Why the Democratic Party Should Be Dissolved

[rubydick]

Al Martin was an Iran-Contra insider who continues to provide a window into the Bush Crime Family. One of his latest pieces really struck a nerve. Read the first few paragraphs below.
*****

Why the Democratic Party Should Be Dissolved
by Al Martin
Al Martin Raw

2-20-06 (WARNING: Members of the Naive Flag-Waving Crowd may find the contents of this article unsettling.) The following column explains the reasons why the Democratic Party should be dissolved -- and with it, dissolved one of the great lies of the "American political theater."

The Democratic Party is no longer fulfilling its constitutional obligation of being a viable party in the alternative (or, to use the British expression, 'the loyal opposition.')

'The loyal opposition' implies that the Democratic Party has some ability to affect legislation proffered by the majority. (They no longer have the ability to do this. They should have some ability to protect the constitutional rights and civil liberties of the people. Another power that they no longer have.)

It is interesting to note, of course, that the Democratic Party, since it has closed its Press and Research Office, due to lack of funding, now subcontracts a private publicity firm to issue its press releasess...

*****
I have long felt that when we participate in a charade, we are as guilty as those doing the dirty deeds. Parties in other nations are willing to tear away the curtain. Today in Thailand, the opposition parties have declared that they will not participate in new elections, for such elections are a sham. Sadly, we have reached that stage in America. Scalia tells the world to f#@k off, and so does Cheney. Bush freely admits he has broken the law, and dares us to challenge him.

Our press is not just brain dead, the body lies buried in an unmarked grave without benefit of autopsy. One month ago the foreign press published reports that Bush discussed painting a US airplane in UN colors so that Saddam might shoot at it for "justification" to invade Iraq. It took an entire month for our press to mention this story, and now an examination of what can only be described as treason is nowhere to be found in US newspapers or TV and radio.

It's time for the Thai solution in America.

 

[strmrdr]

lol the dems have no one to blame but themselves.
The wackos ruled the party and ran it right into the ground.
There are several local races they could make a contest out of but they don''t even have anyone to recruit candidates and no money to help.

Its sad America needs opposition too much power in one party is a very bad thing and its happening right now.
My preference is a strong republican president and a democrat controlled senate and the republican controlled house....
That puts a check and balance on things.
It also creates gridlock which is good because the less they pass the better off we are.
We need another Reagan and badly.

 

[rubydick]

Strm,

I agree. Too much power on one side is no good for anyone, no matter what the beliefs.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/30/2006 11:41:32 PM
Author: Richard Hughes
Strm,


I agree. Too much power on one side is no good for anyone, no matter what the beliefs.

wow man im marking this day on my calendar we actually agreed on something :}

 

[movie zombie]

i agree with storm and richard: checks and balances are what it is all about......unfortunately, we don''t have that.

movie zombie

 

[perry]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the premis stated. But I am not so sure that the Republican Party should also be broken up.

I have watched 2 interesting political developments over the years.

The growth of the republican from a minority party in the 70''s to the dominating party by the late 80''s to a party warping from its success in the 2000''s.

The destruction of the Democratic Party - often self inflicted over the same time.

2 stories- 1st up the growth of the republican party. Sometime arround 1977 I watched an interesting TV program smake dab in the middle of a Democratic dominated state (as so many were in those days). What was interesting was the key topic was a younger generation of republican people challanging their party leaders on what had gone wrong - and formating a plan to restore the Republican Party to if not dominance - to strong competitiveness. Why I was interested I do not know - perhaps it was the admission of mistakes made and the consequences of those mistaked on the state and national level. Perhaps it was the sincerity and energy of the younger people. Perhaps it was the elder Republicans who were willing to be part of the show and admit where things did not go as planned and offer possible reasons why. Two things struck me about the show: The overall honesty and intent to fix things - and a stated plan at the end of the show on how the Republican Party was going to rebuild itself and be responsive to the people.

Somewhere in the 90''s I realized that the Republican Party had essentially successfully executed that plan with the only major deviation caused by the emergence of the "moral majority'' (not) in the early 80''s that integrated itself into the Republican Party. I suspect that the "moral majority" would not have found the Republican Party interesting or even developed without that plan and the success of that plan. I will also state that I am not that fond of what I percieve as the warpage of the party from that "group."

