H2O Man's Journal
Member since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 07:49 PM
Number of posts: 52,404
Number of posts: 52,404
- 2015 (84)
- 2014 (134)
- 2013 (71)
- 2012 (90)
- Older Archives
A week or so ago, I read an essay on the internet about the 1968 presidential election. The author’s purpose, I believe, was to convince people that it was necessary to vote for Hillary Clinton in the November, 2016 presidential election. However, her essay included a lot of information that was inaccurate, at very best. Thus, the conclusion she was advocating was equally flawed.
While that piece struck me as insignificant, the 1968 contest between VP Hubert Humphrey, the democratic candidate, and Richard Nixon, is a topic worthy of our consideration. Though I was alive at that time, and definitely very interested in the election, for the sake of this essay, I’ll rely upon two primary sources of information:
Lewis Chester, Godfrey, Hodgson, and Bruce Page; “An American Melodrama: The Presidential Election of 1968”; Viking Press; 1969; and
Over the years that I’ve been a member of the Democratic Underground community, I’ve taken part in numerous discussions about 1968, which I recognize as one of the most important years in American history. I have shelves of books, with either chapters about 1968, or entirely on that topic; books about various political and social participants in the year’s events; and more.
Both the republican and democratic primaries -- especially the Democratic National Convention -- and the general election that fall, were extremely important. And not just in the context of that strange, sometimes beautiful, and frequently tragic year, but in American history.
A brief review: In late 1967, Senator Eugene McCarthy announced that he would challenge the sitting president, Lyndon Johnson, in the 1968 primaries. Early ‘68 was marked by the Tet Offensive. Then, in the New Hampshire primary, McCarthy did unexpectedly well: although LBJ got a larger number of votes, McCarthy won more NH delegates. Soon, Senator Robert Kennedy joined the race.
On March 31, LBJ announced that he wasn’t going to run for re-election. On April 4, Martin Luther King, Jr., was murdered. On April 27, VP Humphrey announced his candidacy. He would opt to run in zero of the democratic primary state-wide races. Instead, he was focused on winning the support of enough delegates in behind-the-scenes meetings, to capture the nomination. RFK was murdered in early June, after winning the California primary.
I suppose that there are a number of ways of seeing the democratic primary contest. For many liberal and progressive party members, the McCarthy and Kennedy campaigns were intense examples of the power of participatory democracy in action. The Humphrey campaign was clearly more of “machine” politics, business-as-usual, or even decisions made in smoke-filled rooms. One thing is sure: Humphrey came out of Chicago as the nominee of a fractured party.
The earlier essay that I made mention of took the increasingly common, yet shallow, stance that Hubert had two conflicting images: a noble US Senator, who fought for Civil Rights, versus a vice president who loyally supported LBJ, including the administration’s unpopular policies in Vietnam. The grass roots Democrats, according to this myth, blamed Humphrey for that loyalty, even though Hubert secretly opposed the insane President Johnson.
The truth is that you can learn a heck of a lot, just from how much such a simplistic view of Humphrey’s campaign leaves out. Let’s take just a quick look, shall we?
Was Hubert Humphrey a noble advocate for Civil Rights? Absolutely. In 1948, he contributed to the Democratic Party’s Platform, on the ethical stance for Americans on racial issues. It is important to remember that there was a division within the party: the liberal-progressive wing believed the federal government needed to take firm stances to advance Civil Rights, while the moderate-conservative party members advocated “states’ rights.” Humphrey was consistent in his advocacy for Civil Rights up through his years as vice president.
Indeed, after the two political conventions, VP Humphrey entered the race against Richard Nixon with a large lead in the polls. The “Happy Warrior’s” campaign would see that lead shrink rapidly, and “the Politics of Joy” fall significantly lower than Nixon’s campaign for “law and order” and a “secret plan” to end the war. How did this happen? More importantly, why did it happen?
We can safely eliminate the candidates’ choices for VP as a significant factor. Nixon picked the relatively unknown (in national politics) Spiro Agnew, who was a pro-Civil Rights governor, and who had led the Nelson Rockefeller semi-campaign for the ‘68 republican nomination. Humphrey picked Edmund Muskie, a highly-respected US Senator. Since we can’t blame Muskie, let’s look at two periods in Humphrey’s career: his service in the Senate, then as VP.
As a Senator, Humphrey was in many ways representative of the best in liberal Democrats of his era. Largely forgotten today is that Hubert was largely responsible for Truman winning the upset over Dewey: Humphrey’s campaigning in northern states earned Truman the votes of enough pro-Civil Rights republicans to turn the election. Humphrey was also an advocate for the poor.
But there was a flip-side. Humphrey was strongly “anti-communist,” something that caused him to strongly support every war the US was involved in after WW2, until his death. In every instance, he viewed the wars as part of the USA versus the Soviet Union. He lacked the insight needed to identify the role that nationalism and anti-colonialism was playing around the globe.
His anti-communism included some rather undemocratic beliefs and actions domestically, as well. He sponsored the 1950 McCarran Act, to make “camps” in which to hold “subversives.” Humphrey favored outlawing communist beliefs: in 1954, he proposed a bill to make membership in the Communist Party a felony. How these things were viewed in the 1950s would change drastically in the 1960s, as the pro-Civil Rights and anti-war movements would be accused of being communists.
During his term as vice president, Humphrey saw his relationships with the democratic Senators he used to work with severely damaged. This was not because college students would flock to the Eugene McCarthy campaign in early 1968. No, it had already happened. Why? When LBJ served as JFK’s vice president, he was compared to “a bull castrated late in life.” When Humphrey was VP, people saw him as willingly castrating himself, to please LBJ.
The lack of meaningful support from his former Senate friends translated into a lack of campaign donations for Humphrey-Muskie. By mid-September, the campaign was broke, and was having great difficulty in getting loans. This was not because Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin had decided to run a pig for president. The responsibility lay solely with Hubert Humphrey.
Thus, on September 30, in a taped interview, Humphrey would finally dare to risk saying he would not continue the war effort exactly as LBJ would. That evening, he called Johnson to give him a warning. Although the president did not tell Hubert, he was already fully aware of exactly what Humphrey had told the NBC reporter. Johnson had spoken with Nixon several hours earlier that day, and an NBC contact had informed Nixon about the interview. Nixon, of course, called LBJ to “warn” him of Hubert’s betrayal, and to assure LBJ that he -- Nixon -- would stay true to the course in Vietnam.
Starting on October 1, Humphrey began to close the gap in the polls. In the final week of the campaign, he came very close to making the election a toss-up. So close, in fact, that Nixon proposed that if neither man won enough electoral votes, they should agree that the winner of the popular vote be recognized as president. Humphrey responded by saying he was in favor of going by the law, and having the decision rendered by the House of Representatives.
Had the campaign gone on for one more day, it might have been a virtual tie. Two more days, had things continued as they were going, and Humphrey would have won.
There are valuable lessons to be learned from studying 1968. They do not include any conclusions that one might reach by twisting or ignoring the facts of what actually happened. In the end, the responsibility for Humphrey’s loss was entirely his own. As the democratic candidate for president, it was up to him to convince the voters that he deserved their support.
Posted by H2O Man | Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:32 AM (27 replies)
I think that one of the more important issues that faces voters in the upcoming 2016 elections is the relationship between the United States and Iran. It is obviously an on-going issue, and one we should be concerned with from now until Election Day. More, it is one of the things that demonstrates that House and Senate contests are extremely important, so much so that we can’t afford to only think in terms of the White House.
The now infamous letter from the 47 jackasses has been -- and will continue to be -- discussed here on DU:GD. These discussions suggest that it is indeed possible for most all of us to agree on some issues. And that is surely a good thing.
