January 15, 2004
Ill Wind
from - smijer
Alas that I chose to make Thursday "bad news day". Yesterday, it could have been "Ill Wind Wednesday". There is good and bad news out of late, but I'm going to focus on the bad today. For one, Mrs. smijer has the flu. That means its probably the flu that has got me down in the doldrums, too. But the worst "news" of the day is this:
Georgia "Democrats" on board for Bush
Zig Zag Zell's apostasy is old news by now. The fact that other Georgia democrats have climbed onto that band-wagon is bad news. Let's be clear: George W. Bush doesn't give real support to any core Democratic principals. To endorse him as president is to to endorse the apotheosis of liberal principals as the governing philosophy for this country.
This is bad for Democrats, of course. Georgia is already solidly Bush anyway, but this provides the GOP a little more ammunition nationwide. Perhaps more importantly, will make the democratic candidates' coattails very short in Georgia and the region. Besides being bad for Democrats, though, this is bad for Georgia. These are the early signs of Democratic party capitulation in the state. That means Georgia no will no longer have an opposition party. In Georgia, you have two Republican parties. That's not a politically healthy situation. Maybe its time for the greens to take up the banner of liberal politics in Georgia.
Another small item. Via Cal Pundit: smaller government my foot.
And that's some of the news that's bad news. I hope your day is better.
::Posted by smijer at January 15, 2004 07:24 AM
i dun quit wurryin bout the ackshuns of faux or fox demcrats. theys jes lack publican only even more hypocriticull.
|
Posted by buddy don on January 15, 2004 07:57 AM Link to comment |
I personally believe that this event in Georgia is the first sign of paradigm shift in American politics.
|
|
Posted by CJG on January 15, 2004 11:21 AM Link to comment |
That would be a first -- GA being in the avant garde of American popular opinion. I don't think that's the case. I think that the GOP has spent so much time, money, blood & sweat getting themselves entrenched in the Nixon south so that they can force dems to compete elsewhere that Georgia and a couple of other southern states have become a route for us. It's not like southern people or our daily philosophies are that far removed from our rural counterparts in Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and other rural "blue states".
|
|
Posted by smijer on January 15, 2004 12:06 PM Link to comment |
I think it is the grits.
As people from afar pour into these great Southern states they eat the grits, their politics change and we become avant-guarde.
Definitely. It is the grits.
|
|
Posted by boortzlistener on January 15, 2004 04:44 PM Link to comment |
"George W. Bush doesn't give real support to any core Democratic principals."
Let me know what you think the core principles of the Democratic party are and at what point in time and how Zell Miller showed his support of them.
|
|
Posted by boortzlistener on January 15, 2004 06:54 PM Link to comment |
"Let me know what you think the core principles of the Democratic party are and at what point in time and how Zell Miller showed his support of them."
One core principle of the Dem party is equal opportunity. In laissez-faire capitalism, especially in an industrial or post-industrial world, there are institutional, class, gender, and race biases that deny equal opportunity for advancement and gain. Miller supported the democratic principle of equal opportunity with the HOPE scholarships in GA. (I'm not defending him as a Democrat... I never claimed he was a good one.. just answering your question. It's about the only part of his record that is both progressive and familiar to me.)
Another core principle of the left that is partly espoused by the democratic party platform is that basic human rights include the right to the bare necessities of life even for those unable to provide them for themselves. That means we believe society has an obligation to provide food, shelter and basic healthcare to those who cannot provide it for themselves, and it should not be a strictly voluntary "charity" program.
Once again, I'm not defending Zell's record as a Democrat. Just pointing out that a Democrat endorsing Bush is much like a Republican endorsing Al Sharpton. It's an endorsement against everything you supposedly stand for.
|
|
Posted by smijer on January 15, 2004 09:56 PM Link to comment |
The county in Georgia where I live has a population of 23,000. Last year the amount of money spent on this county's welfare programs was 24 million dollars. That seems to be an inordinate amount of money to spend on the food, shelter and basic healthcare for those who cannot provide for themselves. I do wonder sometimes about the willingness of many of those people to provide for themselves as opposed to their lack of ability to provide for themselves. I am sure you have heard that equal opportunity does not guarantee equal results. I know that opportunity does exist because I have squandered more than my share of it.
|
|
Posted by boortzlistener on January 15, 2004 10:36 PM Link to comment |
The Hope Scholarship program has had a short life in this state and is already teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. I have no problem with the program because those who contribute the revenue do so voluntarily but it can be disheartening to see a person who obviously is having problems providing for himself the food, shelter and healthcare already mentioned spend 25 or 30 dollars on a handful of scratch off tickets that promptly end up in the trash can or scattered all over the convenience store parking lot. It is my opinion that those who will never take advantage of the opportunity that HOPE offers will wind up paying for its costs. But again, they will do that voluntarily.
The one thing the HOPE Scholarship will guarantee is higher costs for education. The price of books and tuition has grown by leaps and bounds. HOPE is a great thing for those employed by the educational system or who provide it with books and other tools that are needed. I do not consider it a worthless program but I wonder if its actual benefits for those who need it most are not sometimes overblown.
|
|
Posted by boortzlistener on January 15, 2004 10:50 PM Link to comment |
In order to proclaim someone to be either a "good" or "bad" Democrat (or Republican) you have to have a preconceived notion as to what a "good" or "bad" Democrat (or Republican) is. I would like to know who you would label as being a good Democrat. One that is the most perfect personification of what you think the party is. There are some glaring differences in Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats.
When I think Democrat I would never think Zell Miller and personally I think that all of the current brouhaha is just to help sell his book.
If spending money is a prime indicator of being a Democrat then George the Younger should be the chairman of the Democratic party and Democrats should be proud to have him as President. Since that is not the case I guess spending is not a big part of what is expected.
|
|
Posted by boortzlistener on January 15, 2004 11:04 PM Link to comment |
"The county in Georgia where I live has a population of 23,000. Last year the amount of money spent on this county's welfare programs was 24 million dollars."
That's over 10 grand / person, boortzlistener. Do people actually have jobs where you live? Or do they just lie around watching Comedy Central all day?
|
|
Posted by CJG on January 16, 2004 12:22 AM Link to comment |
"I would like to know who you would label as being a good Democrat."
Among great dems: Bobby Kennedy. Paul Wellstone. JFK, FDR, Truman.
Among good dems: Max Cleland. Chuck Schumer.
Somewhere in the mix: both Clintons.
|
|
Posted by smijer on January 16, 2004 06:42 AM Link to comment |
"That's over 10 grand / person, boortzlistener. Do people actually have jobs where you live? Or do they just lie around watching Comedy Central all day?"
Your digits slipped CJG. It amounts to a little over $1,000 per person. But still, that assumes that every person in the county receives benefit from some of the 24 million dollars and that is not the case. Our unemployment figures are similar to those of the surrounding counties.
If society is going to be held responsible for providing food, shelter and healthcare for those who cannot (or have no desire to) provide for themselves then we had really better start deciding on what they shall eat, where they shall live and what the definition of "basic" healthcare is.
|
|
Posted by boortzlistener on January 16, 2004 08:42 AM Link to comment |
May I be so naive as to suggest that rather than providing every need for every American we practice the simple idea of truly becoming 'our brother's keeper' or become a true neighbor as the "good Samaritan" was. Imagine a world where each person takes reposibility for himself and is willing to reach out a helping hand to those who are in need through no fault of their own. For that matter, what if the millions of dollars spent on national elections went instead into a benevolent fund from which those who are ill or handicapped could draw. Taxes could beome 10% or less across the board and we would have a better society. Politians would no longer want power at any cost and statesmen could once again serve the nation and states. Now there is a great society.
|
|
Posted by Concerned on January 16, 2004 09:54 AM Link to comment |
What about the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on war and the military industrial complex annually?
What about a world without nations or states or politicians and no taxes?
I know that either the comet or global warming will have finished us off long before that happens but while we are dreaming we might as well dream BIG!
Listen.....do I hear John Lennon singing "Imagine" quietly in the background?
|
|
Posted by boortzlistener on January 16, 2004 02:16 PM Link to comment |
"JFK, FDR, Truman" Great Democrats.
Smijer,
Sean Hannity argues that these three (if alive today) would be Republicans. Do you agree with that? Has the party really changed that much in your opinion?
|
|
Posted by boortzlistener on January 17, 2004 01:48 AM Link to comment |
"Your digits slipped CJG..."
Ah, yes. That is a bit more reasonable.
"If society is going to be held responsible for providing food, shelter and healthcare for those who cannot (or have no desire to) provide for themselves then we had really better start deciding on what they shall eat, where they shall live and what the definition of "basic" healthcare is."
This is legacy of social programs, and socialism in general. Eventually, the government starts telling you that can't spend money on vices (booze, cigarettes, gambling, ...). Then they tell you that you can't buy Ho-Ho's and Cheetoes, etc. Then they tell you that x% of your check must be spent on rent, y% on food, etc. Then, they tell you when you can have children.
I have a friend who calls himself a "libertarian." He thinks it's a good idea that people on welfare be "forbidden to reproduce." He can't see that he is a willing accomplice to the "social democracy" -> "statist republic" evolution.
The fair thing to do is to roll back entitlements. Otherwise, we will eventually turn those on entitlement programs into subjects of the state.
|
|
Posted by CJG on January 17, 2004 03:49 PM Link to comment |