Lesson 1: The Republicans put in place a plan to regain effectivness knowing that it would take at least a decade before significant gains were made - and stuck to it.

2nd story - the destruction of a local state democratic party - forced by the national party.

Wisconsin historically has really been an "independent" state - with open primaries. Anyone was free to vote for canidate from any party during the primaries. Wisconsin citizens generally pride themselves on their independance and consider party affiliation last when voting for someone. (the short period of time I lived in Iowa I did not vote because I would have to declare that I was either a republican or a democrate - something foreign and insulting to me).

But, of course, should''nt "only" democrats vote for democratic presidential canidates... (a closed primary) was often asked. Early in the 1980''s the national democratic caucus decided to end the "special" exemption that Wisconsin had - dispite all warnings and pleas from state leaders (of both parties). The State of Wisconsin faught the National Democratic Party all the way to the US Supreme court - and lost. Thus closed primaries were implemented in Wisconsin. People had to register as belonging to a party - or as an independent - and could not vote in primary elections outside of their party.

The republican state leader was asked what would happen if WI lost their case in the Supreme court to the National Democratic party - and I remember his answer like it was yesturday. "About 10% of the people in this state are hard core Repubicans, and about 10% of the people are hard core Democrates, and the rest are independents who lean this way and that way... We chose not to place any restrictions on any independents and welcome them to participate in our primaries and in any party discussion on any issues before this state."

In one fell swoop the state democratic party largely collapsed in size and effectivness and republicans controlled the state legislator in short order.

Of course, the National Democratic party soon realized their mistake - and restored the "special" exemption so that Wisconsin could once again have open primaries. The State party has never recovered to anything close to what it was before.

At least back in those days - at least in Wisconsin - the Republican Party knew that they were the representatives of an independent people. Interestingly enough - it seems that was one of those points in the National Master Plan I saw years earlier. To not emphasize party affiliation and to be willing to talk to anyone about any issue and invite anyone to participate in the process. How I wish the current Republican party would return to those days... How I wish the Democratic party was more like it used to be as well. It seems that the tent is now smaller - for both parties - and that they ask you questions before allowing you to enter - if they allow you to enter at all.

Perry

 

[Mr Majestyk]

I also agree that there should be checks and balances. The Constitution mandates it, but it has been eroded not just by the disintegration of the Democratic Party, but by the lack of quality statesmen (or stateswomen) in positions of power. Washington has become too mechanized, too run by money, special interests and lobbyists. It is, indeed, a sad state of affairs.

 

[movie zombie]

this is indeed a date in history with so much agreement going on in this thread!

movie zombie

 

[monarch64]

My mother was born and raised in Wisconsin, and she will not, to this day, tell anyone how she votes, nor will she identify herself with any particular party (she doesn''t tell anyone, anyway.) She believes that it is her right to remain politically anonymous. Our family always kids her about it, but she insists she''ll go to her grave without anyone ever knowing. I did manage to get an answer on who her favorite past president is, and she said Harry S. Truman, hands down. Hmm.

 

[movie zombie]

Monarch, i think my parents would agree with your mom...think i''ll ask them!

movie zombie

 

[MINE!!]

WOW... "The sky is falling the sky is falling!!!!!"

I have to say I agree as well. I was looking for something to disagree with in order to rock the boat

, but alas... no.

So let us remember this special day when we agreed... a least try to next time we all (and so frequently do) disagree.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 3/31/2006 9:46:51 PM
Author: monarch64
My mother was born and raised in Wisconsin, and she will not, to this day, tell anyone how she votes, nor will she identify herself with any particular party (she doesn''t tell anyone, anyway.) She believes that it is her right to remain politically anonymous. Our family always kids her about it, but she insists she''ll go to her grave without anyone ever knowing.

I could be your Mother. Except a few candidates that I campaigned for, my husband does not know how I vote. He doesn''t even ask anymore. There is a reason why you go behind a curtain.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

My father, God rest his soul, was a lifelong Democrat but thought a lot of Eisenhower as a statesman. My mother cried when JKF was shot. It started going downhill after that.

 

[rubydick]

Mister,

Not surprising. Ike warned us all, didn''t he?

As Fletcher Prouty said, if Presidents refused to properly investigate JFK''s killing, it means only one thing: they are not the boss.

Think about it. And then think carefully about 9/11.

