The Democrats are Coming!

[catscradle]

Which of course means Bill Clinton will be in town. Heh. Sorry, I couldn't resist. But yes, lo and behold as hell is currently, quite litereally, freezing over, it was announced yesterday that the Democrat National Convention is coming to Denver in August 2008. And within minutes over 18,000 hotel rooms sold out. This means all the really cool restaurants and bars will be totally over crowded and impossible to access for locals. The plutocrats will be given preference.

Actually, this will be great for the region. Nice boast to the economy. And in truth, I'd like to get in the door and watch what goes down. I'm not a democrat. I split with them about four years ago and joined the Greens. Unfortunately the Green convention usually ends with the nomination of a randomly selected member of the party - and typically they're out of town or can't be reached. Usually for the entire campaign. So I want to go to the DNC.

Be interesting to see in the next few years if the Dems have any hope of getting things done. Preferably good and beneficial things. The distinction is important. Prior to the Bush administration they were pretty much dead weight. They got TOSed for a reason. In the last two Presidential elections, they put up candidates that pretty much offered no real difference than the Republicans. When you're left voting for the candidate that's not Bush, you're not voting at all. Sure. Anyone would be better than Bush. And the goal was to push him out because. Damn. The goal after that was to hold the new person accountable for doing something other than not being Bush. But first things first. Get rid of the guy. Now with the new Democrat congress in session we have a chance to see what they do now. I want to see who stands out; who actually makes the hard choice to do what's right and not what makes them look more electable. The political wind is too volatile. True leadership, not just lip service, is what is needed. Good sound bite? Okay. This will be fun to track over the next 20 months.

Comments

[almostnever.livejournal.com]

I've said the same evil-of-two-lessers type thing myself in the past, so I know where you're coming from, but surely by now it's obvious that there were BIG differences between Bush and Gore or Bush and Kerry, now that it's completely clear that Bush is a crazy dictator?

We wouldn't be in Iraq if a Democrat were President. That's not a trivial difference.

And next time we have a choice between someone who views the presidency as a powerful office, vs. someone who believes in a Unitary Executive doctrine that gives imperial powers to whoever sits in the Oval Office... I hope more of us will see the difference and make the right choice.

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

I think the main difference is Iraq and war policies. Budget, also. Yeah. There's no doubt there that a democrat wouldn't have gotten us into this mess. But honestly, I also don't think many other republicans would have either. Bush needs to go - so definitly. But Once he's gone, I don't think we can rest and be okay with the next person just because they wear the democrat label - especially because they let us so down in the past. I think when you have someone as bad as Bush it's easy to forget the problems that existed before he came to power. And those problems were plentiful. The little storms and fires are lost to the massive metaphysical Katrina known as the Bush administration that swooped down and destroyed the evidence of the previous ones.

And with how freaken long it took democrats to wake up and finally get it - basically when they saw the wind flowing in their favor - I'm not just opening my arms to them until I see real sustainable action. The first 100 hours agenda is a good start. I really hope that the last 12 years hit them where it counts and we benefit from that.

I will most likely vote democrat in the next election. I just don't want another year of the default vote. I want someone that I can open my arms to and embrace as someone whose credit is more than not being Bush. Someone who can lead, basically.

My real dream is an end to the bi-party system and campaign spending/donation caps. The whole system is set up to promote corruption. Pipedream. Ah well.

[almostnever.livejournal.com]

with how freaken long it took democrats to wake up and finally get it

I've been reading insider accounts of what's been going on for the past six years, and the Democrats have been completely shut out. I don't know if you've been reading about this, but all minority access to the levers of power were just removed from them. They weren't allowed to read legislation before it came to a vote. They sure as hell weren't allowed to help write it. The GOP held open votes in contradition of Congressional rules so they could arm-twist Republican fence-sitters. There really hasn't been anything comparable to that kind of corruption on the Democratic side in decades.

There's no doubt there that a democrat wouldn't have gotten us into this mess. But honestly, I also don't think many other republicans would have either.

No? McCain is all for it. And he's supposed to be a "maverick".

Bush didn't just blunder into the presidency, he was put there by a wing of the GOP that had specific goals-- pushing the powers of the presidency to the max with this unitary executive bullshit, establishing control in the Middle East to get the upper hand over China-- none of this was Bush alone. Maybe another Republican would have been less of a stooge to the extremists, but the extremists still would have been there pushing this agenda.

I'm not trying to be slavishly pro-Democrat-- I'm registered Green too. But when one side is full of bugfuck crazies and the other side is merely a bit corrupt and stale, I think there's a big big difference in who gets to lead.

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

I've been reading insider accounts of what's been going on for the past six years, and the Democrats have been completely shut out. I don't know if you've been reading about this, but all minority access to the levers of power were just removed from them.

Yeah, I know about this. And the fact that this isn't common knowledge disturbs me. When the Democrats pulled this tactic this week we heard the bitching from the Republicans right away. So why didn't every single Democrat ban together over the past few years and scream this to the four winds? Well there was an agreement made that no one would rat on each other. Until one Texas Democrat congressman - who's name and district elude me at the moment - decided to break silence and issued a formal complaint about the Republican redistrciting to swing the vote in their favor (I believe DeLay was huge on that). When that happened it was like a flood gate opened and the complaints poured in.

My gripe is the appalling silence of the Democrats while all of this was taking place. Everyone was waiting for the next guy to take the risk. Finally someone did.

And while I get the media wasn't all that non-biased and the watchdog they're suppose to be - if the Democrats wanted to make a huge stink, they could have. A bunch of war protestors marching around the White House might not evoke much coverage from the press - but tell me they would have ignored a protest against the Democrat lockout LEAD by the Democrats in the House and Senate on the steps of the Capitol.

No? McCain is all for it. And he's supposed to be a "maverick".

Yeah, but so were many Democrats. Hilary Clinton supported it. The antiwar movement in Congress is fairly new. Once public opinion turned against it, so swung the Democrat opinion. And oh look - now many Republican don't support troop increase.

I believe there's definitely a Neocon agenda for war and that many Republicans are tied up in the nutball agenda - but I don't actually think Republican's like McCain that currently support the war would have lead us into it in the beginning. Toting the party line no matter what is a deplorable act but I don't think it necessitates the initial act of getting us into the mess.

And like I said - I'm most likely going to vote Democrat come 2008, because it's that important. What my hope is that it will be far more than a default vote. I don't want corrupt and stale just because it's better than delusional nutcases bent on the apocalypse. Yeah, I'll vote for corrupt and stale if that's my only choice. But how sad for us if that's the real choice. This is our time to put the Democrats to task and make them earn their place.