Custom Search

Sunday, October 28, 2007



Is that all there is?
Is that all there is?
If that's all there is my friend,
then let's keep dancing...
Let's break out the booze
And have a ball..
If that's all....there is

So goes the refrain from Peggy Lee's song from the 60's. The 60's were my formative years, with a lot going on to raise the political awareness of anyone. In those days there really was a distinct difference between Republicans and Democrats on many issues.

Not any more. I once wrote that as far as the so-called "two party system" is concerned, it is for voters much like buying a meal at a fast-food restaurant. You can go inside and order, or use the drive-through. It doesn't really THINK you're getting something different by choosing the way in which you make your purchase. But the fact is, it's the same restaurant with the same nutritionless food.

I had hopes that the Democratic Party would start to swing back towards some of its basics. That is, liberal on economic and social issues yet libertarian enough to acknowledge that people had the right to be people. If there was one hallmark of the Democrats, dating back to Franklin Roosevelt, was its concern for the "working man" (and woman).

Lincoln once said that God must love common-looking people since He made so many of them. That got a little twist over the years to become "God must love common people since He made so many of them." Using the term in the latter sense, the common people, while without money and power, were afforded consideration by the Democrats.

This has has been the case for a long time. Everyone has the right to interpret things as they wish. For me, that means looking at the "initiatives" of the Democrats as generally applying the power of government in an authoritarian manner. It's for the common good as they say, yet is the end result any different than what Republicans offer? Eat in or Take Out; it's all up to you.

There comes that time when one is faced with the proverbial cherry on top; the straw on the camel's back that leads one to say "enough." There are two recent events that illustrate how far the Democratic Party has gone downhill.

Recently, the GUN TOTING LIBERAL had a piece about the SCHIP veto by President Bush, with a subtitle RIGHT MOVE, WRONG REASON. He makes a good point; one that I wish to expand upon. In the manner of pointing out hypocrisy any debate about tobacco is a red herring. What must be acknowledged is that the funding for the SCHIP will be through a $6.10 additional tax on cigarettes. Any demographer will tell you that those paying said tax are not exactly in the wealthiest quintile.

What the Democrats are saying is: we want money for something and are targeting those who are the less well off. Then, wrapping themselves in self-righteousness they proclaim it's "for the children." That is not the point. The point is, DEMOCRATS ARE PROVING THEY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THOSE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LADDER.

Then, this "DREAM ACT." Comprehensive Invasion Reform was rejected several months ago. But, like the proverbial bad penny, legislation keeps showing up to achieve piecemeal what could not be acquired as a whole. What the Democratic Party is saying with this is that while obeying the law is fine, garnering votes to perpetuate the party's power is a lot more important.

Doug Thompson of CAPITOL HILL BLUE wrote a column recently, A COMPLETE DEMOCRATIC FAILURE.

Americans enter the excesses of a Presidential election year with no real choices among the frontrunners of either party. Any chance for change remains mired in the muck of the second and third tier of candidates and they have no chance of breaking out.

Yes, Nancy Pelosi is a failure. The Democratic Party is a failure. But the real failure is a political system that has allowed Democrats and Republicans to become the only choices. In the end, a victory by either party is a failure of the system and the real losers are the American people and a once-great nation called the United States.

Couldn't have said it better myself. For a little triangulation I refer to Robert Reich's recent post at SALON.COM, WHY DEMOCRATS ARE AFRAID TO RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH.

Oct. 25, 2007 New data from the Internal Revenue Service show that income inequality continues to widen. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn more than 21 percent of all income. That's a postwar record. The bottom 50 percent of all Americans, when all their wages are combined, earn just 12.8 percent of the nation's income.


If the rich and super-rich don't pay their fair share, the middle class will get socked with the bill. But the middle class can't possibly pay it. America's middle class is under intense financial pressure. Median wages and benefits, adjusted for inflation, have been going nowhere for 30 years; health costs are soaring (employers are quickly shifting co-payments, deductibles and premiums to their employees), fuel costs are out of sight, the prices of the houses occupied by the middle class are in the doldrums.


If the Democrats stand for anything, it's a fair allocation of the responsibility for paying the costs of maintaining this nation. So far, neither the Democratic candidates for president nor the Senate Democrats have shown much eagerness to advocate this fundamental principle. It seems the rich have bought them out.

It appears reasonably safe to assume that the Democrats are going to do very well next year. In the past someone like myself might find that synonymous with the country doing well also. My opinion has evolved to echo what Mr. Thompson said: a victory for either party is a loss for the nation.

Sure, it's easy to campaign against George W. Bush. ANYBODY could do that. What a voter must do, however, is look beyond the obvious (that President Bush has served poorly) and take a careful and considerate look at what the Democrats are going to do starting in 2009.

Mainly, they will be congratulating each other at exclusive parties about how well the party is doing, to the exclusion of the vast number of people in this country.

I stand corrected in advance if I am inaccurate in this quote from Mark 8:34:

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

The Democrats might start asking themselves the same question.

In the meantime....if that's all there is.....then I'll break out the diabetic booze and just keep dancing. And pray, as only a dyed-in-the-wool sinner like me can, that God does indeed save this republic.

I think about those who, in "service" to this republic swear upon a Holy Book that they will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of The United help me God. For one to say those words yet ignore the oath is a clear indication that God does not exist to them.

But I am a simpleton. I take such things seriously and find the price of my soul is too high to be purchased by a lobbyist or hedge fund manager.....or a quest for political power.
This post kindly featured at MemeOrandum

Cross-posted at & The Gun Toting Liberal

Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Labels: , , , , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Anonymous Tom said...

Is it possible that the Republican and Democratic parties are similar because most Americans hold similar views?
Assuming your thesis is correct; and given the GOP's shrinking base and the political diversity of the new Dems, I'd say it's questionable

4:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home