|
MARCH 15, 2005 –
Let's take the media storyline and the storyline many of you have in
your heads.
Republicans are for
the bankruptcy legislation, which makes it tougher for individuals
to obtain bankruptcy protection, while the Democrats are against it.
And the only reason such an awful bill that socks it to the average
man will get through the Congress is because the Republicans hold
the majority.
Right?
Well, let's take a
look at how the March 10, 2004 Senate vote on this bill actually
went. From the
Senate's website:
75 yeas
24 nays
1 no vote
Now wait a second.
I knew the Republicans had taken a majority in the Senate, but I
didn't realize it was that big.
Now, everyone who
voted against it was a Democrat - Hillary was the one "no vote."
But look at all the Democrats - including new Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid (D-NV) - who voted for this bill.
17. Yes, almost
as many Democrats voted for this bill as against it - while not a
single Republican voted against it.
Now this raises a
fair question: what the hell?
Well, Air America
Radio's Mark and Mark, of the Morning Sedition show, put
that exact question to former Democratic Senator Max Cleland.
Now Cleland is well respected among Democrats and a tough-as-hell
war vet.
But when asked why
the heck so many Democrats, who supposedly abhor this absurd bill,
voted for it, his reply was, "Well, as (new Senate Minority Leader)
Harry Reid said, we have to pick our battles. Like Social
Security. Now there's an issue that really affects people's
pocket books, and we are going to make it a wedge issue to run on in
2006."
Now look carefully at what Senator
Cleland said. Asked about bankruptcy legislation and why so
many Democrats sold out the supposed party line and the people they
are supposed to represent, Cleland made the direct statement that to
vote for what they feel is right is "a battle" that is so dangerous
that only rare occasions must be "pick"ed on which to vote for what
they feel is right.
So let's look at his first line of
argument - that to vote the way the Republicans voted is what they
are supposed to do, to not do so is a battle.
And then, look how he shifted the topic
to something totally unrelated, Social Security, and even more, made
clear what his switch to Social Security as a topic was - it was the
dictated filibuster that the Democrats will use on their
constituents as a smokeshield not just now but through the 2006
election.
Look at that statement. Senator
Cleland said plainly that the Democrats not only have no plan for
doing this or that about Social Security, nor putting the issue to
rest, but that they have decided it is an issue they can use to move
people during the next election, a "wedge" issue which will be made
the central focus in 2006, and which will be used to distract
attention from other areas, in particular because it is a
"pocketbook" issue, as he said.
Yes, the Democrats aren't going to run
on what is right for the War on Terror or environment or economy or
other big issues - it will be "wedge" issues like Social Security.
Sound like Gore all over again?
Now Mark and Mark
pressed Senator Cleland again and again, and each time not only did
he give the reply about having to "choose our battles," but
immediately shifted to talking about Social Security.
The question has been
asked again and again, why don't the Democrats stand up for what they
believe in, i.e. what they say they will stand up for. The
answer is so obvious that most people won't admit it - because they
don't truly stand for what they say they do.
The Democratic Party
at the moment is playing the role of the Washington Generals in a
Harlem Globetrotters game. It is like Hannity and Colmes.
For the sake of format, there has to appear to be a debate, but the
debate is just a show, and when it comes down to it, both sides are
under a lot of pressure - in a constant "battle" - to do what
big-donor businesses and constituents demand they do.
This is what Max
Cleland meant when he said, "We have to choose our battles," with
regard to the bankruptcy bill. Democrats were elected,
ideally, to vote for what they think is right. And so opposing
the bankruptcy bill should not be a battle - voting against what you
claim to stand for should be.
But the pressure was
on from lots of very, very rich interests: banks, credit cards
companies, etc. And so to vote for what they felt was right
would be to shoot their most generous donors and the most powerful
interests in their states right in the foot - and that is a battle no
politician who wants to run again wants to fight unless it is
absolutely necessary. Or unless he or she has a conscience.
And so with a wink
and nod, the Democrats - knowing no one out there would really pay
attention - voted almost 50-50 for the bankruptcy bill, all the
while blasting it in the media and shifting the topic to a supposed
Social Security debate, and all the while telling you that if they
just had the majority you could have had what you wanted.
The reality, as we
Moderate Independents know, is that there are only a handful of
people who make it to the Senate who actually are there to stand up
for what is right and for the American people.
I will add that
freshman uniter Senator Barak Obama (D-IL) voted against the
legislation, a telling move for someone just looking to start his
power climb in the Senate - this man is all about principle.
The simple reality is
businesses wanted something, they got it, while all the American
people got was lip service. And this is the standard way of
operating that will continue, with endless faux debate about Social
Security being used to keep people thinking the two parties are
really so different and standing up fighting for you.
The question has been
why can't the grown men and women of the Democratic Party manage to
stand up for what they believe in? The answer is simple and
obvious: of course they can, and they do - they just don't
believe in what they claim to.
Because the reality
is that to become a Senator you have to have lots of wealth and
power. And so there is no connection with most Americans.
While the Republicans embrace this and just say, "What the hell,
let's stand up for our rich selves," the Democrats do their best to
try and claim they are speaking for the rest of us. They look
out on the nation like it is some foreign entity of weird alien
creatures and try to imagine what they - we - must be thinking or
want to hear.
That is why you have
the Al Gore/John Kerry syndrome of constantly polling and changing
what they are saying and generally sounding unsure - because they
are faking it, and doing the equivalent of trying to speak for
another species. And that is why you get such blatantly
stupid, obviously pandering statements as the one from Max Cleland,
making clear the Social Security debate is not something the
Democrats are working to clear up or move forward this way or that,
but instead is something that they plan to keep going on and on
because they feel, since it affects the pocketbooks of those weird
alien creatures out there - you and me - that they can use it to
distract and manipulate them into voting for Democrats next election.
The issues are
alternative energy now - this is the only way to deal with the
Middle East, Russia, the economy, and the environment. The
issues are dealing with the deficits. The issues are bogus
bankruptcy legislation, technology that can save 18,000 American
lives each year that is not being used, and the complete failure of
Bush/Limbaughian foreign policy.
But don't expect to
hear that. No, once again you will hear nonsensical,
infuriating hate-and-fear-mongering about Social Security.
You can't change
that. But this time, don't let yourself be fooled into
becoming a part of the, "It's us good Democrats against the evil
Bushies," or vice versa. Realize, that the only people who
truly care about our nation are us Moderate Independents, and if
things are going to get better, it is going to have to be us who
make it so.
And that change has
to start with us personally. Stay tuned to M/I for a game plan
for actually saving your nation.
We now return you to your regularly
scheduled fraudulent Social Security debate.
| 
