their continuing enthusiasm for the Iraq war. The G.O.P. candidates are equally supportive of Bush economic policies.
Why would politicians support Bushonomics? After all, the public is very unhappy with the state of the economy, for good reason. The “Bush boom,” such as it was, bypassed most Americans - median family income, adjusted for inflation, has stagnated in the Bush years, and so have the real earnings of the typical worker. Meanwhile, insecurity has increased, with a declining fraction of Americans receiving health insurance from their employers.
And things seem likely to get worse as the election approaches. For a few years, the economy was at least creating jobs at a respectable pace - but as the housing slump and the associated credit crunch accelerate and spill over to the rest of the economy, most analysts expect employment to weaken, too.
All in all, it’s an economic and political environment in which you’d expect Republican politicians, as a sheer matter of calculation, to look for ways to distance themselves from the current administration’s economic policies and record - say, by expressing some concern about rising income gaps and the fraying social safety net.
In fact, however, except for Mike Huckabee - a peculiar case who’ll deserve more discussion if he stays in contention - the leading Republican contenders have gone out of their way to assure voters that they will not deviate an inch from the Bush path. Why? Because the G.O.P. is still controlled by a conservative movement that does not tolerate deviations from tax-cutting, free-market, greed-is-good orthodoxy.
To see the extent to which Republican politicians still cower before the power of movement conservatism, consider the sad case of John McCain.
Mr. McCain’s lingering reputation as a maverick straight talker comes largely from his opposition to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which he said at the time were too big and too skewed to the rich. Those objections would seem to have even more force now, with America facing the costs of an expensive war - which Mr. McCain fervently supports - and with income inequality reaching new heights.
But Mr. McCain now says that he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Not only that: he’s become a convert to crude supply-side economics, claiming that cutting taxes actually increases revenues. That’s an assertion even Bush administration officials concede is false.
Oh, and what about his earlier opposition to tax cuts? Mr. McCain now says he opposed the Bush tax cuts only because they weren’t offset by spending cuts.
Aside from the logical problem here - if tax cuts increase revenue, why do they need to be offset? - even a cursory look at what Mr. McCain said at the time shows that he’s trying to rewrite history: he actually attacked the Bush tax cuts from the left, not the right. But he has clearly decided that it’s better to fib about his record than admit that he wasn’t always a rock-solid economic conservative.
So what does the conversion of Mr. McCain into an avowed believer in voodoo economics - and the comparable conversions of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani - tell us? That bitter partisanship and political polarization aren’t going away anytime soon.
There’s a fantasy, widely held inside the Beltway, that men and women of good will from both parties can be brought together to hammer out bipartisan solutions to the nation’s problems.
If such a thing were possible, Mr. McCain, Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani - a self-proclaimed maverick, the former governor of a liberal state and the former mayor of an equally liberal city - would seem like the kind of men Democrats could deal with. (O.K., maybe not Mr. Giuliani.) In fact, however, it’s not possible, not given the nature of today’s Republican Party, which has turned men like Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney into hard-line ideologues. On economics, and on much else, there is no common ground between the parties.
Paul Krugman is Professor of Economics at Princeton University and a regular New York Times columnist. His most recent book is The Conscience of a Liberal.
© 2007 The New York Times
As long as Republicans remain blindly idealogical on corporations and supply side economics, I do not think you will see any bipartisanship. You have to have common ground for that and with Republicans strongly believing in something that has been shown to be misguided, you do not have common ground. True believers are not swayed by facts.
I just read a blog by Krugman indicating that he supports Obama and Edward’s plan to FORCE us to purchase health insurance.
“Free to choose — at a price?
I didn’t watch Russert — I almost never do — but apparently Barack Obama has just floated the idea of imposing some penalty on people who fail to sign up for health insurance.
If he’s serious, and the penalty is sufficient to deter free riding, great. I don’t care what you call the measure that makes universal health care work, as long as it gets the job done.”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/free-to-choose-at-a-price/
???????????????????
www.peacecandidates.com
The Times continues to play by the rules and talk as if there were really were two political parties in D.C. When in reality what we have is a bunch of political whores who pimp themselves to corporate whores in full view of the media whores. The divide that does exist is between America and D.C. Our whores on the hill aren’t worthy to be called Americans.
Hoa binh
Why do the Democrats all promise to get out of Iraq and establish universal health care, and why do the Republicans all promise to continue Bush’s policies?