Go ahead, call me a freak, a conspiracy freak. And then investigate for yourself. When you''ve done the due diligence, get back to me and we''ll talk.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/3/2006 11:07:54 PM
Author: Richard Hughes
Mister,


Not surprising. Ike warned us all, didn''t he?


As Fletcher Prouty said, if Presidents refused to properly investigate JFK''s killing, it means only one thing: they are not the boss.


Think about it. And then think carefully about 9/11.


Go ahead, call me a freak, a conspiracy freak. And then investigate for yourself. When you''ve done the due diligence, get back to me and we''ll talk.

only if you research the Waco government murders of 20 children and a bunch of adults over guns the sheriff saw less than 3 weeks before and said they were all legal.

 

[rubydick]

Strm,

You might be surprised, but you''ll get no argument from me on that one. We are really quite close in our beliefs, as I would suspect most of us are. None of us like govt. abuse, none of us like paying ridiculous taxes, none of us enjoy seeing FBI sharpshooters target someone in Idaho holding a baby, nor do we enjoy seeing a compound in Waco blown up to save it.

Really, it''s time we all put aside ideology and our pet "teams" or, as they are better known, "political parties." We need to begin looking beyond these labels, beyond "liberal" vs. "conservative", beyond "Republican" or "Democrat." And yes, Strm, that means you. And yes, Dick, that means me.

And it also means MZ, Deb, Mine, and all the others on this forum that continually push from one side or another. Step back. Just look at the news from the last two weeks. Is we learnin''? Global warming has gotten so bad that many believe it is beyond the point of no return. We have civil war in Iraq. Delay is going to jail, bozo bush should already be there. Time to put away the labels and begin reconstruction.

Yes, the Dems are also guilty. But at least some fought the tide. How many Republicans did so? What are the percentages?

There are those who have had the courage to stand up and dissent, and current events have proven them correct. Ron Paul in Texas, Feingold in WI. Are we gonna be the society that denies that some did have it right from the start? Are we gonna lap up the BS that BushCo puts out daily that "all" thought Saddam had WMD''s?

What about those like Scott Ritter and Joe Wilson who did have it right, and were attacked in the most ruthless manner? Should we just ignore the fact that so many marched in the streets across the planet against this war, before the war? Didn''t they have it right?

Isn''t the first part of forgiveness admitting mistake? And doesn''t the admission of mistake set you upon the road to salvation? I admit, I gave up Christianity as I reached adolescence, but I would never deny that there are some mighty fine lessons within the pages of the Bible.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Speaking of the Bible, if the "new" Gospel of Judas can truly be authenticated, Bush will issue a pardon.

 

[strmrdr]

Lots to think about in your post Richard.
I think most people see the problems its the solutions that they disagree on.
To be honest there is likely not an answer to a lot of them and things are going to get worse a lot worse.
Of that I''m sure.
I am sad about the world we are giving my nieces and nephews and I shudder at the thought of what their children will see and live thru.

 

[rubydick]

Mister, so right, so right. No different from daddy, who on Xmas eve in 1992, after he had been beaten by Clinton, pardoned those who could have sent his sorry ass to jail.

And those pardons led to this.

And Strm, looks like things will be gettin'' worse. One thing''s fur sure, this world''s in for a whole lotta killin'', a mighty big lickin''.

But do we need to take it? Witness Thailand. Several years ago, they had a corrupt leader take power (Thaksin). And his corruption went beyond the pale. Despite the fact that Thailand is a developing country, people did not lose hope. When the BS became too much, people went into the streets. And when Thaksin called their bluff, calling for elections that he knew he could fix, they raised him, and called for a total boycott of those elections. Daily protests were staged outside govt. house. Guess what? The sham elections were held and the opposition did not participate. Close to 40% of the voters chose a no vote, despite the fact that Thaksin was paying people big time.

The sham was exposed. A few days ago, Thaksin resigned. You see, people do have the power.

But we Americans have been dulled into submission, overwhelmed by a tsunami of media BS that suggests that we should simply sit back and worry about the weekend movie box office receipts, rather than fret about the future of our country or the planet. Katey Couric joins CBS, Big news! Alabama teenager goes missing in Aruba. Big news! Meanwhile the idea that Bush discussed painting a US air force plane in UN colors to bait Saddam into war is mentioned only by "conspiracy theorists." Right.