I’m old enough to remember “Iranian hostage crisis” in the years 1979 through 1981. The business with the shah, and later, the Iran-Contra scandal. My library has quite a few books on the Iran-Contra scandal, with several books focusing on that topic exclusively, and more with it being one of numerous issues examined.
Although the groups of crimes known as the Iran-Contra scandal are as important as the wide range of crimes known collectively as “Watergate,” it really has not received the scrutiny it deserves. The reasons it is devalued, in my opinion, are wide-ranging: Nixon was an unattractive easily portrayed as a “crook,” while at least for many, Reagan had a Teflon-image. More, Watergate could be packaged as a simple, limited crime (though it was not), while Iran-Contra was extremely complex. More, both the Iranian and Central American issues would involve allies of the US (or, of the republican party). And, on top of that, the Iran-Contra scandal documented the strange and unhealthy dynamics that can come into play when the religious belief system of elected and non-elected officials influences foreign policy.
I have made an attempt to learn more about Iran, in order to more fully understand why a segment of government officials -- primarily, but not exclusively, the necroconservates -- are obsessed with that nation. I find history, politics, and sociology fascinating. I am admittedly not a fan of government based upon religion, and particularly a fundamental religious strain. Yet, I try to keep an open mind.
Perhaps the single most important book on this in my library is Ken Pollack’s “The Prsian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America” (Random House; 2005). It has helped me, for example, to understand the CIA’s coup that inserted the shah into power, and how that influenced events surrounding the later hostage crisis. (Safe to say that most Iranians were other than grateful for the CIA’s selecting a dictator for them.)
Richard Ben-Veniste’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes: Exposing the Truth from Watergate to 9/11” (Thomas Dunne Books; 2009) shows some of the connections between Watergate and Iran-Contra. However, I do not think it fully exposes them; nor does it document just how the failure of the system to thoroughly prosecute those involved, would create the fertile ground for the criminality of the Bush-Cheney administration.
John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt’s “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Freign Policy” ( Farrar, Straus, and Giroux; 2007), examines the curious relationship between Iran, Israel, and the US. This is important, both in the strange events from Iran-Contra (with the US shipping arms to Iran, with Israel’s assistance), to events as recent as the republicans having a foreign leader lobby with the House to abort President Obama’s efforts to avoid a war against Iran.
And James Mann’s “Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet” (Penguin; 2004) examines some of the necroconservatives, who have played central roles in the US’s relentless military actions in the Middle East.
There are literally dozens of others on my book shelves, that provide additional important information on the often tense relationship between the US and Iran. I’ve even got one by a right-wing, fundamental Christian ex-military man, who is obsessed with what he clearly views as a religious duty to destroy the “evil” enemy of the “Christian” United States. And he is hardly alone in his diseased belief system that defines political reality through a biblical looking-glass.
I’m curious: first, are there other books and resources that you would recommend as valuable reads for understanding this conflict? Second, do you think that there are (republican) people in positions of political power, who are intent upon starting a war with Iran? And, third, do you believe this is an important issue facing our country today? Thank you.
Posted by H2O Man | Fri Mar 13, 2015, 05:45 PM (66 replies)
Yesterday, I read a wonderful OP by one of my long-time DU friends, regarding the issue of the racist fraternity business. One person’s responses appeared to be attempts to distract from the issue the OP focused on. My friend did an amazing job of keeping the focus where it was intended to be.
I recommended the OP, and noted my admiration for my friend’s “perfect” responses. My buddy responded by saying thanks, and that a number of old friends now reject her/him (I know the correct one there, but that’s not important) because s/he supports Hillary Clinton. It’s funny how something a person says on the internet can take up space in your mind for a couple of days.
In my opinion, Ted Kennedy was one of the greatest US Senators in our nation’s history. But I didn’t think he would be a great President. Obviously, I would have voted for him over Reagan or Bush the Elder. Still, I’m glad he remained in the Senate.