Hmmm… could it be because the Democrats are competing for the votes of the Democratic primary voters (generally to the left of all Democrats and all voters), while the Republicans are competing for the votes of the Republican primary voters, most of whom don’t want to believe that Bush has been such a bad guy?
Whoever wins each race, as soon as the primaries are over each prospective nominee will tack toward the center. The Democrat will soften primary campaign promises and emphasize his or her support for the troops. The Republican will call for a plan to get out of Iraq and will distance himself from Bush.
That’s what they’ll have to do as they face the reality of a general electorate that is not the same as their party’s base.
That’s the game, and ya’ll are being played.
But who will play you the worst? The Greens and Socialists and Naderites who will go on promising you everything you dream of with no regard to reality at all.
Well said, 1492. In a nutshell, unless Americans wake up…we’re f**ked. The bullies on the playground have stolen the ball by force, and retreated behind the walls of their gated communities. There their gang is formulating the next set of lies they can use to intimidate us with fear and further wreck our chances for “Life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness”.
It’s kind of difficult to be happy when a miniscule portion of the population regularly steals everyone else’s lunch money, forces us to choose between needed medical care & how to pay the bill, outsources ways to make a decent living while importing illegal immigrant slave labor to usurp American jobs, even uses our tax money to propagandize & lie to us through the MSM, rigs elections, views the Constitution as “…that goddamn scrap of paper” & disregards the most sublime ‘rulebook’ ever written, kills millions, tortures & thinks it ok as long as they don’t call it torture, thinks the DJA is the guage of how America feels about how the economy is doing, and basically just sh*its on us then asks us how did we enjoy the box of chocolates they ‘gave’ us? I feel your rage, man, and I hope others do also.
So what do you suggest, nader2000, vote for a Republican? Surely you jest! We’ve seen their past & current dementia & its effect on ALL of us, and want no parts of it.
Ok, so what do we need? Personally I would like to see a thoroughly pissed off military coming back from Iraq knowing they were played for fools, the Whitehouse & Congress surrounded by tanks pointed inward, and the current administration marched (in toto) off to be waterboarded. The tactic of fear, instead of being used to terrorize the American people turned against the ‘real’ terrorists…in the Whitehouse.
On health care, I would like to see Medicare available to everyone as an option. You can continue to pay premiums to a private insurance company or you can buy the government policy. I think that you will get more for your money with a National Health Insurance policy.
Krugman is selling the difference between the parties, offering the illusion that there is a choice without acknowledging that both parties are serving the same master, the corporate oligarchy, albeit with different modes of worship.
“Bipartisan” agreement prevails vis a vis the “war on terror”. The Repugs are enthusiastic, the Dims are skeptical. Dims who voted for the war and the unconstitutional legislation and now talk pull-out, like Edwards, are lying. Neither party suggests a rollback of Patriot Act, Mil Com Act, etc. This is to speak of corporate media-favorite candidates, that is, in whose favor the polls are manipulated. Not the so-called fringe, like Paul, Kucinich, Gravel.
What Krugman has termed “movement conservatism” is not conservatism at all, but unabashed fealty to the corporate oligarchs, whose zeal for privatization includes the federal government itself. Movement conservatism is a cryptofascist movement, having lost all relationship to any prior form of conservatism, which has always been based appeals to the Constitution.
The Democrats do not challenge the oligarchy and the political power of the Pentagon, they do absolutely nothing to limit the growth of militarism or stem the assault on civil liberties, but instead try to give nascent corporate fascism a friendlier face with promises of more social spending. Given the dire state of the financial system, however, this is not possible.
Dims & Repugs do not live in “separate moral and intellectual universes”. It is Krugman himself who lives apart from the reality of the time. Political reality is not wholly determined by economic reality. The so-called science of economics tends to be politically blind because, like Marxism, it assumes that people are motivated primarily by economics, when in fact, people can and do work against their own economic self-interest under certain historical conditions.
Take for example the late 18th Century in North America when a significant group of individuals put their liberty and unalienable rights before their immediate economic interests, which would have been served nicely through loyalty to a monarchical regime. This group of radicals placed a greater premium on their prospects of achieving liberty than on the certainty of continued economic security which was guaranteed via loyalty to the crown.
Conditions at this particular time are such that people will not necessarily follow the path of rational self-interest because the ultimate destination of that path is the loss of the republic.
Krugman does not see the forest for the trees. He is not sensitive to the crisis of the historical moment. Academics rarely are, particularly economists who tend to live in a self-referential world.
Nader2000 (2:08 pm) worries “But who will play you the worst? The Greens and Socialists and Naderites who will go on promising you everything you dream of with no regard to reality at all.”
