DEMOCRACY IS NOT DYING, DEMOCRATS ARE
By Buck Evinger
Mr. Jack posted his concerns about the death of democracy. While I do agree that there is a problem with apathy towards the political process by the majority of people, that doesn’t mean democracy is dying.
It’s funny how when Democrats controlled both houses of congress, the presidency, by proxy the judiciary, and the majority of state governiships and legislatures…you didn’t hear conservatives and Republicans whining about the death of democracy. What happend was the Republican party began selling it’s message to the people. The people responsed. Republicans and conservative ideas have won majority control in the last few elections because they are in tune with the majority of the electorate. (Don’t start the whining about stealing the election, it just sounds stupid!)
Republican victories are not symptomatic of democracy in it’s dying moment, that is democracy thriving! The Democratic party, now controlled by the extreme left and it’s liberal platforms are out of step with the majority of Americans. They refuse to accept it and they are dying because of it.
The only branch of government that needs checking is the judiciary. Activist judges, who were appointed and approved by liberal Democrats AND NOT FILIBUSTERED BY REPUBLICAN MINORITIES, are establishing an oligarchy of power by making law from the bench. Appointment and not election is the only method by which liberal ideas, which don’t stand up to debate or the approval of most Americans, can become law.
Why was it wrong, Jack, for congress to debate and even legislate on the Shivo case? Isnt’ that what we elect our leaders to do? It is their job to make laws that address our cultural and societal needs. Judges are to determine whether or not those laws are being broken or enforced properly. Because liberals can’t convince the people to give them the power to create their idea of America through legislative action, they use activist judges to go beyond interpretation and into creation. The Shivo case is a perfect example of why we ELECT leaders to make law. They represent our “majority beleifs” and legislate accordingly. When the law is made through legislation it is a direct reflection of the peoples will, demonstrated by their vote.
Case in point, the 200o election debacle. The law in Florida, written by the people in it’s constitution through elected representatvies, was ignored by an appointed, liberal-leaning, Florida court. The United States Supreme Court said the Florida and U.S. constitutions were clear on the the law and told Florida to follow the clearly written law and move on! Even the dissenters on the Supreme Court didn’t argue against that. They argued that the needs of the electorate in this special circumstance needed to be addressed through the judiciary. Hogwash! The law was written. If you don’t like the way it deals a hand to you in this election, suck it up, move on and try to get it changed. HAVE YOU HEARD OF ANY LEGISLATION IN FLORIDA OR THE U.S. CONGRESS TRYING TO CHANGE THE ELECTION LAWS AS IT PERTAINS TO JUDICIAL REVIEW?
Sore losers!
Democracy is not dying. Democracy is winning. Democrats and liberals are losing, their stranglehold on the media and governmental power are dying and they can’t stand it.
Harry Truman, a famous Democrat who had absolutely no philosophical resemblence to today’s Democrats, was giving a speech when a supporter shouted “Give ‘em Hell Harry!”. He responded. ” I don’t give ‘em hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.”
The truth of being wrong, so consistently wrong for so long, is hell on liberals and hell on the Democratic party.
May it rest in peace.
Mr. Jack Says: May 19th, 2005 at 11:39 pm
If the Judges were truly as good as you say they are, then the filibuster wouldn’t be a problem, because the Democrats would side with the republicans and vote them in, but seeing the Republican track record of nominees, I don’t trust the judges.
Hell, Bush Elected a man who claims the U.N is useless, to The UN!!!! Bravo (loud applause)
And the Shrivo Case was Sickening. Just sickening to see what our Congress has been ground down to. We elect congress to care for THE MAJORITY, the 50 million other Americans in this country, not the one lonely bulimic in a vegetative state, unable to LIVE, truly LIVE. You call yourselves moral, yet you insisted on her suffering that state for how many more years? I say stop wasting our valuable medical resources and let her enjoy death.
