Whom here considers the Democratic leadership/elite to be enemies?

[DerekG]

Note: Obviously, my targets are those in the higher echelon, not principled ground troops like Kucinich, Conyers, Lee and several dozen others. So please don't ask me, "what are you doing here?"


I've posted a link to a cogent argument below; but, ever the ardent movie fan, I'd like to make a relatively recent film reference. I was watching the Star Wars prequels the other day (yes, I know...not the preferred repository for political insight), but I did get a cold chill when it was made known that Christopher Lee's character--who presided as head of a secessionist movement--was actually in league with the leader of the institutional government. In essence, the Sith were controlling both sides. So in the end, all the negotiations, political battles, and conflagrations were masturbatory.

Pretty compelling for pop art.

I suspect that instead of a Count Dooku, we have the Countess Clinton. These elites get our votes, and our money, due to their stances on issues such as environmental protection and reproductive rights, whilst they empower the same military-industrial complex the rightists are beholden to.

Here's an excerpt from John Walsh's essay, "The Democrats and War."

--snip--

The conventional wisdom is that the Dems are afraid to stand up to Bush's war, because they fear the accusation of being "soft on terrorism" or downright treasonous. And, we are told by the liberal punditocracy, this sort of charge will prevent our poor Dems from winning elections and ending the war which, deep down, they really oppose. So what's a poor Dem to do? Obviously call for "staying the course." This analysis is ever so convenient for the Dems. It gets the likes of Kerry, H. Clinton, Dean, Biden, Cleland and the rest, marvelously off the hook, bringing them the support of the anti-war forces. These are good men and women, we are told, just trying to win elections in the face of the ignorance of the benighted masses so as to bring us peace! Thus are hawks transmogrifed into doves, even as they cry out for more bloodshed, more troops and more death and destruction.

This whole whacko analysis cannot stand up to reality. First, the country, by a significant majority according to the polls, is against the war and long has been even before the last presidential election. Now 60% want some or all troops withdrawn at once. The least popular option, the one favored by leading Democrats, is to send more troops, an option that draws the support of less than 10%, with 57%, saying they would be "upset" at such a move. Why would anyone wanting to win an election champion a view which hardly anyone favors and is even less popular than Bush's? Second, take as an example a senator like California's Diane Feinstein who is not planning to run for president and comes from a solidly anti-war state, so an anti-war position is no danger for her. And yet she calls for "staying the course."

No, the idea of the spineless but virtuous Democrat does not hold up. The real reason has to be that the Dems do not give a damn about the electorate. The Dem establishment must in fact favor the war. And the reason is not hard to find. They play to the same real but hidden constituencies as the Republicans the oil tycoons, AIPAC, the barons of the military industrial complex and those who make their fortunes from empire, ranging from the banks to Bechtel. This is their class and if one of the pols dares play traitor to his class, he or she will soon be an outcast. Ask Ted Kennedy. When Kennedy called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq last January, he was virtually denounced by the rest of the Dem leadership. And although the media is afflicted with many and mortal problems, do not tell me that the media makes it impossible for the Dems to take a strong anti-war position. When Kennedy did so, it was all over the media from the front pages of the dailies to the Sunday morning TV talk shows.

--snip--

http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh08312005.html

[leetrisck]

1. Republican talk - "the elites"

who in the hell are "the elites"

[DerekG]

3. Interesting, so the rightists write dictionaries now?

I didn't know they had a stake in Funk and Wagnalls.

elite n. 1. The choicest part. 2. A size of typewriter type, equivalent to 10-point, with 12 characters to the inch.

Let's go with the first definition, then take a hop, skip and a jump to this article: "The Democrats' 2008 Choice," by David Sirota.


--snip--

On one side, you have the DLC which seeks to remold the Democratic Party into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corporate America, controlled by a tiny cadre of conservative-leaning elitists in Washington, D.C. who are desperate to hang onto their power over the Democratic Party apparatus in Washington, D.C. These are the people who are so desperate and conniving, they viciously attacked Howard Dean in 2004 and now ruthlessly attack grassroots groups like Moveon.org who, unlike the DLC, actually goes out and does the hard work of trying to win elections. They are also the same people who are now working overtime to undermine Democrats' opposition to President Bush's extremist economic agenda.