Nader2000 has a peculiar obsession with 1% of voters. This 1% just happens to consist of those individuals who insist that any parties they vote for must have real ideas based on a solid socio-economic critique. Nader2000 desperately wants this 1% to vote for the lying weasels of the Democratic Party — who have no message, no principles, & have collaborated with Republicans for decades, to bring us to the disgusting mess that surrounds us, today.
Here’s what Nader2000’s “regard for reality” means: “There can only be 2 parties, now and forever. Both are filled with criminals & traitors, and are utterly subservient to the MIC & Wall St. You must vote for one of them, and forget about all alternatives. That’s reality. Get used to it.”
One sees from this that Nader2000 doesn’t give a damn about democracy. He wants you to give up your right to think for yourself, & to insist on integrity in the parties you vote for. He has no objection to the 2-party tyranny (itself an utterly antidemocratic structure). His only concern is that the independent-minded 1% should abandon independent thought, & instead conform to the 2-party system that’s imposed on us by the ruling oligarchy. // A rather peculiar obsession, to say the least.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good… to paraphrase Mrs. Clinton,only leads me to the conclusion that Edwards is the Man.
Dr. Krugman wrote: “Mr. McCain’s lingering reputation as a maverick straight talker comes largely from his opposition to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which he said at the time were too big and too skewed to the rich.”
Good article, but I differ with that point: McCain’s reputation as a ’straight-talker’ began with his opposition to Bush’s Christopublican hoo-hah in 2000; at the time, he made a point of supporting separation of chruch and state, and rejected the neocon agenda, which is why he attratced independents and even many Democrats to his campaign. Today the wrinkles of his perfidy show on his face and in his hunched stance; foolishly selling his soul to BushCo to serve his ambition, he’s now become a caricature of a hero, a sad joke at his own expense.
Cruxpuppy, Edwards in his campaign has rejected corporate money, and in his speeches has said repeatedly that the only way to win over the corporate oligarchy is to confront them directly, not cooperate with them. If you can prove he’s lying, please do — otherwise, only he and Kucinich have been talking about actually opposing the corporate agenda, unlike Barack or Hillary. Since Dennis’ chances of becoming the Dem nominee are about those of Dick Cheney telling the truth, Edwards is the only true viable populist left in the race.
Mr. Krugman writes: ” Democrats and Republicans live in separate moral and intellectual universes.” (”Moral” and “intellectual” - in refering to politicians? Are we living in Periclean Athens?)
But people tend to believe results - and the Democrats, who gained a congressional majority promising a change in direction in our nation’s foreign policy, have not delivered the results they implied they could produce.
And not for the first time - remember 1993, when Bill Clinton did a 180-degree turn from his pose as a fast-talking Dixie populist - a man who cared about American families - to a Eisenhower Republican, upon taking office? And the foul language Bob Woodward claimed Clinton used when the Wall Street crowd told him to forget about any deficit spending to stimulate the economy (as suggested at the time, I remembered, by Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow)? Clinton yelped something about “bond salesmen” - I remember it but won’t quote it here.
And how furious voters were with him - and Hillary - when they abruptly dropped their healthcare plan after the insurance industry spent $300 million in order to stop it?
Moreover, in 2007, they have been worse than ineffectual; after offering what appeared to most people to be weak verbal resistance to the ongoing disaster of Bush’s foreign policy, they have given him everything he wanted so far a war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan.
So many Americans who voted Democratic in the last major congressional elections not only feel disillusioned; they feel duped.
The American polity is, I believe at the beginning the greatest transition it will have undergone since the thirty decisive years just before our Civil War. Every modern state must have an adversarial polity - not just the simulacrum of one. Gore Vidal had it right when he was asked about the need for a third American party, and he said that he’d be happy to have a second one. The transition will be from a one-party consensus-driven polity. The ideology which will be relegated to the status of outmoded irrelevancy is American liberalism - a contemporary vestigial remnant of the New Deal. And the party which will join the Whigs (replaced by Lincoln’s Repubican Party) in oblivion is the Democratic Party.
That adversarial polity I mentioned is inevitably derived from the fact that in a modern state, “democracy” is economically defined; a sophisticated modern polity will have, on the one hand, one main party which represents the interests of the sectors in society which own and control capital; and on the other, people who sell their labor to business enterprises of all sorts. (There other auxiliary and intermediate sectors, such as “independent contractors” and professionals who should be fairly represented, and a parliamentary polity (the most democratic), these people and their interests find expression in third parties.)
