You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #11: Uh-huh. In other words, why fight possible lies? Why stand on principles? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan Donate to DU
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Uh-huh. In other words, why fight possible lies? Why stand on principles?
Edited on Sun Oct-01-06 02:22 PM by TahitiNut
First and foremost, nothing can stop the reich wing from lying and propagandizing. When fear of "what they might say" controls the vote of a Senator, then the Reich has won. That is truly and literally a "cut and run" (from democratic values) strategy.

IMHO, it betrays a lack of commitment and belief in the very foundation of liberalism going back to the Magna Carta. The specious War on an Abstract Noun is only a 'war' to those who've never been in a combat zone, who can't even vaguely recall London's Blitz, who can't recall the hysteria of "duck and cover." The specious War on an Abstract Noun is an appeal to abject cowardice.

Anyone who retreats on the battlefield of liberal values and democratic principles will NEVER share a foxhole with me.

A coward in our own ranks is as damaging as five fighters in the opponents' ranks. Sabotage and treason are unforgivable acts. (There has NEVER been a coward who didn't claim allegiance to PRAGMATISM! Don Quixote was NOT a pragmatist - he was a hero. Humanity has never benefitted from cowards, only heroes.)

Ms. Stabenow has shown both a lack of comprehension and a lack of commitment to liberal democratic principles as well as an appalling lack of respect for the voters. I'm not the foremost apologist for the intelligence of the general public, but an elected representative absolutely must act with such respect at all times. It's in the f*cking job description!

If Ms. Stabenow doesn't feel qualified to articulate the extreme dangers of such an assault on civil liberties, even with the assistance of Carl Levin (who voted 'Nay') and every Michigan Democrat in the House (who voted against HR 6166), then she has absolutely no business 'representing' me.

This is NOT a matter of 'seeking perfection' or 100% agreement. Despite a voting history that's sprinkled with numerous appalling stances (bankruptcy, health care, labor, etc.), I was prepared to use the "Stabenow Clothespin" and cast my vote. There's a limit in all things. Like I'd NEVER support Ben Nelson (Dino-Nebraska) in any race, including dogcatcher, I'm now not able to honor my own conscience and vote for Stabenow.

ANYONE who would disrespect my inalienable right to honor my own conscience isn't even close to being a "democrat," imho, let alone a liberal. Thus, I'm an independent. Such abject partisan nonsense is why the GOP has marched lockstep into the arms of fascism. Will Dems follow? It seems too many will.


Afterword: Quite frankly, I'm appalled at the state of partisan politics in the U.S. There are many other countries where I could easily affiliate with a political party and work within it. These are countries with political parties that have a commitment to core values and ideologies where those who call themselves an "X" are more truly aligned with those values than mere convenience. For me, the first and foremost responsibility of any political interest group is adherence to the core values by which they're formed - if only for the pragmatics of funding. Who, for example, would contribute to NOW if they were to subscribe to anti-abortion legislation? Who would subscribe to the ACLU if the ACLU advocated "free speech zones"? Political parties in the U.S. have subscribed to "power for power's sake." That's appalling. I would no more want a Senate overpopulated with Ben Nelson's and Mary Landrieus than I would want a Senate populated with Arlen Spectors, Olympia Snowes, and Lincoln Chafees. I will vote for NEITHER.

Sadly, both parties have fallen prey, in some degree, to the most common corruption of any organization: the perpetuation of its own existence. Above all. The 'corporation' itself, originally deemed to be disbanded upon the accomplishment of the objective for which it was formed, has morphed into a creature that seeks (and achieves) immortality. Just as the March of Dimes was not disbanded when polio was 'conquered' as the overwhelming threat to our health and survival it was when I grew up, so other organizations fear the elimination of their raison d'etre ... even to the point of perpetuating the very conditions they're supposedly committed to eliminating!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC