Jump to content
The Education Forum

Liberal Groups Censor Cindy to Save Corporate Dems.


Recommended Posts

This article shows how key publications and democratic-affiliated groups like MoveOn-- whose purpose is to delude the democratic pary's base while the party bends over yet again to the Republicans an Wall Street-- have edited out Cindy Sheehan's comments about the crass opportunism of the Democrats in giving into oily Orwellian War-monger Republicans.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/shee-j02.shtml

If we want a real oppostion, we have to first peel away the faux-oppostion. Thier purpose is only to dilute our outrage and prevent it from reaching more eardrums.

Most people on this board know this already but please post that article on sites in the "middle" of the spectrum so lots of people can see it, and I will give you a quarter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheehan it should be noted never said anything about a third party, do you really think this is a viable option. There never has been a viable third party candidate for president. Strong independent candidates frequently help elect the candidate running against the nominee of the party were they get most of their support as we saw with disastrous consequences in 2000.

Although most of them didn’t mention her leaving the party most media outlets reported her criticism of the Democrats. MoveOn is an overtly partisan group just as there is no reason to expect Republican groups to mention criticism of Bush or the GOP by conservative activists there is no reason to expect them to mention criticism of the Democrats by Sheehan or anyone else.

To be fair to the Dems 1) they at first voted to cut off funding and 2) they don’t have a very strong majority, to pass anything they need depend on the votes of more conservative members of their party.

That aside I was disappointed as well that they aren’t pushing Bush harder but with a 50 – 49 majority in the Senate (Johnson hasn’t returned yet) and some members who don’t support cutting off funding there isn’t very much they can do. Supporting a leftist third party in 2008 is more likely to get Republicans elected than anything else and would be counter productive.

PS - I don’t think Wall St. supports the war, while it is good for a handful of companies overall it’s bad for the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
. Strong independent candidates frequently help elect the candidate running against the nominee of the party were they get most of their support as we saw with disastrous consequences in 2000.

But Len, the Democrats won in 2000, Micheal Moore's mate standing or not. It was as much their essential gutlessness, in bowing to Daddy Bush and his placemen cronies, as anything else that cost them the election. The GOP dont have this problem, if any third party candidate looks like costing them votes, they have them eliminated as per George Wallace, Ross Peroit just got lucky :tomatoes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheehan it should be noted never said anything about a third party, do you really think this is a viable option. There never has been a viable third party candidate for president. Strong independent candidates frequently help elect the candidate running against the nominee of the party were they get most of their support as we saw with disastrous consequences in 2000.

Although most of them didn’t mention her leaving the party most media outlets reported her criticism of the Democrats. MoveOn is an overtly partisan group just as there is no reason to expect Republican groups to mention criticism of Bush or the GOP by conservative activists there is no reason to expect them to mention criticism of the Democrats by Sheehan or anyone else.

To be fair to the Dems 1) they at first voted to cut off funding and 2) they don’t have a very strong majority, to pass anything they need depend on the votes of more conservative members of their party.

That aside I was disappointed as well that they aren’t pushing Bush harder but with a 50 – 49 majority in the Senate (Johnson hasn’t returned yet) and some members who don’t support cutting off funding there isn’t very much they can do. Supporting a leftist third party in 2008 is more likely to get Republicans elected than anything else and would be counter productive.

PS - I don’t think Wall St. supports the war, while it is good for a handful of companies overall it’s bad for the economy.

Len,

I had the pleasure of spending a day with Cindy Sheehan last summer. We discussed the possibility of a third party and she seemed quite committed to this notion. She said that we need a second party, as the only party that exists is 'the war party', so she has indeed called for the creation of a third party. The viability of such a venture is another question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Strong independent candidates frequently help elect the candidate running against the nominee of the party were they get most of their support as we saw with disastrous consequences in 2000.

But Len, the Democrats won in 2000, Micheal Moore's mate standing or not. It was as much their essential gutlessness, in bowing to Daddy Bush and his placemen cronies, as anything else that cost them the election.

Yes but that’s a whole other issue. IIRC the number of votes Nader got in Florida far exceeded Bush’s pre-recount “margin of victory” let alone the number of votes Gore probably would have picked up if a full recount had been carried out.

I believe Moore was mistaken about the Senate legally being able to challenge the Florida electors there is nothing in the relevant part of the constitution, the 12th amendment (see below), that says they do nor have I heard any legal scholar (most of whom are Democrats) say they did.

12th amendment - excerpt

“The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President…”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
. Strong independent candidates frequently help elect the candidate running against the nominee of the party were they get most of their support as we saw with disastrous consequences in 2000.

But Len, the Democrats won in 2000, Micheal Moore's mate standing or not. It was as much their essential gutlessness, in bowing to Daddy Bush and his placemen cronies, as anything else that cost them the election.

Yes but that’s a whole other issue. IIRC the number of votes Nader got in Florida far exceeded Bush’s pre-recount “margin of victory” let alone the number of votes Gore probably would have picked up if a full recount had been carried out.

Ah yes Len, most assuredly, my only point being that a third party candidate, Nader, was not the only reason Florida, and thus the election was lost, the Democrats are to timid for their own good, plus Clintons broken promices, and do nothing second term hardly helped their cause. I see Al Gore is at last sticking it to Dubya and his minions, shame its seven years to late to get animated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we agree more than we differ on this Steve. With the election so close numerous factors threw it to Bush (including possibly rigged voting machines). The Democrats don’t always have the courage to fight the Republicans as much as the should. I brought this up in a thread which no one replied to* which documented various Republican “dirty tricks” which the Dems and the supposedly “liberal biased media” virtually ignored. The problem with the 2000 election is more complicated, IIRC once the Supreme Court ruled against a recount there wasn’t much they could do other than symbolic gestures. To be fair I don’t think anyone could have foreseen just how disastrous Bush’s presidency would be.

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ic=8563&hl=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...