History Hurts .... the "electable" Dem candidate

[eablair3]

interesting piece about Dems here - i do happen to agree with this guy about all the rhetoric I keep hearing about going for an "electable" candidate:

http://www.counterpunch.org/tirado08232003.html

August 23, 2003

History Hurts
Why Let the Dems Repeat It?
By JOSÉ TIRADO

Here in (now) sunny Iceland where I live, everybody with four brain cells working knows about global warming firsthand. So for entertainment, I watch the electoral madness in the United States infect even hardened leftists there with the "Let's-work-with-the-Democrats-to-defeat-a-right-wing-Republ ican" virus. Oh no, not again, I say.

My friend J. in Illinois however, agrees, insisting progressives should stick with the Democrats and support Kucinich banking on his moving the party leftward for the election. I say it doesn't matter. I say that when the Dems move either left or right, we get the same system that lacks vision, discourages real democracy (being against proportional representation or instant run-off voting, for example) and continues a militaristic, imperial approach overseas. He said prove it. So I began to reflect on my own limited time on earth and all that has passed for the Dems since then.

When I was born, 1959, Eisenhower was President and the Dems ran a "liberal" from Massachusetts who tried to out hawk Richard Nixon, the shifty-eyed Vice-President. Kennedy won, in a tight and shifty race and we got CIA assassinations, FBI abuses, a failed invasion of Cuba, the October Missile Crisis, and Green Berets in Vietnam.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson, (about as "liberal" as the Dems may ever see again), ran against Barry Goldwater and trounced him. We got the Gulf of Tonkin lie, Vietnam, Watts burning, the invasion of the Dominican Republic, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s deaths, and a social revolution pushing the Dems either Left or out. By 1968, Johnson had an uprising in his own party and decided he couldn't win and he should get out of the picture. (He was right). The Dems had Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kennedy, (who as a "liberal" Attorney General had wiretapped MLK, Jr. and countless others, while overseeing assassination attempts in collusion with the Mafia) and anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy. King, and Kennedy were assassinated; the Dems chose Humphrey and got trounced by Nixon.

snip

In 1992, the Dems felt they had to go Right to win, found a perfect guy in Bill Clinton, who could "feel your pain" (i.e., talk left) and after years of corporate-right wingism, got elected as ...a right-wing Democrat! (go figure). We got GATT, NAFTA, a massive continuation of a massive military buildup, "welfare reform" and the fastest declining wages in the western world along with millions of jobs sent packing overseas (sad to say I actually voted for him, writing a nice, pleading letter about helping us poor folks to "dream again," and he actually responded, with a nice letter, and new dreams--they were however, nightmares!)

Now we hear the same shit. Get a lefty to "push" the party "back" to where it's "heart" is (meaning Kucinich) but be prepared to settle for someone "electable" who will aggressively challenge Bush the Second on his (numerous and impeachable) weaknesses. So we'll probably get Howard Dean, a "new Dem" from the northeast who is against campaign finance reform, supported Clinton's "welfare reform," and an AIPAC drone who is pro-WTO and NAFTA; or Sen. Kerry, a new Dem from the northeast who is another Israel panderer and supports "free trade," i.e., the WTO; NAFTA; or Gephardt, or Clark, or...

snip

http://www.counterpunch.org/tirado08232003.html

[Jim Sagle]

1. Counterpunch is a fake lefty site whose sole purpose is to

split the left so the right can win.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. I tend to agree with that. Counterpunch spread some of the Gore

hyperbole in 00. While some of their articles are though provoking, I do tend to think of them as operative in that regard.

[ryharrin]

2. Dean does NOT support free trade, and he DOES support IRV.

We could do much worse than Dean. And it would be tough to do much better.

[eablair3]

3. Dean and IRV -- source please

Kucinich would be a lot better than Dean, imho.

The article did not say that Dean supports free trade. That statement was made with respect to Kerry. The article said that Dean is "pro-WTO and NAFTA." You might want to have another look. In debates I've watched (esp when Dean is confronted by Kucinich) the article appears accurate on that point.

Where or what source do you have that Dean supports IRV? I've read about that, and there appears to be substantial uncertainty about Dean's position on IRV. Do you have a link or source for your statement???

I noticed that Dean seems to have no problem in changing his mind, depending on how the wind is blowing. He has changed on the Social Security age, campaign finance, and a number of other issues, iirc. Not to forget his stance on Israel/AIPAC and the embargo on Cuba.

[CWebster]

4. the fundamentalism of the Left

Actually, I don't think Dean is a great speaker--he tends to stumble, and then race--he isn't measured and smooth. He doesn't speak in the abrupt, halting 3-4 word sentences that are the level of Smirk's mastery, but he is by no means slick.

That isn't the point - some Leftists just romantize themselves as perpetual iconoclasts, always rebellious against the Establishment. But here is the big elephant in the living room they are missing----it isn't about Dean, it isn't about Kucinich - it is about the phenomenon of the Dean campaign and the forces that have merged to empower a movement of hope for the country again. After the long ordeal, it is nothing any of us should be whining about. it is cause to celebrate.

[IrateCitizen]

6. Giddyup on that, CWeb!

... it isn't about Dean, it isn't about Kucinich - it is about the phenomenon of the Dean campaign and the forces that have merged to empower a movement of hope for the country again.

That's the thing that really gets me going about the current campaign, is how these candidates have gotten people excited about the process again. While it remains to be seen whether or not this will continue as the field thins and we move forward to the general election, it is encouraging.

I read an article recently (I believe it was in The Progressive) talking about how Dean has abandoned the typical top-down, military approach to running a campaign and embraced a strategy of more local empowerment. The result has been a complete groundswell of support, especially via the internet -- while the more "mainstream" candidates have failed to capitalize on the internet (and grassroots) by clinging to a more controlled campaign.

You're right -- this is something to celebrate. And keep going.

[Ardee]

9. So 'splain me somethin' IC

Are you enamored of the new approach of the Dean campaign and/or of the candidacy of Dean himself? I like the approach but have too many questions about Deans about face.....my own opinion only.

[Cassandra]

5. I'm not interested in hearing phrases like...

"AIPAC drone" from people who publish anti-Semitic material. And Dean has said that the current rules of trade need to be changed because they are costing us jobs and our middle class.
Why should we take the advice of a Green living in Iceland?

[Darranar]

7. WHAT anti-semitic material?

Criticizing Israel?

[Cassandra]

11. This

http://www.counterpunch.org/hamod07122003.html

Not a criticism of Israel as much as one of the old standard attacks on Jews. I'm sure if I rooted around in Counterpunch for a while, I could find more.

[DuctapeFatwa]

12. "Anti-Semitic" would be associating all Jews with AIPAC, Likud, oilngun $

Or more accurately, that would be anti-Jewish.

Today, the term "anti-Semitism" is used to refer to people who are opposed to European immigrants to the Middle East who have made a very profitable racket out of killing Semitic people.

edit to point out that Mr. Hamoud is correct. "Semitic" does refer to a language group, however, before it was expropriated for exclusive use by those who have a stake increased sales for the defense industry, it was popularly, if not entirely accurately applied to people who come from places where Semitic languages are spoken.

Those places did not include the Ukraine.

[Cassandra]

13. Too bad you don't know what you're talking about

For the upteenth time....
http://www.cohen-levi.org/jewish_genes_and_genealogy/the_dna_chain_of_tradition.htm

"The finding of a common set of genetic markers in both Ashkenazi and Sefardi Kohanim worldwide clearly indicates an origin pre-dating the separate development of the two communities around 1000 C.E. Date calculation based on the variation of the mutations among Kohanim today yields a time frame of 106 generations from the ancestral founder of the line, some 3,300 years, the approximate time of the Exodus from Egypt, the lifetime of Aharon HaKohen.
<snip>
Wider genetic studies of diverse present day Jewish communities show a remarkable genetic cohesiveness. Jews from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, North Africa and European Ashkenazim all cluster together with other Semitic groups, with their origin in the Middle East. A common geographical origin can be seen for all mainstream Jewish groups studied."

Perhaps we should stop including the decendents of Syrians and Jordanians in the definition of Palestinian.

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. There are Jews all over the world, and "Semitic" is not a political term

It doesn't matter whether you are a card-carrying member of Kahane or Gush Shalom, the term "Semitic" is not now and never has been specific to Jews.

There are Jews who are "Germanic" and Jews who are "South Asians" and Jews who are "Chinese" and Jews who are "Slavic" and Jews who are "Semitic."

