Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can we just admit we're in a modern version of a civil war?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:45 AM
Original message
Can we just admit we're in a modern version of a civil war?
I watched Woodward and Bernstein on the Daily Show last night and they made all good points. There is a big difference between this era and the Watergate era. One of them mentioned that it was the Republicans who wanted Nixon out but that scenario won't occur today because party loyalty is stronger. The number one priority for the Republicans today is to stay in power. Fighting Terrorism is second. We've already seen how they will hide translated information that would protect the nation, but might shed light on some of their less legal shenanigans.

So, if you have a party who is willing to break all the rules and puts fighting terrorism on the back burner in order to protect their own, won't you all agree that we are in a couped democracy? It was a paperless coup that never needed to fire a shot.

Any one see the signs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mode13h_net Donating Member (60 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. Not to mention an opposition party...
that, for the most part, says "please don't hurt us". There is, of course, some leaders that stand out from the rest of the democrat pack, but they unfortunately stand alone, i.e. conyers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Do You Mean 'Democratic' Pack
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 07:31 AM by loindelrio
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mode13h_net Donating Member (60 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. Yes, that's what I meant
or rather, that's a more appropriate way of putting it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Democrat is not an adjective. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mode13h_net Donating Member (60 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. sorry, I meant to refer to the party specifically
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Don't forget that the "please don't hurt us" opposition party, along
with the most visible members of the mainstream media were anthraxed shortly after 9/11.

The anthrax threats should not be used to excuse the rollover and play dead actions of the Democrats in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion. But the threats make their malleability more understandable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. the only signs I see
The only signs I see are signs that the neocons/fundies are planning to exterminate the "insufficiently faithful" and "insufficiently pro-war."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
3. Quick Perception Correction
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 07:14 AM by ThomWV
I won't argue your point but there is an inaccuracy in a small part of what you said that you might want to know about.

Your statement "it was the Republicans who wanted Nixon out" isn't exactly true. I believe it was Bernstein who made the statement, and I don't recall his exact words, but the truth of the matter is that it was a group of Republicans, led by Barry Goldwater with others, who went to Nixon and told him there was no choice but that he resign. He had to do it, it was not a matter of those Republicans wanting him to resign. I am sure that Goldwater was savy enough to know that the stain of Nixon's resignation in disgrace on the Republican party would be so great that would ruin his own Presidential ambitions. However even that evil son of a bitch (Goldwater was as hawkish as his one-time running mate, retired Air Force General Curtis Lemay) held the good of the country above his personal ambition. Not a chance of that treasonous bastard in the White House now stepping down or doing anything else for the good of the nation.

That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. Interesting point.
Goldwater was considered one of Nixon's "almost friends." (Other than Bebe R., Nixon didn't have friends in the normal, human manner.) Goldwater went as someone doing Nixon a favor, saying that impeachment was not a possibility, but the only option besides resigning. They had shared a meal shortly before this, and Goldwater knew that Nixon had become unstable. Thus, he appealed to his sense of control: you decide, before they decide.

At that time, the public was so disgusted by what had occured on their tv screens with the Watergate hearings, that "party loyalty" forced republicans to drop support of Nixon. He was hurting any republican's chances of (re)election. For many years, republican candidates would not want to be associated with him.

I would not put much weight on what Woodward and Bernstein said. While they were great in the early 1970s, neither has done anything of particular significance since. They are kind of like musicians who had two good albums in 1973-74, and who thirty years later are playing in Vegas. Woodward has good sources in the Bush administration: does that make us trust him as an analyst? No.

Look at what has happened in two weeks. The republican machine has been on the ropes from the Plame scandal. We need to keep them there. The moderate republicans will see it is in their interest to separate from the administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. Thanks for the insight
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 10:17 AM by The Backlash Cometh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
4. A fake civil war.
Yes, partisan rancor runs high but that's exactly what TPTB want. While you're arguing with Clem-Bob, your wallet is getting picked.

What TPTB won't tell you is that a majority of Americans agree on most things. Why aren't the things that we agree on being passed into law? Because...."What was that, Clem-Bob? Why you ignorant, little..."

And so it goes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DanCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
8. More like a marcus de queensberry crusade
surpised at how gentlemanly it's been so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:45 AM
Response to Original message
9. I see the signs, but untill anyone takes to the streets
to mass proclaim their civil rights, it's not a war it's simply a carnage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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