I tend to have a similar opinion of Hillary Clinton. If she had remained a Senator from NYS, I would have supported her -- as I did -- for as long as she wanted that position. That she became President Obama’s Secretary of State was, however, a good thing; it was necessary after the bitterness of the 2008 democratic primary. It wasn’t limited to tension between Clinton and Obama: there were hostilities between the two campaigns, and between people at the grass roots level -- including here at DU.
A prime example of that hostility can be found in various books detailing the primary campaign, when Bill Clinton attempted to gain Ted Kennedy’s endorsement for his wife. The working relationship between two democratic giants was fractured. Despite Bill Clinton’s beliefs, as we saw, America was willing and ready to elect Senator Obama to the presidency.
On the internet site “Face Book,” I’ve read some paranoid rantings that President Obama is sure to suspend the Constitution, cancel future elections, and declare himself dictator. Barring this rather remote possibility, I expect that Hillary Clinton will enter the primaries for the 2016 election. If so, there is a good chance that she’ll win.
One of the people that I’m friends with on FB is a young lady who my youngest daughter met last year, at a state-wide high school leadership conference. This young lady is an outstanding example of her generation’s feminist movement. It’s people like her that assure me that our country has the ability to provide real leadership now and in the future. At least four times a week, I read updates on various conferences she attends, links to outstanding articles she identifies as important, and other information from her.
In recent days, for example, she has been in the audience that heard Ms. Clinton speak. She expressed some very insightful opinions on the e-mail issue, and the republican agenda. It makes no difference to me if I agree or disagree with each and every opinion that she expresses -- I am encouraged by the way that she provides a solid foundation for those opinions.
We aren’t in a country where a black person cannot be elected president. Yet, there are still those who despise President Obama because he is black. We aren’t in a country where a woman cannot be elected president. Yet, there are surely those who are opposed to Hillary Clinton, because she is female. Racism and sexism are diseases that remain entrenched in a portion of our society. By no coincidence, both seem to be republican party “values.” But as we see with the fraternity issue, the greater society is rejecting such hatred.
I think that the biggest differences found here on DU are rooted in whether people think that our society is capable of achieving social justice by having a democratic majority in Washington fine tune the political machine, or if they believe that social justice requires major structural change. That includes the differences of opinion regarding if meaningful change has the best chances of taking place gradually, or if meaningful change can happen more rapidly.
Not everyone is going to think the same, of course. Nor is everyone on DU going to be friends. But it is a shame if friendships crumble, simply because of differences of opinion.
Posted by H2O Man | Wed Mar 11, 2015, 01:11 PM (6 replies)
“I think this is a great American country, great country, and if we can’t find more than two or three to run for high office, that’s silly, because there are great governors, great people who are eligible to run.for high office. And I think that the Kennedys, Clintons, and Bushes, there are just more families than that.”
-- Barbara Bush, the Swine of Babylon
There is a possibility that the November, 2016 presidential election could feature both a Clinton and a Bush as the major party candidates. That raises the questions: would this represent a modern form of dynasty? And if so, is that a healthy feature of a democracy?
A working definition of “dynasty” is when a small number of families controls the political and economic life of a country. From history, we know that China and Europe had dynasties that lasted for centuries. None of these resembled democracies. None were known to include what is known as a “middle class.” There were the ruling elites, merchants, and a majority of people, who were serfs and peasants.
By no coincidence, there was a apparently popular television series, from January 1981 to May of 1989, called “Dynasty.” While I’ve never watched it, I know it was a trashy night-time soap opera, that appealed primarily to those seeking mindless entertainment. That the series would run pretty much in the period of the Reagan-Bush administration might shed light upon this need.
In more recent times, both HBO and Showtime have featured series on various dynasties -- some purely fictional, some with a bit of history mixed in. These series tend to include numerous scenes with quivering flesh and bloody gore, enough to keep viewers loyal to the shows. And they always include serfs, slaves, and peasants, who frequently have complicated love-hate relationships with the beautiful people in elite positions.