The Democrats - and the liberal ideology which promotes and rationalizes their survival - have repeatedly demonstrated their inability to go against the Reaganite grain ever since the early Reagan Era. (I’m old enough to remember a New York Times editorial from the early 1980s, when the de-industrialization of the United States hit U.S. workers harderst, in which the editorial writer urged upon American workers who had been laid off on mass that hard truth their only remedy was to move to regions of the U.S. where there was work. The unemployment rate was around 10% nationwide at the time.)
On June 22, 2005, the Washington Post published a front page article,”The Road to Riches is Called K Street.” It noted that while the number of registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C. was then 34,750; that the staggering number was more than double the year 2000 figure ; and that the fees of some lobbyists had increased over the same time by 100 per cent.
I’ve remembered that article because, even longer ago, on July 12, 2002, I’d seen an interview with Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity in D.C. on Bill Moyers’s PBS “NOW” program.
Chuck Lewis had told Bill Moyers that there were 62 registered D.C. lobbyists in 1968.
“Lobbying” is, in 2007 a major industry - apparently the major industry - in Washington, D.C. - so much so that the city’s economy would fall into a cataclysmic depression if it were ever to be shut down…. (Would the same be true if the 500 plus federal congresspeople and senators, and their staffs, were furloughed permanently? Somewhere there must be a regional economist who could answer that.)
On November 7, 2007, the Washington Post, had an item headlined “Democrats Split Over Bill Affecting Backers; Tax Measure Would Target Hedge Funds.” That news item revealed that Senator Charles Schumer of New York had changed his position on the bill after a hedge fund “Master of the Universe” wrote a check for $28,500 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committed.
I’d followed Chuck Schumer’s career back when he was a congressman. A more socially concerned and intelligent - and, in those days, occasionally even witty - New York State politician was not around. But the outmoded, corrupted political system which is forcing the American way of life toward a disintegration with certainly catastrophic consequences within the next generation can corrupt anyone….
I find it hard to believe that Paul Krugman doesn’t already know all this. But that won’t stop me from wishing him a productive and happy 2008.
After all, we’re all on this big ship of state - headed toward that iceberg dead ahead - together, aren’t we? (Except for the hedge fund moguls, who will get the few lifeboats on board, along with Captain Bush.)
Hoa binh wrote:
“The Times continues to play by the rules and talk as if there were really were two political parties in D.C. When in reality what we have is a bunch of political whores who pimp themselves to corporate whores in full view of the media whores. The divide that does exist is between America and D.C. Our whores on the hill aren’t worthy to be called Americans.”
Hoa binh is absolutely correct! Why do Dems go along with unconstitutional wiretapping? Because they want to be able to do that when they get elected. Why are their policies, despite the few differences noted in this article, mirrors of Republican policies? Because they are beholden to the same moneyed interests as the Republicans.
Our democracy has been sold, we are doomed.
I used to have a lot of repect for Krugman only because he at least would make occasional noises about the imbalance in our economy. But one thing that has become clear is that he doesn’t have a clue as to the effect on the everyday joe out here in the public. He talks about the effect on the corporations and all the big wigs, but not on the everyday American that is just trying to make do.
And I agree with most of the posters here. The whole system is broken and corrupt. And our voices and votes don’t make much of a difference. We are like trees falling in a forest with no one around to hear the crash. We American citizens have no power to change ANYTHING until the whole system collapses under its own weight. And that is going to happen soon.
On this New Years eve, all I can say is that I’m so glad for all of you folks out here. Even though we don’t always agree, at least we are in this mess together down here at the bottom of the heap.
Have a good night. Tomorrow we shall all rise again for the good fight.
Peace
RSJ
Don’t know of another way to judge politicians except in terms of their voting records. Edwards gave his endorsement to the Bush agenda, illegal war, assault on the Bill of Rights, and now he’s changed his tune. I’d say he’s indulging in a bit of political expediency, which is a euphemism for “lying”.
Only two candidates demonstrate a coincidence between words and deeds, Paul & Kucinich, which leads me to guess they’re not lying.
I’d like to join with Rebel Farmer and wish everyone a Happy New Year!
In response to RichM, who claims to explain what I stand for:
The politically conscious and competent progressive element of the electorate, the Nader and Green voters, socialists and progressive Democrats, are together a few percent of the electorate, and we speak for a substantial minority, maybe one third, who share our basic values and many of our ideas; we have the potential to lead a majority formed from one third who already are with us, but not politically conscious, and one third who are potentially persuadable or would follow a mass movement.