Abraham came from the Middle East. He did not come from Russia, and although Judaism may have begun in a "Semitic" land and even today uses a Semitic language in its worship and prayer traditions, that has nothing to do with Anglo-US interests in oil in the Middle East and the increased defense industry revenue generated by a high level of conflict and instability in the region.

AIPAC has very little to do with Judaism and a whole lot to do with dollars in pockets, and to paint all Jews with that brush is an insult to the Jews who risk their lives in the name of the very Jewish values of peace and tolerance.

edit to fix typo

[Cassandra]

15. And this means?

"There are Jews who are "Germanic" and Jews who are "South Asians" and Jews who are "Chinese" and Jews who are "Slavic" and Jews who are "Semitic.""

All Jews who who are Jewish through their matrilineal line are Semitic, as are Arabs. My ancestors weren't Slavs who converted; they were Semites who moved around a lot.

" the term "Semitic" is not now and never has been specific to Jews."
No but the term anti-Semitic was coined, not by Jews but specifically to refer to Jews.

[DuctapeFatwa]

16. I understand that is what it means to YOU

Everyone has words, memes, that they use that may not be correct in a strict lexographic sense, but Mr. Hamoud is not talking about your emotional association with the word, but its original academic use, independent of theology or ideology.

[Cassandra]

17. Perhaps you'd like to check in with Lithos on this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=5930#6049

"Anti-Semitic on the other hand was coined by Wilhelm Marr as an attempt to create an pseudo-scientific and intellectually palatable/acceptable form of the crass Judenhass and has nothing to do with the anthropological meaning Semitism. "

Mr Hamoud would do well to learn its original "academic" use.
BTW, anti-Semitism doesn't just revolve around AIPAC, PNAC and oil.

[DuctapeFatwa]

18. LOL well maybe you should get them to ban the word "Semitic"

or Counterpunch. Or all references to language groups. Or all of the above.

Again, I understand that many people have very strong emotional feelings about words whose original meaning and use have nothing to do with either emotions or opinions.

As you yourself point out, "Semitic" is also used to refer to Arabs, therefore "anti-Semitic" cannot be a synonym for "anti-Jewishness," or for that matter, "anti-Ethiopian-ness," since Amharic is also a Semitic language, and in fact, there are Ethiopian Jews, some of whom were brought to Israel. Sadly, once there they have been more or less left to languish in trailer parks, and I would not want to be within firing range should a Russian Likudnik's daughter bring one home with her face all lit up with that special "He's the one" smile.

[Cassandra]

19. I understand, too

"I understand that many people have very strong emotional feelings about words whose original meaning and use have nothing to do with either emotions or opinions."

I guess Palestinian is a word that should be without emotion or opinion for you. Is it? Its meaning has certainly shifted around over the decades.

[DuctapeFatwa]

20. Here is an overview of Palestinian history

Palestine is the ancient name of a Middle Eastern country situated on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Its size has varied greatly throughout its history and its exact borders are even now in dispute.
Its location at the junction of trade routes linking three continents has meant that it was a melting pot for religious and cultural influences. It has also, unfortunately, been a natural battleground for the region's powerful states and thus subject to domination by them, the first of these being Egypt in the third millennium BC.
When Egyptian power began to wane in the 14th century BC, the country was again invaded: this time by Hebrews, who were a Semitic tribe from Mesopotamia, and by Philistines (from whom the country took its name), an Indo-European people.

http://www.arab.net/palestine/palestine_overview.htm if you want more, and if you want even more

http://www.arab.net/palestine/

Caution: there is a lot of material there, get some oreos and chocolate milk.

[Cassandra]

21. There are some on the I/P board...

who should read this. You know, the ones who insist that the Arab armies didn't attack the new State of Israel. Even arab.net says they did. Wow.

[w4rma]

8. Dean is NOT opposed to CFR

What bull.

[ixion]

10. not sure I agree with his premise

you can say the Dems gave us this and that, but you can say the same thing about Repukes.
Nixon - watergate/vietnam
Reagan - Iran/Contra - war on drugs - recession
Bush I - Gulf War - Recession
Bush II War on Terror - Endless War - Recession


I don't know... doesn't sound like a great track record to me.