Sunday, April 10, 2005

Do Democrats Really Care?

"I sure hope my white sheets in the dryer are done."

Intention and forethought are great things. They set the precedent for the follow through of ideas and the finishing of goals. Yet the motivation behind such intentions must be examined in order to see into a persons true heart. The democrats are talkers. They have meetings, stage protests, have open townhalls and start websites. They make cute little computer programs that keep running totals of supposedly how much the war is supposed to cost or how many "innocent civilians have died". But is the sentiment behind these websites, protests, meetings, and townhalls really about caring for their fellow man?

Let's take Iraq. Democrats make the point to talk about the children dying due to war as often as they brush their teeth. But if you try and talk with them about how many children were killed or starved to death under Saddam Hussein they don't want to hear about it. If you try to weigh the cost in deaths with war vs. keeping Saddam in power they will almost always starting spouting some talking point about "Bush's war for oil." It's tired and old.

What about racism? Democrats love to think of themselves as champions of civil rights. A surface look back at the voting records of congress during the 50's and 60's will show you that Republicans voted either equally for Civil Rights with the Democrats if not more so. In fact it's common knowledge that more Republicans voted for The 1964 Civil Rights Act percentage wise than did democrats. Diane Alden wrote This Article in 2002. In it she explains that without the Republicans the Civil Rights Act never would have passed. This point is lost on the Democrats who are so desperate to keep minorities blindly voting for them in order to feed their plans of keeping the public dependent on the government. I mean, can you really call the democrats a caring party when they continue to keep on their roster a senator who was in the KKK for years and has even recently made very offensive comments about minorities?

Do they care, Or do they need you to think they care?


Cuevas said...

I am a Democrat and my main reason for being one is that I care.

Lets talk about Iraq. 100,00 Iraqis were killed before we invaded. Can you name a time under Sadam when there was the same death count? Malnutrition amongst children has almost doubled. That is why I'm against the war in Iraq. And the reason people bring up Bush's war for oil is because that seems like the reason he went to war there. Do you even remember why we went there? Or do you have republican selective memory and think we went to spread democracy which wasn't made up until we were there for a year?

Or how about all our troops that have died? Why do republicans constanly question that we care about all these lives instead of why they don't. How can you really debate that we care? Blue states have higher income then red states, yet we're the ones always trying to raise taxes to help people out? Why would we want to raise our own taxes for social programs if we didn't care?

Now about civil rights. I do think Democrats are the champions of civil rights. You can look at their record over the past few decades. The real issue is why did the republican party stop being the party of civil rights.

Really the Republican steps in civil rights starts much more before the 60's. They were the party that ended slavery, against vast opposition from the Democrats. The Republicans also were the ones in the forefront of the civil rights act, and yes it was fillibustered by Democrats. There is even much reason to believe Robert and John Kennedy used government agencies to distrupt and possibley kill civil rights leaders. It is a regrettable time in our parties past. But our party wasn't alone.

Now as for your reference to Robert Byrd, I actually wrote a post on my Blog last night entitled, "Fuck Robert Byrd." I have no idea why he has been allowed to be part of the party. He is a disgrace. This is not to say the republicans don't have their disgraces also.

Do you realize that Robert Byrd was a member of the Dixiecrats? The popular name the states rights party founded in 1948 after Democrats voted to make civil rights for blacks part of their agenda? The dixiecrats then nominated Strom Thurman for president (you might remember him, he's your parties racist embarassment that served in the Senate for way too long). They even took four states in the presidential election. They were running against the Democrat nominee of Truman who won despite the democrat party now being divided. So how did the republicans get strong? By gaining popularity in the south due to the fall out of the Dixiecrats. Thurman and many others became republicans. Which leads to our present state.

Take Dick Cheney. In 1986 he voted against a sense-of-the-House resolution calling on the white-controlled government in South Africa to free Mandela. Cheney also opposed economic sanctions against South Africa. He voted against measures that sought to ensure the application of a variety of US civil rights laws.
Cheney voted against the Equal Rights Amendment for women, along with 146 other members of Congress in 1983. He also decided to keep a ban on gays in the military while defense secretary in the 80's.

Both of our parties have people who have made horrible mistakes. What's important is what a party is fighting for at the current moment. You see what happened was the party progressed away from its racists roots and embraced its new ones. A history lesson can teach you that. It was the evolution of the party. Of course people on the right might claim that doesn't exist

John said...

Democrats care I think...they are just misguided. They don't think with common sense...just with their passion.

Steve said...

I got lost in Cuevas first paragraph.

I mean they talk about Republicans selective memory.

First show me where Bush said it was about oil. I don't think he really said that. I think what he said was "Saddam was aiding terrorists" Whether or not there was proof he was doing that is up to debate but, let's look at the facts:

Saddam attack Iran in the 80's and was supported by the US. Why? Iraq and Saddam was a lessor evil. Second, Saddam demostrated he had the willingness to use WMD's, like he did on the Kurds killing thousands of them. Saddam then went into Kuwait and took over. He violated every sanction against him and had a corrupt "oil for food" program that the UN screwed up. Towards the end he offered $25k to any family that produced a suicide bomber to attack Israel. What? Were we supposed to let him sit in the desert and wait for him to die? So his evil corrupt sons could do the next BIG thing? Cuevas, One Question: Are you freaking serious?
You wouldn't worry about the poor Iraqi's starving if there wasn't a war. In fact, I bet you didn't have an issue you stood for until it became trendy and underground to be flaming liberal. I think we're better off fighting a war over there than waiting for it to happen here like we did on 9/11. Iraq, like all dictatorships has the same trend, power for the few and hardship for the rest.
War is hell, people die, get over it!! I do not wish war on anyone.

Aaroncoal said...

Well said Steve. I do not believe that all democrats are uncaring political robots. But I do believe that uncaring political hacks have hijacked the party. I mean look at Cuevas's answer to whether or not the war was for oil: He says it "seems" like the reason we went to war. Seems? Soundls like the talking points has gotten the best of him.

Can you give me any proof that the U.S. has taken a drop of oil?

Aaroncoal said...

By the way Cuevas, care to site any documentation that proves that more kids are malnourished after the U.S. victory?

Morris said...

Check out page 2.
A search of the internet will produce lots more evidence but then you may choose not to believe information that doesn't come from your own government. That's your choice.
Seems since sanctions were put in place the infant mortality rate has skyrocketed and it is currently no better (though in time I am sure it will improve). I'm neither a Democrat nor Republican (I'm not a US citizen) but I thought cuevas made some good points that were well reasoned and fair. Your responses didn't show the same depth of thought and your comment on the "lesser evil of Saddam" as a justification for the attack on Iran is naive.
And as for Bush never saying it was about oil......oh please; whether or not it was he would never admit it because that is even less of a justification for invading another country than non-existent WMD.
I realise blogs don't need to have a balanced approach with comment supported by evidence, it's not like they are peer reviewed but it does make for more interesting debate.

Unadulterated Underdog said...

I think the Republican rage at Byrd is easy to sum up. Republicans are trying to fly apart at the seams at Byrd because he made a Fascist statement weeks ago. Republicans get extremely angry whenever a Nazi-GOP connection is made. What about the connection between the Bush family fortune and Nazi industry? There is a historical connection there. I don't hear Republicans talk about that very often. I think Republicans should talk about issues, not find scapegoats to draw attention away from their own wrong doings. Bush and DeLay have done enough bad things in the last few years to fill ten volumes. That said, let's discuss issues. Democrats and Republicans both do bad things. Deal with it.