Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Articles
Democratic Underground  
SEARCH DU
Powered by FreeFind

THE DU T-SHIRT OF THE WEEK:

Click here to purchase DU Merchandise

Sweatshirts, mugs, and mousepads also available!

DONATE TO DU!
We rely on donations from our readers to run this website. If you think we're worth it, give us your money!

SUBMIT ARTICLES
Authors - we publish a wide variety of new material six days a week. If you would like us to consider your article for publication, click here.

BOOK REVIEWS
Find out what other Evil DUers are reading. And buy through our Amazon Affiliate Program.

LINKS DIRECTORY
We have over 1,000 progressive websites listed in our Links Directory.
· Democratic Party
· Forums/Communities
· Government
· Humor and Parody
· Issues and Activism
· Merchandise
· News/Commentary
· Personal Homepages
· Research and Dirt
· State and Local
· Add a link!

GET DU GEAR
Check out our fabulous range of T-shirts, mugs, baseball caps... etc.

Democratic Strategy for Upcoming Elections
October 31, 2002
By 
Bob Connors

The repugnant Republicans have a few core beliefs figured out. They accurately identify and placate their base, and they lie to the rest of us. Why? It is their hope that a small percentage of the huge majority - who are incidentally getting shafted thoroughly by the right-wing conservatives - will vote GOP.

The administration's core supporters are rural, white, male, southern Republicans without a college diploma. These so called, “moral majority” people like guns and are predominantly bigoted, religiously-oriented and warmongers. Doesn't the GOP stand for all of these things?

The NRA said that they would set up office in the White House when Bush was selected. Bush's slashing of the budgets for all of the social welfare programs appeals to every prejudiced voter. His plan to fund religious charities is a double winner. It emphasizes religion, and he can even cut legitimate federal social welfare budgets as he can crow about his faith-based programs being more effective and therefore needing less of a financial expenditure. His goofy, preemptive, unilateral war on Iraq is great for warmongers as well for Bush's oil interest. His few policies, the huge tax cut for the richest 1%, to the war on terrorism, have one unifying theme - namely to make his supporters happy, at the expense of the rest of the country and world.

Then, the hypocritical GOP inner circle plots to gain a few extra votes whenever they can. Rove follows the example of Atwater as unprincipled political scavengers. What Hispanic person can name one policy that the GOP has made that benefits their community? Yet the experienced, corrupt, GOP players make a few insincere gestures and they are making progress in that very important segment of voters. Bush's brethren in the GOP controlled House has passed many bills that have stalled in the Senate. These bills have no merit except that their passage gives the right-wing thugs cover. They are crowing now that they passed bills, but the Democratically-controlled Senate is obstructing their good work. Let's use the House's Prescription Drugs bill as an example. Who does it benefit? The huge corporations in the Prescription Drugs industry are the selected few who will make money in this business deal. Who does it shaft? The poor people who are allegedly supposed to benefit from the bill are the selected ones to feel the brunt of this terrible policy!

I remember - before it was explained to him that he had to be a good team player - Bob Dole said that Senior's War on Iraq was all about oil. Then Senior mumbled some incoherent nonsense that the world couldn't allow naked aggression to stand and the entire GOP, including Dole, toed the party line. In Junior's War, Bob Armey, for a very short period, disagreed with Junior. Very rapidly he succumbed to arm-twisting and even though he is soon retiring, he has converted to the one accepted position.

What can the good-guy Democrats do?

Can't we emphasize that the Prescription Drugs bill that we favor, which we can't pass because of Republican opposition, would help the people it was written to help, not just another corporation?

Can't we mention that we voted against the Congressional Iraq resolution even though at the time, Bush was accusing any Democrat who defied him of being a traitor, and that that was the right position and the one that the international community, as well as even Bush, is now moving toward?

Can't we say that now in the U.S. the vast majority of people are in agreement with our position of not wanting to start a war without international support, and that the garbled Bush position is now mirroring the Democratic position?

Would it hurt to say the truth that the Democrats pushed for a smart, beneficial tax-cut last year? The Democratic tax-cut was implemented immediately and focused to most income earners, it helped the economy, and we pushed it through against opposition from the Bush Administration. The GOP tax-cut has done nothing useful for the economy. How could it, it won't be in effect until 2006?

Would it hurt to say that the Administration's Paul O'Neill has frequently mentioned that Americans should stop considering Social Security as being what they will retire on?

Can't we say that we tried, in the Clinton Administration, to tighten up on offshore tax dodges, which would have been tremendously useful to combat Enron and other corporate scandals?

Can't we mention that California is suing Enron for jacking up prices and that the Bush Administration, at Ken Lay's bidding, fired one person and then hired a Lay lackey to help Enron do this?

Why is it horrible to say that Cheney is obstructing the GAO from information from his Energy Task Force and that the GAO is suing the White House in this regard?

Can't we say one thing about the need for another tax-cut this year to help the economy?

Can't we say one thing about how the Government went from huge surpluses for the foreseeable future, to huge deficits for the foreseeable future - and how these projected deficits are hurting the country?

Can't we mention that engaging in a preemptive, unilateral war is against the existing international rule?

Can't someone say that SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt's career started by protecting corporations from being examined by the very place he is now in charge of? Is it wrong to mention how often he was forced to recuse himself from investigations due to conflicts of interests?

Finally, can't someone say that Bush is reducing the SEC budget while also saying that they are responsible for prosecuting corporate crime. Logically that means he wants them to cut down on corporate crime by a lesser proportion that equals the cut in their budget!

Printer-friendly version
Tell a friend about this article Tell a friend about this article
Discuss this article
Democratic Underground Homepage

 
© 2001 - 2004 Democratic Underground, LLC
 

Important Notice: Articles published on the Democratic Underground website are the opinions of the individuals who write them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC