No shortage of big stories today, and I'm on a tight schedule. Brevity being the soul of thrift in this case, I'll do a few one-paragraph reaction posts. . .
The incoming Iraqi government is a real step forward. The principals have agreed to a President, two VPs and a Prime Minister. I fully expect the anti-war crowd to ignore it. Over time, it becomes harder to believe that they were merely against the war, rather than against any success in Iraq. I could understand someone opposing the war. But now that it has taken place, wouldn't any reasonable person WANT things to succeed? Apparently not. First, they deny progress because any success would validate the invasion in many swing voters' minds, and secondly, because there are a lot of self-loathers out there. They really do see a pro-active America as the world's greatest threat, and they're counting on a bloody nose in Iraq to "teach us a lesson." I'm curious though, how does one "support the troops" while simultaneously undercutting everything they're fighting and dying for?
12,000 troops are leaving Korea -- and it's about time. The South Korean economy dwarfs the North's. Our troops, for at least the last two decades, have basically served to subsidize the Korean economy. They have the population, economy, and heavy industry to defend themselves against the backwards and impoverished North. While living peacefully under our umbrella, the South has backbitten us in our negotiations with the North, protested our presence, and generally acted like the ingrates they are. 12,000 troops is merely a good start, IMO. We have forward bases in Japan, Okinawa and Diego Garcia. Enough GIs have frozen their butts off for a year away from their wife and children for these people. The report mentioned a negotiating committee for the issue. What do we have to negotiate? We owed them nothing to begin with, and we've been paying off this non-existent debt for 5 decades. I think we can call it even.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban was struck down by a Clinton-appointed federal judge. Bush appoints Federalist Society judges. Democrats have a de facto litmus test for pro-abortion appointees. 2,200 babies will now be murdered in the next year in one of the most painful and barbaric ways imaginable. But keep telling yourself there's no difference between the parties.
Posted by Discoshaman at juin 1, 2004 10:14 PM | TrackBack
No one ever said there was no difference between the parties. For me, it was when I realized that the ONLY issue in the Dem party platform I had a major problem with was abortion that I began to un-demonize them in my own mind and began to comtemplate that I might have a place among them. And just as it cannot be said that all Repub's are pro-life, neither can it be said that all Dem's are pro-choice. I for one, am not. I am a Democrat and I revere the sanctity of human life. Check out www.democratsforlife.org. I am not alone.
Posted by: AutMom at juin 7, 2004 10:01 AMAutmom-
If there had been a "Nazis for Jewish Rights Party" in 1941, they would be in about the same position that Democrats for Life fill now -- completely powerless to actually do anything about the issue they ostensibly support, while at the same time giving aid and succor to the very entity that was killing off the Jews.
Ask Bob Casey, one of the few high profile Pro-Life Dems in recent years. They denied him the right to speak at the Convention solely on the basis of abortion. Then you can read letters from Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Dick Gephardt and Jesse Jackson expressing their pro-life convictions. These beliefs have, of course, vanished entirely since those letters were written. Because the price of admission to national influence in the Democratic Party is support for abortion on demand.
"Dems for Life" is a nice fig leaf, but it does nothing to obscure the fact that on America's holocaust, the defining moral issue before the church today, these people have joined the killers. And that's the plain truth.
As for it being the only issue with which you disagree, that's your call. I would have trouble reconciling homosexual marriage, euthenasia, sex ed for 1st graders, radical feminism and a host of other things that the Democratic Party supports.
Posted by: Discoshaman at juin 7, 2004 08:02 PMI said in the party PLATFORM of 2000. Not things that other high profile Dems support. You should read it. The first point they discuss at length is fiscal responsibility. Maybe W should read it.
It's at http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html#intro
As for the abortion issue, this paragraph is about 2/3 of the way through:
The Democratic Party is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party. This is why we are proud to put into our platform the very words which Republicans refused to let Bob Dole put into their 1996 platform and which they refused to even consider putting in their platform in 2000: "While the party remains steadfast in its commitment to advancing its historic principles and ideals, we also recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing views on issues of personal conscience like abortion and capital punishment. We view this diversity of views as a source of strength, not as a sign of weakness, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues. Recognizing that tolerance is a virtue, we are committed to resolving our differences in a spirit of civility, hope and mutual respect." And the section on "choice" is the shortest section dedicated to a particular topic in the whole platform.
The controversial subjects you listed are not mentioned anywhere in the platform.