I am concerned that progressives should adopt a political strategy that enables us to attain real influence and leadership. We can only do this working through the Democratic Party, as progressive Democrats, moving the Party in a more progressive direction and through it moving the nation in a more progressive direction.
Other proposed strategies, such as independent candidacies or a third party, are self-marginalizing and cannot succeed in the USA with its district-by-district winner-take-all elections. (IRV is not a remedy since it is still winner-take-all.)
RichM speaks of “individuals who insist that any parties they vote for must have real ideas based on a solid socio-economic critique.” This is a kind of identity politics; at heart it is pure vanity and a species of consumerism rather than civic participation. If you live in a democracy, expect to have to compromise. If you refuse to do so, you will have no influence at all. I think that is outrageously irresponsible for people who are aware of the terrible prices paid for our nation’s crimes and follies not to try their best to move things in a positive direction, but some people seem more interested in moving things in a negative direction, fantasizing that this will result in some kind of glorious revolution. It will not. It will only cause more harm and more suffering.
Cruxpuppy,
Some great observations. You should be writing in place of Grugman at the NYT.
My only quibble is that you need to allow politicians to change their minds. We all make mistakes. And how we correct those mistakes is how we should be judged.
Is it “expediency” or revelation? I don’t know but I am willing to give Edwards a pass.
fpal
thanks for the compliment. I will be doing a review of Krugman’s book, “Conscience of a Liberal”, probably at Dissident Voice.
The only politician who doesn’t change his or her mind is a dead politician. Adaptability is usually a virtue, depending on what one is adapting to and whether or not the adapting involves a compromise or betrayal of principle.
The Constitution is a flexible and pragmatic set of principles that is designed to change with the times. It can be implemented in different ways without compromising the underlying principles. The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the carte blanche Congress gave to the president in ‘02 are clearly unconstitutional. There can be no quibbling about that.
We are not now, nor have we been in a “state of war” because only congress can declare war. Therefore, there is no excuse for the violations of the Bill of Rights. The de facto impunity given to the Executive is unconstitutional, a betrayal of the basic principle of the separation of powers.
You ask me to forgive John Edwards his betrayal of Constitutional principle. I do not know if he has since gone on record to repeal the Patriot or Mil Com acts, or if he has spoken against the suspensions of habeas corpus, but I do know that he voted against Constitutional principle. Has he recanted his betrayal of the Constitution in a heartfelt confession of post-911 madness and confusion?
I may be wrong for not having listened to all of his campaign speechifying, but it seems to me he hasn’t had any “revelations”. His new position against the war is an exercise in political expediency unless he also acknowledges his betrayal of the Constitution.
Any candidate who does not speak clearly and unambiguously about the need to return to Constitutional principle and the rule of law as defined in the Supreme Law of the Land is refusing to come to the aid of our republic which is down for the count under the assault of neo-con fascist power mongers.
This isn’t just rhetoric, this is fact. There is a crisis, a clear and present danger to the continued existence of our constitutionally based republican form of government. The collapse of our republic is imminent due to unrelenting attacks from enemies within.
Among these enemies I count friends who call me “radical”. They should be filled with shame but they are not.
cruxpuppy: Couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks!
I would add that I am still not willing yet to count the unenlightened as enemies. Many of the sheeple have been deluded by the MSM with false information and fearmongering, are daily caught up in the struggle to survive, and have been lied to by a body politic that has not done its sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution. If, after the economic collapse that will surely happen, my neighbors do not understand or accept that it was the degradation of our Constitution, abdication of the rule of law, and corruption that brought this house of cards down on all of our heads, THEN I will be able to know who the true enemies are amongst us.
Fascism came to America by way of the people allowing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to be shredded. The majority did not seem to realize that the price of giving up their freedoms for security would be the downfall of our republic. Will they learn before it is too late? Unlikely, but there is a chance. But that window of possible opportunity will close in the very near future.
Best wishes to all for the New Year.
It’s all moot. As long as we have american citizens sleeping in the streets while local governments board up empty houses you can be sure that niether major political party gives a crap about anything other than the source of their next pile of bribe money. As long as we have people going without health care while MD’s with government subsidized educations specialize in liposuction and nose jobs you can be sure they care nothing about your welfare. As long as an illegal and losing war continues in the Middle East for no purpose other than the profits of crony capitalism you know they do not care about the pride of their country.