I believe that the Reagan-Bush years representing a move away from the USA being a constitutional democracy, and towards becoming a high-tech feudal state. Now, that’s just me. Just my opinion. I’m curious about your opinion:
Does a potential Clinton vs. Bush suggest to you a hint of “dynasty”? Does that concern you? Is it an issue that could ever influence how you vote, either in a primary or general election?
Posted by H2O Man | Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:58 PM (73 replies)
There are quite a few OP/threads on DU:GD concerning Hillary Clinton in recent days. The vast majority of them -- in my opinion -- have an obnoxious-to-toxic flavor (in whole or in large part). So I thought that I’d try posting something that provides forum members with an opportunity to discuss Ms. Clinton’s expected campaign for the presidency in 2016 in a meaningful way.
I live in rural, upstate New York. Thus, if Ms. Clinton runs, my vote will carry no weight in either a primary of general election contest. For sake of this discussion, I should add: I long preferred Hillary to Bill Clinton; I voted for her twice, in NYS elections for the US Senate; I met her twice in that period; and I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary. More, I have not decided who I would vote for, if she does enter the 2016 primaries. I haven’t gotten that far yet.
I believe that there are three major areas to consider with Ms. Clinton or any other candidate for office: social policy; economic policy; and foreign policy. In my opinion, Hillary’s strength in terms of appealing to grass roots Democrats is in social policy. Frequently, the media labels this “women and children’s issues.” However, it goes beyond that. Social policy includes things that impact families -- including men -- such as health care.
At the same time, there are areas of social policy where the grass roots should disagree with Ms. Clinton. This includes areas where economic policy overlaps with social policy: she is an advocate for the “fracking” industry, which has very negative effects upon the environment (and the environment impacts many family’s health).
I’ll end this with a brief story. In late 1999, the movie “The Hurricane” was released. The film is about the legal struggle of my late friend, Dr. Rubin “Hurricane” Carter. Although I never saw it mentioned in the media, I remember that President Clinton and Hillary had Rubin visit them at the White House for a private screening of the film. Not a huge thing, I know, but it made an impression on me.
Posted by H2O Man | Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:49 PM (112 replies)
Hillary Clinton is scheduled to speak tonight, at the 30th anniversary gala for Emily’s List. Her speech would have gotten media attention, even if the current e-mail issue hadn’t been put on the table. Since it has, there is a probability that she will address it. This should be interesting.
At this point, there are three groups among the Democratic Party: those who strongly support her possible run in 2016; those who strongly oppose such a run; and the undecided, and those who are not firmly decided one way or the other about Hillary Clinton.
No matter what -- if anything -- Ms. Clinton says tonight, groups 1 and 2 will remain firm in their opinion. They will view her statements as grounds to reinforce their beliefs about her character.
What is more important, in my opinion, is how group 3 views the news about the e-mail issue, including her response to it.
Politics are a curious thing.
Posted by H2O Man | Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:26 PM (20 replies)
“Why don’t we do it in the road?
Why don’t we do it in the road?
Why don’t we do it in the road?
No one will be watching us
Why don’t we do it in the road?”
-- Paul McCartney
Most historians would not even mention Paul McCartney in a discussion of “McCarthyism,” for obvious reasons. Fewer still would begin such an attempt at conversations about America’s second great Red Scare with a quote from one of Sir Paul’s curious contributions to the double LP titled “The Beatles,” though commonly known as “the White Album.” But there is an actual good reason for my including here, perhaps beyond the simple fact that Side Two of the double LP is spinning on my turn-table as I type this. (We’ll see, won’t we?)
“McCarthyism” in the gutter sense describes the attitude of much of America circa 1950-56. It is known as the second “red scare” in America. There was an attempt -- rather successful, at that -- to scare people into refusing to listen to anyone who dared to ask questions; or to read literature that asked questions; or to be in any way DISLOYAL.
The insane Senator Joseph McCarthey (R-Hell) wanted everyone to take loyalty pledges of allegiance to his flag. Failure to do so resulted in a dynamic that involved excessive allegations of disloyalty; twisting of a person’s sincere dissent into evidence of betrayal; and vicious attacks upon the character of anyone who didn’t subscribe 100% to the party line.