And the case, I believe is a smokescreen, because, there are hundreds of cases like that all over the United States, why Terri? And Why did Bush Get up at 3 in the morning, and fly to Washington from Texas to sign this ridiculous bill, when in fact, when the C.I.A submitted a memo to him saying “BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATACK WITHIN THE U.S” what does bush do? He tosses the memo and continues his vacation.
Mr. Jack Says: May 19th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
I’d hardly call this corruption “thriving”.
And I do not imply that it is the republicans that are causing the death, it is apathy. Because threw Apathy, anyone can get away with tyranny. And I do not think that this Democracy will die in this century, things like this take time, but you have to admit, republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, that if we do not fix the media situation, then Apathy will spread, and that, my friends is a fate, in which I would not wish on this great country of ours.
Anna Says: May 21st, 2005 at 2:31 am
I am a democrat (or at least I will be when I turn 18 in 3 years) and I am continuously amazed that democrats do as well at the polls as we do. Unlike the republican party, which is very homogenous and a well-oiled machine, the democratic party is a mish-mash of all sorts of people with diverse views on virtually every issue. The party is disorganized and based on coalitions of grass-roots organizations. Yet we still manage to have a presidential candidate who won the popular vote in 2000 and we pulled off a virtual dead-heat in 2004. The republicans hold the thinest of majorities in both houses of congress. Shit, if we united just a tiny bit and even put out a half-assed effort we could regain control of congress and win back the presidency when I vote for the first time in 2008. We are still the majority and we are the main stream in America. We are just phenomenally ineffective at running political campaigns. I plan to help change that.
Jim Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 6:53 pm
I do hope you use the next three years and seek out the truth. I think the thing that scares liberals the most are facts, which is why they continue to be Bush bashers thats all they have.
Joy Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 8:08 pm
Anna,
Hopefully you want the dems to put forth an intelligent effort rather than the other end, as you referred to in comment#4. That seems to be the end the dem leaders were using to choose their candidate for 2004, as well as the extreme liberal views the heads of the dem party have adopted.
And are you referring to exit polls?
Anna Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 8:12 pm
Jim,
I hope that it is clear to you that we hope that you spend the next three years seeking truth too. We think that the thing that scares conservatives the most are facts. We think that you spent 8 years bashing Clinton because that’s all you had. So we both think that each other are wrong and probably crazy. How should we handle such a situation? Civil war?
Anna Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 10:18 pm
Joy,
As you know, the exit polls were dead on the money in all of the non-swing states. So we know that the polling methodology was solid. They were at odds with the final returns, oddly enough, only in swing states and, even more oddly, always favoring Bush by very small numbers (e.g., 11 votes per precinct in Ohio). The CEO of Diebold, the maker of the voting machines used in those states, did promise in writing to deliver the election to Bush (you can read the letter for yourself. It’s published now). Shame that the machines and their software still has not been examined by anyone outside of Diebold. Is that what you were referring to in comment #5?
Anna Says: May 23rd, 2005 at 10:23 pm
Joy,
I do hope the democrats achieve the political shrewdness of the republicans. No Karl Rove, no Bush presidency - period. Bush would never have come close to making it on the national scene without Rove. Rove, not Bush, knows what people want to hear and pimped Bush perfectly. We need pimps like Rove working on our side.
Sriram Says: May 24th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Anna u already have prostitutes like Maureen Dowd working on ur side. And the entire media, Hollywood, liars like felon clinton, spin doctors like Carville and the support of “international leaders”. Even with all these things on ur side, the DemocraPs could’nt win against such an unpopular incumbent Republican. This is a firm indication that the Two Party system will dissolve soon and the primaries would be like national election! And yeah it’s not coz of the socialist utopianism and intellectual corruptness are getting out of favor with the American people. Its coz Rove the pimp outweighs all the pimps and whores on ur side.
Anna Says: May 24th, 2005 at 8:30 pm
Sriram,
Obviously Rove is the greatest pimp of all times. Only he could get a retard elected president of the US.