On the other side are progressives who want to see the party go back to what made it successful for decades: a willingness to stand up for America's middle class.

The 2008 presidential candidates would rather there not be this choice, and that's why they are trying to have it both ways, speaking at the DLC conferences, while reassuring progressives they are real Democrats. But ultimately, that won't be possible. Each of them will have to make a choice—kiss the elitists' ring, sell out to the highest corporate bidder, and be ridiculed on the national stage for standing for nothing other than fat cats and political expediency. Or, actually follow the lead of conviction politicians, ignore the D.C. cocktail party circuit, create a principled McCain-like image, and stand up for the millions of Americans who the DLC and the Beltway crowd have arrogantly alienated for so long.

--snip--

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050727/the_democrats_2008_choice.php

[leetrisck]

9. Let's not

---

[ecoalex]

2. Agree there is complicity here

The DLC Dems stand out unabashedly, the others more meekly , yet the vote counts are the vote counts.Obama for the bankruptsy act. I'm sure he's in the Clinton elite, those who play both sides, traitors to social causes actually, the corner stone of the Democratic party.

For now expect a conflicted Democratic party, with the DLC wing countering the DNC wing, and neither one will electrify the voters, or be able to beat the republican election tabulation coups that the public is now accumtomed to.

Take Kerry for example

There was more than enough ammunition to prove bush incompetence, illegalities , yet Kerry weaved and dodged,. and allowed himself to be smeared repeatedly.It was a weak campaign, fought by weak people.Why wasn't the truth used?

I've come to the conclusion that the Dems don't want to win.

Their paltry actions prove this.

[sweetheart]

4. I don't see enemies

I don't see the world like that. I have a relationship with God,
through jesus christ, and God and jesus have relationships with everyone
else, and there is nothing but sacred respect and forgiveness for our
misgivings; reconciliation and love.

If people hate me, then i'm sorry, such a waste of quality life-energy.
But what is an enemy, but someone who is an opposite, and people are
too much alike to be opposites.

[DerekG]

5. I respect your religiosity, but these politicos are hatching perpetual war

They want to send our babies to murder, and die, in the sands of the Middle East, whilst they plunder a treasury that could be used to feed and educate the unfortunate.

Jesus Christ did not hate people. But he was not a sentimentalist; he knew when to draw the line in the sand, as is evidenced by his rebellion in the temple courtyard (an act that sealed his fate).

Perhaps we mustn't hate them, either, but we should hate what they do. And if their designs are antithetical to ours, then should we not deem them enemies? Yes, I'll try my best to love my enemies--as Christ commanded--but I will also do my part to stop them.

[sweetheart]

8. I don't support them

It is a conundrum when the universality of religiousity is confronted
with the divisiveness of political wrongdoing. And is it right for
religion to absolve itself of taking sides. By the very fact that i'm
nearing 9K posts on DU, i believe that taking sides is PART of
religiosity.

Jesus christ demanded that people take sides with "him" and god. I
think people who claim to know jesus should consider how he stands
in relationship to aggressive war.

[bemildred]

6. Me. They are not servants of the people or faithful to the republic. nt

[BeFree]

7. "War is good for the economy"

I can remember folks saying that when I was a kid.

This war, no, not a war so much as an assault and robbery, is good for the economy. We need the oil.

Sadly, the high placed (yes, elite) dems have allowed themselves to have only a pessimistic outlook and are in denial that we can change our ways and do without the oil.

As one who argued for Kerry as he politically handled the assault, I now find myself ashamed that he hasn't come out hard against the robbery. It now appears he wasn't just politicing, but he really believes we needed the oil so badly we had to stoop to kill for it. For what little good it will do, I hereby apologize.

We need a whole new set of congresscritters. It won't be easy to remove those powerful elites who feast on the blood, sweat and tears of the weaker people, but it simply must be done.

[pitohui]

10. do you want something or do you want nothing

we're on both sides in iraq, giving saddam $$$ to build up so we can knock him down, that's your analogy, sheesh

[lcordero2]

11. i do

[The Magistrate]

12. Locking

Flame-Bait.