The coin isn''t just dropping, it has hit bottom. According to the latest polls, less than 40% of the US public buys the BushCo BS. Bush has descended to Nixonian levels. Now the only question is when do we start to throw their asses in jail? It shouldda been done with his father. Certainly Barb deserves a seat in hell, if for no other reason than her comments about those who escaped Katrina. And the final stake through her devil''s heart should be her donation to Katrina victims, so long as the money went to her son''s company.

What does it take to create outrage? In Thailand, it was the fact that Thaksin''s servents suddenly became extremely wealthy when income reporting requirements were enforced. And then the SOB had the balls to sell off shares in his company and arrange that no tax be paid on the sale.

How different is this from Bush? The only difference is that Bush rules over a country of cowards, where the populace is so drugged into submission that they smile while their pocket is picked. All is well, so long as our cable TV is not interupted...

Sorry if this sounds cynical, sorry if it sounds depressing, but that''s the view from my vantage point. We need to learn from the Thais. We can take back our government. But it will require more than simply watching John Stewart.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 3/31/2006 10:15:13 PM
Author: movie zombie
Monarch, i think my parents would agree with your mom...think i'll ask them!

Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He will never be a favorite of mine.

 

[perry]

Richard and others:

As I see it... The problem is only a small part caused by the politicians.

What ever happened to the concept of a proper free and fair press. One that presents both sides of the issues in details instead of just presenting the side they agree with. One that does not try to slander and get away with it in the name of "freedom of the press." As one who was personally subject to a 3 part Front Page "Expose" of mismanagment (with my picture taking up the top right quarter of the front page for 3 consecutive days); one where an entire list of charges and allegations was repeated in detail - and all of my answers were chopped to 1/2 of one line "Mr. ______ says he had to do that" (without explaining that I was complying with state laws, that the Municipal Utility had previously ignored. That what I was doing was common practice for the other plants in the area where I had provided names and phone numbers of people in other plants and state requlatory agency people).

I see one sided stories in the press as the norm; and often slanted far worse than anything a the politician said.

Another problem: People want to hear a 30 second soundbite on an issue and then form their "opinon" on that - they don''t wish to spend 30 minutes to 2 hours to get a good overview of the issue and the potential effects (positive and negative).

When I was faced with a serious issue on gun control and self defense - I spent weeks researching the arguments, papers, and positions of both sides of the issue before making my decission on where I stood.

Why arn''t the schools teaching people to really think for themselves and research things. I do not always agree with other people on issues (as you know) - but I tend to get along best with people who are willing to do much more deeper research and think through the conseqences than with others.

Deep down - what I fear most is that people are getting lazy with the big decissions. They only want snippits and don''t want to think. People in the press are not challanged and get used to providing those snippits from their own viewpoint. That I believe is far more dangerous than what some president of the US does.

Perry

 

[MINE!!]

OK.... Richard,

I can consider your post and see where you are coming from. All up till you take the pot shots on the Republican Party. Why say that we are in agreement in some ways and then say

Yes, the Dems are also guilty. But at least some fought the tide. How many Republicans did so? What are the percentages?

So you are being accusatory there. There are many things I do not agree with, but there are many things that I do. if you want to be non-partisan and all of us make a rainbow... fine, but you cannot take shots at the same time, that is called hypocricy and that it when I have the prob. with what I consider the liberal mentality.

It is unfortunate, just when I think I am can go along with what I am hearing, crap like that pops up and I just dig deeper into what I originally believe, just as I am sure most Americans do.

 

[rainbowtrout]

Date: 4/8/2006 5:52:30 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 3/31/2006 10:15:13 PM

Author: movie zombie

Monarch, i think my parents would agree with your mom...think i''ll ask them!

Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He will never be a favorite of mine.

Mrf. I''ve thought a lot about this, and I don''t think Truman made the decision lightly. I don''t know if there is a "right" choice for these things, but I do know we won the war. And I like our values rather better. I''m not an expert on military history, but my understanding was that not dropping the bombs would have lead to a million man invasion that we might not have won.. Anyway, sorry to hijack.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/8/2006 5:52:30 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 3/31/2006 10:15:13 PM

Author: movie zombie

Monarch, i think my parents would agree with your mom...think i''ll ask them!

Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He will never be a favorite of mine.

I cant feel bad about them being dropped because I likely never would have been born if they hadnt.
My Dad was re-training to run a landing craft up on the beach in Japan when the war ended.

 

[MINE!!]