This form of McCarthyism is a malignancy upon a democratic society. Note that I used the word “is” to describe it -- because this disease is never truly cured: it goes into remission, but always is present in the uglier regions of the human minds, seeking opportunity to re-assert itself in the most surprising of places.
The positive form of “McCarthyism” was found in America in 1967-68, when a diverse group of patriotic citizens at the grass roots level questioned the establishment’s definitions of reality. The combined force of this dissent created a synergy that resulted in Senator Eugene McCarthy challenging LBJ. What is funny is that history has revealed that the very same cogs in the Washington, DC machine that accused the people supporting this McCarthyism of being disloyal to the cause, actually were questioning -- but only among themselves -- if LBJ had totally lost his grip on reality, and was stark raving mad? Yet they remained “loyal,” though it is hard to see that as a strength today.
Now, there are many things about LBJ that deserve respect. I’ve heard it said that Martin Luther King, Jr., could not have accomplished all he did, with his protests in the streets, if LBJ hadn’t been in the White House. And that’s true. Yet, King had to challenge LBJ’s stance on Vietnam, to remain true to his principles. But this wasn’t simply a “purity test” for King: for the “war on poverty” and the Great Society were being destroyed by the war in Vietnam.
Fast-forward 48 years, and we see some of those same dynamics at play here on DU:GD. If you don’t vote this way, you ain’t loyal. A red state scare: do you want to be responsible for Ted Cruz in the White House? And on and on and on.
Sides three and four of the White Album are simply outstanding.
Posted by H2O Man | Sun Mar 1, 2015, 10:37 AM (76 replies)
I remember when I joined the Democratic Underground in December of 2003. I had read some of the discussions on the forum for months before joining, and found some of them very interesting; most of mild interest; and a few puzzling. On the 29th, however, a fellow named Will Pitt had published an outstanding essay on the Plame Scandal, which was of particular interest to me.
At the time, the corporate media was largely ignoring the Plame Scandal. In fact, even our elected representatives in Washington, DC, were remaining silent about what was clearly one of the most significant White House scandals of our life-time. Although there was evidence, for those paying attention, that the Plame Scandal was related to the two earlier series of scandals -- known as Watergate and Iran-Contra -- the democratic establishment was intimidated by the Office of the Vice President.
For those interested in the rule of constitutional law, the primary sources of information being reported were found on internet sites such as Truth Out; and informed discussions on sites like DU. I remember discussing DU with a couple of my associates -- a small, informal group that operated as a volunteer “think tank”/ activist center -- and learning that this forum had begun as a response to the US Supreme Court’s selection of Bush and Cheney as the “winners” of the 2000 election.
The DU community had begun as a collection of left-leaning Democrats, and members of the Democratic Left. There were a few members who could have been described as moderate Democrats, at least in some areas, but the majority of members were definitely to the left of center. And although there were plenty of heated debates on the forum, I can’t remember any that focused on defining a person’s need to be 100% in support of every Democrat in Washington, DC, in order to belong here.
Over the years, as the forum grew, a number of interesting things happened. DU would become one of the best under-the-radar Plame Scandal think tanks. A few journalists from the corporate media began to pay attention to the infamous “Plame Threads” (primarily those from MSNBC’s evening shows). A few relatives of presidential primary candidates joined DU, including Elizabeth Edwards, as well as relatives of John Kerry and Wesley Clark. A staff member of a NYS Senator -- who many believe will be the next Democratic candidate for President -- contacted me, to try to find the source of some Plame news I posted here, several days before it would be reported in the mainstream media.
Just as the “establishment” Democrats recognized the potential value of this forum -- including as a source of votes, donations, campaign workers, and yes, insightful thinking -- so did that dark force that is known in psychiatric and forensic circles as the “republican party.” Thus, there are at times waves of “trolls” joining to disrupt, much like nasty cluster flies or the biblical infestations of locus. Luckily, their life expectancy here tends to be short. This includes the 39 year old, sexually frustrated republican who inhabits his parents’ basement, as well as the likes of Michelle Munchkin and Sean Hannity.
