From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Just more of the same
November 12, 2004 1:28 AM
Bob Borosage and Katrine vanden Heuvel issue a "it's time to fight" manifesto in The Nation, but the call to action is just more of the same.
1. Tom Delay is corrupt -- how has that gotten us anywhere? Maybe if he had sex with a kid we could nail him on that, but corruption? Nobody cares.
2. We need more ideas -- uh no, we need fewer ideas. John Kerry had so many ideas nobody knew what any of them were.
3. Make the case in moral terms by standing firm on choice -- Why do pro-choice candidates like Arnold and Giuliani have a place in the Republican Party, but I can't name a single pro-life candidate in the Democratic Party? We're hardliners on this, and they've got a big tent.
Let's change the abortion debate into Democrats are against abortion, not Republicans. It's a jobs and healthcare issue. Abortions are up under Bush, not down. George Bush is killing babies. Let's see a 527 run that ad.
Just more of the same
Next Entry: Tightening the grip of power... (11.15.2004)
Previous Entry: The Cleansing of Fallujah (11.08.2004)
Read the 23 comments.
You're wrong. If DeLay or Bush was caught having sex with a child, it still wouldn't matter. They'd be re-elected and the rules about having sex with a minor would be changed. Same for murder. It wouldn't matter.
Fri Nov 12 2004 6:02 AM
Wow, Malcom....that's SOME power those crafty Republicans have, huh? What was the old line about
"The Shadow"? The power to cloud men's minds?
Guess you don't remember Massachusetts Congressman
Gerry Studds (Democrat). He was censured by the House for having a...relationship with a 17 year-old male page. Interestingly, he was censured the same day as a Republican (Dan Crane of Illinois), who was censured for having a ...relationship with a 17 year old female. The WaPo's summation says a lot about the differences in Democrats and Republicans...
"Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane's conservative district voted him out in 1984... Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996."
So here we have a Dem who actually was censured for a gay relatioship with one of his former employees who was under age at the time - I think the law would look at this as, technically "sex with a child" but Mr. Studds was unapologetic: he turned his back on the House as his censure was read and he never did apologize. Yet his district re-elected him what? a half-dozen times after he was censured while Crane's voters ousted him the first chance they got.
So if DeLay was representing a district in Mass and was, "...caught having sex with a child..", then, yes, you're probably right...it probably wouldn't matter.
Fri Nov 12 2004 7:57 AM
Crane's female was a page also...
Fri Nov 12 2004 7:59 AM
Tomaig, So far I've seen a true war hero (actually two if you include Cleland), slandered and labled "traitorous", a president who takes us to war for reasons yet to be determined, a deficit that's balooning out of control - yet a new paradigm is discovered for its justification, global warming has "benefits", evolution is just a "theory", and contraception is being stricken from textbooks ... and you're seriously questioning my incredulity? Look, the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. That's the new paradigm ... the republican evangelicals just haven't sent out the new textbooks.
Fri Nov 12 2004 8:24 AM
If you believe all that stuff, then I guess my questioning is not of your incredulity....It's your credulity that's shaky.
Fri Nov 12 2004 10:11 AM
tomaig is a troll. See his last comment for proof. Don't feed the trolls. They are not interested in thoughtful conversation. They are interested in the self-gratification which comes from you wasting your time on their specious non-arguments.
OK, sometimes it's fun to respond to trolls, and I have been guilty of this in the past. If you enjoy it, knock your socks off. But, don't expect to change any minds.
Fri Nov 12 2004 11:22 AM
Not for the easily offended
Many of you will have seen this in one form or another already,
but an interesting take with links to lead you deep into the
many layers of what's happening here, can be found at
Sat Nov 13 2004 8:45 PM
Damn MC. Can't argue with 'dat! I think I've muttered those paragraphs while shaving every F*^C*** day since the election.
Sun Nov 14 2004 8:43 AM
Yeah, I read that FuckTheSouth.com thing a while ago. Good reading; it surely brightened up my day with amusement when I saw it. Have any of you seen SorryEverybody.com? If you haven't, you should.
Sun Nov 14 2004 1:36 PM
Thanks, Cici. That website rocks.
Sun Nov 14 2004 1:58 PM
www.fuckthesouth.com is all you're left with. raving idiots are all you have. paul krugman, michael moore, al gore, sir hilary clinton. these people are not getting a democrat elected now or ever. but that's fine with me, keep yelling and losing, it'll keep me happy.
Sun Nov 14 2004 7:42 PM
Hey...i thought Satan and conservatives didn't go together. Now I've seen it all.
Sun Nov 14 2004 8:14 PM
How about this?
Mon Nov 15 2004 9:50 AM
Tom from Madison:
How about if we get back to the issues?
1. Tom DeLay has been implicated in some serious matters. How about applying equal justice under the law? Why is abuse of power tolerated by those on the right when it serves their agenda? I'm referring specifically to DeLay using his influence to re-draw congressional district lines in Texas and his willingness to resort to illegal means to make it happen.