Anna Says: May 24th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
Sriram,
If the media is trying to help the liberals, they suck at it. To me it seems that they go out of their way to favor the conservatives. Bush could be crushed by an eager media if they would just show a little courage and go for it. If they ever do, they will regain my respect. Until then, the big corporate media (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC) will be nothing more than conservative whimps to me.
Sriram Says: May 25th, 2005 at 12:42 am
The media is trying to help the liberals, no doubt. They are so retarded that they cant accomplish what they want. That doesnt make them “conservative”.
Lug Says: May 29th, 2005 at 4:10 am
Anna….I will be doing everything in my power to stop you and the evil Democrats!!!
Anna Says: May 29th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Lug Nut,
Evil democrats, I thought that your guys were busy devouring yourselves lately. Remind me, what has the republican congress accomplished since they took power? List Bush’s accomplishments as president. They are dead wood.
bonniem Says: May 29th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
Well, you should know, Anna, that the Democrats have been obstructionist, and have threatened to shut down congress. Don’t put all the “nothing done” on the Repubicans. Remember “ol whats his name” that got voted out this last election because of his obstructionist ways?
Anna Says: May 30th, 2005 at 4:16 am
Lug Nut,
I would say “bring it on” but when Bush said that, sadly, he got a lot of our troops killed.
pizz Says: May 30th, 2005 at 4:45 am
You took the words right out of my mouth. Excellent article.
pizz Says: May 30th, 2005 at 5:19 am
First of all, I’d love to see this letter about the CEO of Diebold promising the election to Bush mentioned in comment 7. Where exacally can I find this? Second: One of the things that drives mainstream America against the liberal left is just the sort of thing I read in some of these comments. It’s everyones right to disagree and voice your opinion, but to refer to Pres Bush as an idiot or a retard is an absolute lack of respect for not only him but the position he holds and American people (he happens to be an elected official). But then again he was educated in a liberal ivy league university, so.. you may have a point.
When Clinton was pres many people knew he was one of the most dispicable polititions to hold office but most people still had the decency to show him repect (or take the appropriate action to get him out of office).
The reason why the liberal media doesn’t have the effect liberal demacrats are looking for isn’t because they are bad at it, it’s because there ideas are so far out of mainstream America.
P.S. Go comment #9!
Anna Says: May 30th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
Pizz,
You jacklegs spent 8 years pissing your brains out on Clinton! But this is not about Clinton. This is about Bush, the perpetual loser, the master of the bad decision. He has gotten more people killed than any president since Vietnam. He has completely dropped the ball in the war on terror, opting rather to create more terror by occupying a Arab country. As for O’Dell’s letter, it is laughable to me that everyone hasn’t read it already. It is readily available and was reported on in virtually all of the major news outlets (FoxNews excluded, because they don’t do actual news, just fake news.)
bonniem Says: May 30th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Yeah Anna, the reason our guys was killed was bccause Bush said “Bring it on”, And I suppose they knew he would someday say that the reason they worked out the plan (for several years from what I understand) to hit the WTC and pentagon. What was it Clinton had said to cause that?
Anna Says: May 30th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
Ok Pizz,
Prove your decency. Use appropriate channels to impeach Bush.
Here are some of the laws he has broken that constitute impeachable offenses. 100,000 of us have signed a petition that Rep Conyers is introducing to congress after the recess is over calling on Congress to impeach Bush. Won’t you join us?
Laws violated by President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, public officials under their authority, and members of the U.S. military under their command, sufficient for impeachment
• The U. S. Constitution, Art. VI, para. 2, makes treaties adopted by the U.S. part of the “law of the land.” Thus, a violation of the U. N. Charter, Hague IV, Geneva Conventions, etc. is also a violation of U.S. federal law.
• U.S. Federal Law 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (War Crimes Act of 1996) makes committing a war crime, defined as: “…a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party…” punishable by fine, imprisonment, or death.
• The following treaties and charters which define: wars of aggression, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity.