Both parties are dominated by traitors at the top and anyone who threatens that has an unfourtunate plane crash. I’d bet my left kidney John Edwards doesn’t survive the year. Dennis Kucinich never had a chance so he’s safe.
Meanwhile your atmosphere is headed for runaway climate change.
America continues to lead the globe on a suicidal path to extinction. Go! Lemmings GO!
ECONOMIC ILLOGIC, ETC
One does not need an advanced degree in economics to see that this administration’s irrational policies have placed us in an unprecedented state of financial vulnerability. Unless rectified soon, this can only further endanger our system by allowing foreign investors to control our economy through our massive trade deficits.
Fiscal logic and honesty have always been absent from their policies. They have financed this ill conceived war on borrowed money and obscure sources to conceal its real costs, while cutting taxes, mainly for the upper income & investors. Meanwhile they continue to oppose vital fuel efficiency measures necessary mitigate to reduce our foreign deficits and carbon pollution.
Primary blame falls on our legislators for permitting such abuses, and our populace for standing by & watching such dangerous violations to our system continue–unabated.
From Cruxpuppy: “RSJ, Don’t know of another way to judge politicians except in terms of their voting records. Edwards gave his endorsement to the Bush agenda, illegal war, assault on the Bill of Rights, and now he’s changed his tune. I’d say he’s indulging in a bit of political expediency, which is a euphemism for “lying”.”
It’s also possible he’s realized he’s made mistakes and has authentically changed his tune. I can’t prove that assertion, but then you can’t prove that Edwards is lying about it now, either. It is true, though, that he has impressed many union members with his fight for labor rights in South Carolina — he even walked a picket line — and for better treatment for the unemployed. He has also fought corporations in court. His current progressivism and his willingness to fight the corporate power structure that presently runs our government may well be political calculation, but the other top Dem candidates aren’t even addressing this problem properly. Hillary has collected more money from Big Pharma and the healthcare industry than any other candidate, Dem or GOP, and Fox News-founder Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser for her. Obama keeps talking about ‘negotiating’ with multi-national corporations but, as we’ve seen in the past, these negotiations go nowhere — you can’t negotiate with a shark chewing off your leg. Edwards is the only top candidate that recognizes that.
Cruxpuppy wrote: “Only two candidates demonstrate a coincidence between words and deeds, Paul & Kucinich, which leads me to guess they’re not lying.”
I like Dennis’ progressive programs and his desire to return to Constitutional rule. The only thing that bothers me is when he tries to ‘go outside the box’ occasionally — what if he starts singing “Sixteen Tons” in a debate with Huckabee? It will be all over and we’ll have a Christopublican GOP president for the next four years. The country can’t survive that.
Ron Paul’s good in some areas, but his anti-abortion stance, his support of prayer in schools, and his coziness to some white bigots doesn’t bode well.
This is all academic, since neither Paul nor Kucinich is going to be the GOP or Dem candidate. That’s too bad, but that’s the reality.
Edwards is by no means perfect, but he’s more progressive than the other two top candidates, and has a better chance of beating the GOP in 2008 than either one. Even a less-than-perfect Democrat for the next four years would be an improvement over any of the top-tier Republicans. (I suggest, BTW, that you listen to some of Edwards’ campaign speechifying — you might be surprised.)
Happy New Year to you, too, Cruxpuppy, and everyone here at CD. I think we’re both on the same page, just reading a different paragraph at the moment.
Late breaking news: Apparently, Kucinich is throwing his support in Iowa to Obama. I hope Dennis knows something we don’t. Read it here: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/kucinich_urges_supporters_to_c.php
Nader2000 predicted “Whoever wins each race, as soon as the primaries are over each prospective nominee will tack toward the center. The Democrat will soften primary campaign promises and emphasize his or her support for the troops. The Republican will call for a plan to get out of Iraq and will distance himself from Bush.”
This would be so if we had fair elections here, which would require the candidates to appeal to the voters. At the moment, the Democrats appear to believe in this course of events. The Republicans, on the other hand, understand that “winning” the election means persuading those who build and operate the viting machinery — Corporate America — that they are, ummm…, sensitive to its needs. They know from the last two Presidential elections that there is no electority large enough that it cannot be offset by a well-placed fix.
If you want better candidates, agitate for a voter-verified indelible ballot and random audits of vote-tallying equipment versus hand-counts. Without such equipment in place, anything we talk about here is purely academic.
Helix, I agree completely, and I’m sorry that the Dems aren’t talking about this. Fortunately, there has been some movement on this issue on the state and local level.