2. Bush and the Republicans have repeatedly avoided debate and consideration of ideas that don't align with their own pre-conceived notions. An obvious example is how THEY decided to send troops to Iraq without body armor or armored vehicles. Once troops were on the ground, Republicans used the existence of the unprotected troops THEY PUT THERE as a way of forcing a vote on a tax-cut. From that vote, they manufactured an issue to use against Kerry. We never had a debate about how the troops got there without adequate armor & vehicles--i.e. who should be held accountable for a TERRIBLE WAR PLAN?
3. How about re-framing the pro-life / pro-choice debate? Yes, Democrats should address why pro-lifers aren't allowed. However, Republicans should discuss what they intend to do to actually represent the pro-choice elements in their own party. It would be interesting to see Arnold and Rudy held accountable for the consequences of their own party affiliation. Specifically, what would THEY do if Roe v Wade were overturned? My guess is they would do NOTHING. I suspect they are merely pandering for votes. THE REPUBLICANS ARE INCREDIBLY VULNERABLE ON THE ABORTION ISSUE.
Today's Neo-con Republicans are masters of acting unilaterally, avoiding responsibility for consequences, and allocating blame to others. Democrats need to get a focused set of facts out to remind people whose policies caused the mess we're in. Then we can go about reminding people we can and have done better.
Mon Nov 15 2004 9:55 AM
Jim - thanks for that link to 3nov. I hadn't heard about it before. Those theses should be a mantra for the Democratic Party. Everyone who believes in what those people (who are they, by the way?) are saying should shout that mantra as loudly and as often as possible until the DNC listens.
Mon Nov 15 2004 10:31 AM
Right Wing Robby:
No! That theses is all wrong. Tom has the right idea. Its time to get back to the issues. You need to make us Reps explain ourselves and when you find some Republicans that agree with some of the Democrats platform issues, ATTACK! Bush and the rest of the neo-con rightwing propagandists are avoiding debates, except for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd presidential debates which you won handily.
Lets face it, its not the message thats the problem. The message is the right one to be sending, it just needs "more money and effort" to succeed.
Mon Nov 15 2004 11:04 AM
Tom from Madison:
I'm glad we finally found something to agree on. I suspect there might not be a lot more common ground.
Getting back to the issues, I believe Kerry should have taken Bush to task for his avoidance of the press. He only had 12 press conferences before the election, Those press conferences were scripted with very little follow-up on the evasive or non-sequitor answers given by the president.
After repeatedly pushing Bush's avoidance of the press into the public consciousness, the liberal pundits could start talking about what it means.
A frank discussion of character could have undone this president. He is vulnerable on the personal responsibility issue. He rarely accepts it--for anything.
Cowardice is a label that could easily be hung on George W--he made sure he would never get shot at in Viet Nam. Yet he has sent men, women, and contractors to die in Iraq--and done so for reasons that have largely evaporated.
Finally, the dems didn't deal with the illusion that we are somehow safer now. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Most of the perpetrators were Saudi's, yet our policies have largely avoided holding Saudi Arabia accountable. Why? Could it be large financial interests? On this issue, the democratic party needs to embrace Michael Moore's claims that Bush is not looking out for average Americans, but for big oil $ and his friends while pursuing a different agenda via the Iraq war.
Tue Nov 16 2004 5:34 AM
If you like "fuckthesouth" you should write a note to the site's creator.
His name is Jonathan Swift
17 Main St
Madison, WI 53703
Wed Nov 17 2004 3:06 PM
As far as there being no high pro-lifeers within the top Democratic ranks, I beleive that Henry Rice, the new minoirty leader in the Senate, is pro-life.
Fri Nov 19 2004 12:26 PM
Fred Frank Caruso:
More of the same indeed. Who runs the Democratic party? Is it the people, or organizations like NOW, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL? WELL, I don't know but the people don't run the party.
Just try to mention a more reasonable balance on the abortion issue, and your head gets bit off by some rabid hetoric accusing you of being a right-wing religious fanatic who cares nothing about women and their health.
The word "choice" is an Orwellian euphemism used to make us mentally and spiritually numb to accept of the wasting of live flesh and bone as the moral equivalent of nurturing it to birth. Besides that, "pro-choice" is a lie, because you will never see anything resembling a civil polite acceptance of free speech and opinion not totally pro-abortion. No wonder they think anyone against abortion is religious. They are more "religious" themselves. They run the party like a church, not a democracy.
It is not a even a question of legal or not legal. But if anyone deviate from the strict party line on the issue, they are accused of being in favor of outlawing it totally.
Tue Nov 23 2004 7:55 PM
Max Cleland? Did someone say earlier that Max Cleland was a "true war hero?"
Do your research. I'm assuming you made this comment because Cleland was in Vietnam and is a triple amputee. You are obviously unaware of the *fact* that Cleland lost his limbs by picking up an unexploded grenade (which unfortunately exploded) when he was on his way to a bar.
He saw very little combat at all.
Sun Nov 28 2004 12:50 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
Uggg, these spammers are really the lowest form of life imaginable.
Tue Mar 28 2006 7:50 PM
So much for Mr. Gilliam's new censorship.
Wed Mar 29 2006 8:04 AM