There has also been an increase in the number of moderate to conservative Democrats. They are good people, as sincere in their social and political beliefs as anyone else here. In my opinion -- and this is admittedly speculation -- some are older folks, my generation, who were more liberal in their youth, and now are part of the middle class. Their contributions are of value, and likely let them get back in touch with their “inner hippie.”
The growth of the DU community has included an interesting number of folks who have diverse interests and values, which has resulted in a large number of “specialty” sub-forums. Each one of these groups adds an important voice to the larger whole.
However, especially in the context of the approaching 2016 elections, we witness some tensions on General Discussion, which is kind of like the village commons, or the city park of the Democratic Underground. Not surprisingly, much of that tension is about the anticipated run of Hillary Clinton for President. It is safe (I hope) to say that Ms. Clinton creates strong emotional responses in many people -- including those who support and those who oppose the idea of her becoming the President of the United States.
What strikes me as the most glaring about the arguments on DU:GD about Ms. Clinton is that so many good people -- people who are normally intelligent and insightful -- allow emotions to block their ability to recognize some of the most obvious of lessons from the past two decades. The single most obvious is that we are not on a fence, where some stand to win, while others lose. The only avenue to victory requires unity. It’s that simple. Yet we witness the pro- and anti-Clinton people engaged in a competition to see who can deliver the “best” insult.
The second lesson is that any President can only operate within the limits that Congress (the House and Senate) allows. If there are weak Democrats, a Bush-Cheney resolution allowing the invasion of Iraq happens. On the flip side, a Congress can handcuff President Obama’s efforts to pass meaningful legislation.
The question arises: realistically, is it easier to elect someone to Congress, or the White House? Again, both require united efforts on our part. And a heck of a lot of work.
Posted by H2O Man | Sat Feb 21, 2015, 09:32 AM (18 replies)
Mayweather vs Pacquiao will be on May 2, 2015. Both fighters have signed.
DU sports forum members will recall that I said it was going to happen, in an OP last month. Another person mistakenly challenged me on that, claiming it would not happen. Let this be a lesson: never doubt my word when it comes to boxing.
Posted by H2O Man | Fri Feb 20, 2015, 07:02 PM (10 replies)
What is the most obnoxious thing that people such as Sean Hannity do when it comes to differences of opinion? Yep, you got it -- he automatically ascribes the most offensively vile motives to those who disagree with him. If you didn’t like George W. Bush, for example, it was because you hated America. If you support women’s right to health care, you clearly favor the brutal murder of infants. If you favor marriage equality, you are engaged in the war on Christianity.
This is, of course, the weakest excuse for meaningful debate. It shows a lack of confidence in one’s position. The combination of concrete thinking (“if you don’t like A, you must like B”) and disgusting insults (no examples necessary) highlight just how shallow Sean et al are. It is nature’s way of communicating a warning of toxicity.
I said that, to say this: the vast majority of folks who are part of the DU community are good and sincere individuals, fully capable of determining if the will -- or will not -- vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 -- if she is indeed in the primary contests and the general election. There are numerous valid reasons why a person might support or not support her potential candidacy. I believe that is true for even those among the DU community who post foolish things about the ethics and motivations of those who think differently than themselves.
If we keep open minds, and focus on communicating what our opinions are -- rather than attacking other people who honestly think differently (even very differently) -- there is a possibility we may influence others, and perhaps even convince them. More, there is a very real possibility we might learn something, ourselves. Besides that, a closed mind tends to be much like a closed room -- stuffy.
Having been on DU since 2003, I recognize that primary season isn’t a pillow fight here. Yet we have the option of meaningful discourse. Let’s use it.
Posted by H2O Man | Thu Feb 19, 2015, 01:54 PM (42 replies)