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)
Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator…of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
U.N. Gen. Assembly Res. 3314
Defines the crime of aggression as “… the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State…or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations…”
Nuremberg Tribunal Charter
Principle VI: “The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace: Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties;
(b) War crimes: …murder, ill-treatment…of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war,…plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages…
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination…and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population…when such acts are done…in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”
Geneva Conventions
A) Protocol I, Article 75: “(1)…persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict…shall be treated humanely in all circumstances…(2) The following acts are and shall remain prohibited…whether committed by civilian or by military agents: (a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons…(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault…and threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.”
B) Protocol I, Art. 51: “The civilian population…shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.” Art. 57: (parties shall) “do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects…an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one…”
C) Protocol I, Art. 70: “The Parties to the conflict…shall allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments, equipment and personnel…even if such assistance is destined for the civilian population of the adverse Party.”
D) Protocol I, Art. 35: “In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties…to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited…It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment.”
E) Convention I, Art. 3: “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms… shall in all circumstances be treated humanely…To this end, the following acts (in addition to those listed in Art. 75, above) are and shall remain prohibited:…the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
F) Convention III, Art. 5: “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy (are prisoners of war under this Convention), such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
G) Convention IV, Art. 33: “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”
bonniem Says: May 30th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Anna, regarding # 8, don’t you think that Hillary was/is Clintons Rove? I think she is the one who ran the white house when Clinton was in as well as pulling all the strings behind the scenes. You don’t know politics very well if you think the decisions are made by the individual running for office alone and no other person is involved. So Bush can put a team together to get him elected, but you must also admit, this time the Majority of the poople voted for him too. He got in by electoral college, but he also won the popular vote. And that, Anna, comes from your liberal news media.
Anna Says: May 30th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
First of all I don’t think there is a clear “main stream America.” That’s just a rhetorical bluff that conservative pundits invented to illegitimately stake a claim on something that is not rightfully your’s. Second, I think that the reason that many people, like pizz and it’s friends, have taken the conservative ideological bait is the same reason that people that people tend to follow the path of least resistance. The conservative tale requires little effort or thought. It requires no compasion for other human beings. It requires no hard work. So lazy people consume that tale just like some people who can’t say no to themselves eat too many sweets and fatty foods. The reptilian part of the brain, that is, the so called “gut instinct”, prefers simple answers and acn’t process the complex reality in which we are embedded. Bush’s simpleminded world-view appeals to simpleminded people. But it is killing us. It is like feeding chocolate to diabetics, instinct tells them it’s good even while it destroys them from the inside out.
bonniem Says: May 30th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
Wow, Anna, you are a really showing your ignorance in comment #23. Honey, you just have really gone off the deep end haven’t you. You Say that conservatives illegitimately stake a claim on something that is not rightfully ours? Tell me what that might be. You think conservatives don’t think or have compassion? You are really funny! No, “us little ol simple simons ” got together enough to think enough to elect Pres. Bush for another term unlike the people who follow the “Democrats” because they alway have and always will regardless who runs on their ticket. Talk about simple mind! No - I take that part back. There are some Democrats who don’t bother to call people they don’t agree with names. There are some Democrats who are smart enought to know that sometimes there are different views on different issues. So you keep thinking that all conservatives are lazy and give very little thot, Hon, and we will show you. You better get busy trying to find a candidate that can win, and instead of talking about the winners, try doing some thinking your self.
pizz Says: May 31st, 2005 at 12:20 am
That’s very good anna, but just a few notes:
Many of the articles you mention are open to interpretation. If you disagree with this you must also disagree with the liberal lawyers and judges who change the law by their own interpretation. Even laws that are not open to interpretation (Florida 2000).
Also, the war on terrorism, which includes Iraq (just for the fact that most of the people we’re fighting aren’t Iraqis), has absolutely nothing to do with the Geneva Convention. It clearly does not apply (do you know it actually mentions uniformed soldiers!).
As an example, let’s say that you are absolutely correct and we do everything strictly by how you interpret the law. When American civilians are being murdered all around you, is there a point where we fight to survive or does western civilization come to a willingly abrupt and violent end.