It has been found that by dropping the bomb, Truman actually SAVED lives on both sides,(including those of civilians) their deaths would have far exceeded those who lost their lives in the dropping of the bomb.

 

[colormyworld]

Tell this to the all the non combants incinerated by this supreme terreroist act.

 

[MINE!!]

It''s a horrible thing... no denying it Color...

However, to SAVE lives it was dropped. Read the background on it. The atomic bomb was not dropped lightly. Japan was within 3 days of finishing a nuclear bomb themselves.

We can easily say "Tell that to the poor people killed" But unfortunately it is not something you can box up as a random act of terror to enforce intimidation. Sorry, that cube will not fit into that box.

 

[perry]

colormyworld

Please research how many civilians died from the firebombing of the cities that had developed by the end of WWII. Firebombing started in Germany at the very end of the European conflict and was perfected in Japan. The best example: Tokyo

"334 B-29s took off from the Mariana Islands on the night of March 9–10 heading for Tokyo. After 2 hours of bombardment the wooden city of Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. These fires were so hot they would literally ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. What was particularly horrifying was a lot of the women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbins' around their heads and the heat would ignite those turbins like igniting a wick on a candle to start consuming the flame. The aftermath of the incendiary bombings lead to an estimated 100,000 Japanese dead. This may have been the most devasting single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city was destroyed in the fire storm."

If there had been a normal "invasion" of Japan - many many hundreds of thousands of civilians would have died as the US would have firebombed and burned to the ground (in a single night per city) almost every city in Japan. I think the plans were to firebomb all the cities in Japan in 4 nights total (focus on 4 or 5 cities a night). I suspect that the number killed would have been betwen a half million and a million civilain causualties.

That does not include all the civilians that would have been in the way of other land combat. Nor the rape and piliage of the small towns (while the US troups are perhaps a bit more civilized than some others - in war and battle conditons of that era - it was only a matter of degree).

Troup casulties were expected to be very heavy as the Japanese were tenatious fighters who commonly faught to their death.

Japan retained an army of about 2 million men and had about 8,000 aircraft remaining. The estimates were that a conventional invasion of Japan would have between 250,000 and one million Allied casualties (and the low side estimate was if the Japanese were relatively quickly shocked into surrenduring by the firebombing of all the cities). It was estimated that there would be an equal number of Japan military causualties, plus whatever the civilian casulaties were from firebombing of the cities and other incidental casualties.

There is a reason that war is described as hell, and Iraq and Afganistan are "minor" "police actions" in comparison to WW II.

When you lay out that scenerio (potentially 2 - 3 million causualties the conventianal way) - and the fact that yoiu could probably force a surrender by dropping a few atom bombs that would kill most of the people in the cities they were dropped on (You were planning to kill them anyway in the conventional approach). It puts things in a different light.

You may still disagree with the decission to use the Atom Bombs. But please understand the basic facts of the situation - and what a conventional invasion would have cost.

Perry

 

[MINE!!]

Perry,
Thank you for that wonderful informative background. I remember reading a lot about this and seeing so video of these firebombs..; ugh.. it was horrible.

 

[perry]

MINE:

Japan was nowhere close on the Atom Bomb, and the US never even suspected that Japan was working on it. Germany was the major concern because Germany had recognized scientist in the field and the resources (including access to Heavy Water).

However, after WW II it was discovered that Japan was a lot farther along than Germany ever got.

The German leadership never focused on the Atom Bomb as a weapon, but allowed their scientist to continue low priority experiments - and they never even got a working nuclear reactor built (they did build one - but it did not work). Had Germany Focused on the A-Bomb as a weapon they actually would have had a lead over the US due to their scientific, laboratory, and production infastructure.

Without digging up the reference books in my basement I belive that Japan at least had demonstrated a working chain reaction, and I know that they had started research and design into weapon components. However, they never produced any production quantities of fissil materials which were needed to perform test to get data for final weapon design. However, they were on a success track that potentially could have produced a weapon if they would have had a few more years.

Perry

ps: Atom Bomb development and design is one of those longstanding hobbies of mine, and back in college I shocked my physics professor about how much I knew (he had worked at Los Alamos). I''ve got lots of interesting books (not that the information is really that hard to get for anyone who want it. Most of the information has been declasified with the exceptions of some details (which would only take a modest R&D effort if you had the base fissil materials).