It may be an extreme example but I just want to get my point across.
When situations change, the laws also change. This happens on both sides of the fence, and rightfully so.
There is no other country in the world that spends as much money, time and resources (and solders) to avoid civilian deaths during wartime.
As for comment 23: temper, temper. Lets try to keep it civilized. You shouldn’t refer to people as an IT.
Please just try to give the US the benefit of the doubt instead of taking your lead from the liberal media (or whoever is whispering in your ear).
GOD bless. your friend, pizz
Joy Says: May 31st, 2005 at 7:33 am
Anna,
Please rein in that 15 year old attitude (you did say you’d be voting in 3 years, correct?).
As bonniem says, there are actually democrats who don’t resort to calling people who disagree with them names. They are good role models to emulate. Stereotyping does not help the intellect at all. You might want to notice that most ‘lazy’ conservatives worked their way to wherever they want to be, and that means everything from CEOs to homemakers. Now, before you attack CEOs, remember, there are also liberal CEOs.
I’m sure there are lazy conservatives as well as lazy liberals and lazy moderates.
Just a thought, I wonder which of the above categories most people holding signs begging for money are in? hmmmmmm
Anna Says: May 31st, 2005 at 3:07 pm
Bonniem, you had nothing to do with the election of Bush other than being an automaton programmed to push the Bush-Cheney button. You and your ilk are owned by entities that are too big and powerful for you to comprehend.
Suzanne Says: June 3rd, 2005 at 5:56 am
Buck,
The day or the night I posted my commentaries
I also did a lot of comments but they have never shown up, were they edited out or were they just lost, please let me know, or did I do something stupid like put in a photo or something like that
Suzanne
Bobby Says: July 17th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
DemocRATS have to go!!!! ALL OF THEM!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Jack Says: July 18th, 2005 at 2:07 am
Real intelligent there bobby. I’m sure you’ve been listening too much to mommy and daddy to realize the country needs both democrats and republicans otherwise there is an imbalance of power. I forget who said it, but I heard a great quote for some one that said, “the bad thing about a 2 party system is that you’re only 1 party away from tyranny”
Anna Says: July 18th, 2005 at 10:47 am
Bobby,
Everyone has to “go.” It’s a natural bodily process. So relax, we all poop and pee.
Shiva Says: July 21st, 2005 at 5:26 am
While just randomly browsing through blogs I ran into this one and found this particular article/argument interesting. My perspective is through the lens of someone fairly moderate and is a left-leaning libertarian. The following are merely observations through that lens.
1) I believe that you misunderstand the Schiavo case. Specifically in this case the federal government blatantly impinged on the rights of the state. Once the Florida Courts had decided this CASE (meaning something decided by a court) it should have been left at that. State’s rights means that our federal legislature doesn’t tell our state courts what to do.
2. During the Clinton administration, the Republican senate both when in the minority and majority acted to block nearly 70 of Clinton’s federal judicial appointments. Specifically, they used their chairmanship of the judiciary committee to never even consider the nominees either before the judiciary committee or the full senate. So much for an up and down vote.
3. Certainly if the democrats are controlled by the extreme left, I would agree that I strongly disagree with the Socialist Democrat types, then the Republicans are also heavily influenced by the extreme right. The religious right, specifically the Christian coalition, has only become more active and powerful in the last eight years. Additionally the Bush administration is one of the most conserative that our country has seen in 70 years. Even Republicans agree with that.
4. Personally I believe that neither party is dead and if that is true than another party will rise from the ashes (maybe the libertarians : )). People always desire change, there is always a backlash. Goverment is fallible and there will always be a need for opposition, regardless of what that is.
Bush LB Says: April 12th, 2006 at 6:02 am
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that democracy is dying simply because any one party is in control. That’s ludicrous. Instead, if you look at the actions/scandals… Last I looked, democracy wasn’t supposed to be about stealing money from them injuns. I sort of thought we decided that was wrong a LONG time ago…