merrily
merrily's JournalMuch like 2010, BUT:
President Harry S. Truman, Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action, May 17, 1952
It is a real pleasure to speak before the national convention of the ADA--Americans for Democratic Action.
The ADA was set up in January 1947. Those were dark days for the liberal forces in America. But you people had the courage to take up the fight and go forward. You dedicated yourselves to fight for progress and against reaction--against reaction of the right and against reaction of the left.
(much material omitted)
Now, we can always rely on the Republicans to help us in an election year, but we can't count on them to do the whole job for us. We have got to go out and do some of it ourselves, if we expect to win.
The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it.
The record the Democratic Party has made in the last 20 years is the greatest political asset any party ever had in the history of the world. We would be foolish to throw it away. There is nothing our enemies would like better and nothing that would do more to help them win an election.
I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.
But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.
We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan horse suggestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the people handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party.
More than that, I don't believe they have the best interests of the American people at heart. There is something more important involved in our program than simply the success of a political party.
The rights and the welfare of millions of Americans are involved in the pledges made in the Democratic platform of 1948 and in the program of this administration. And those rights and interests must not be betrayed.
more at http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1296
Historians now rank Truman among the nation's best Presidents.
http://millercenter.org/president/truman/essays/biography/print
Have you one picked one up yet?
I have thought about this a lot. For one thing, picking up torches and pitchforks usually results in someone dying. Actually, a lot less than that. (Kent State.)
Things have to be pretty bad when death is a risk a civilian will take. Things had been very bad for that guy in Tunisia who self immolated over a few dollars that would have made the difference between his family eating that day or not, and not just very bad on that one day. That had been his life for a while and arbitrary and cruel police had made him give up all hope of improvement. Things have not been that bad in the US, at least not yet.
Besides, most of us believe we actually live in a democracy controlled by voting. As long as people cling to that illusion, they will not run out of hope that, if they only figure out how to do XYZ, things will get better. Either that, or they think "better" is impossible, anymore, no matter what. (New normal). So, what's the point?
The French court was in Versaille and the revolutionaries easily overcame the palace guard. Ditto the Tsar's security force. Wanna test what would happen if a mob tried to rush city hall, or a state house, or the White House? Or even David Koch's house?
Pitchforks don't do a lot against today's weapons--and we KNOW the militarized cops and the military will use today's weapons on us, if push comes to shove. We know that because they'ved used them on us, even if push wasn't within shouting distance of shove.
Russian revolutions failed until World War I convinced the Russian military to join the peasants. Notice any organized effort on the part of the left to win over cops and the military? And, with all the carefully cultivated and nurtured divisiveness between left and right, how do you think that effort would go, given that cops and military tend to lean right these days--firefighters, too. Their unions lean left, but the union members lean right.
The geography of the US is not conducive to organizing and massing across the nation. And, if we try, the NSA will make sure it's nipped it in the bud.
Etc.
Oh, and the only people unarmed and clueless about weapons will be most of the left, including me. That's okay for me because I would never try to hurt anyone anyway. Non violent bleeding heart liberal all the way. I couldn't live with myself.
My only equipment would be defensive. Then again, I keep talking about buying a bulletproof vest and I have not even done that yet.
Winger Hiller said this morning that NO ONE know who is going to win the primary, "much as
you might think you know." This may be the first time that I agree with him.
Except for the Globe poll, which was an outlier, all the polls have been within the margin of error. GOTV will make the difference. So will showing up early in the morning at a polling place and, at the required distance (150 feet) doing "signs and smiles." In my polling place, the voting booths are deep inside a building, so standing right outside the door to the building meets the requirement. More info: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/cmr/cmrtext/950CMR53.pdf
It's not too late:
3. Election Day Reminders
Another cost-efficient campaign sign tactic is to get campaign workers or volunteers to stand on busy street corners reminding people to vote on the day of the election. As we mentioned earlier in this post, an academic study in New York City found that when volunteers held up three large “vote today” signs, voter turnout increased by 3.5 percent. This technique will be most beneficial when signs are positioned in areas with high concentrations of likely supporters.
http://www.signs.com/blog/do-political-signs-work-running-an-effective-legal-sign-campaign/#ixzz3HRpblWkO
Contact massdems.org for more info about signs. http://massdems.org/contact/
In 2008, Baker won an award for OFFSHORING JOBS and promises to expand charter schools.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/jobs-boast-deflated-by-outsourcing-award-343217731519Apparently, this is his idea of how you create and/or save jobs in Massachusetts--send them to other countries. then triple the salary of the Massachusetts CEO, in this case, him. If there was ever a more classic case of the 10% vs. 90%, it was probably the last Republican Governor of Massachusetts, aka the bane of Massachusetts.
Baker's response is to express disappointment in Coakley's negative campaign because, you know, as Colbert so nicely proved, the PAC that's been hitting Coakley again and again for months has nothing to to with Baker. In pure and hypocritical theory, anyway.
I certainly cannot fault only Republicans for charter schools, but his plan for improving education in Massachusetts is to expand charter schools, aka private profits, public funding. Meanwhile, he'll cut state funding for education while giving more to the job craters (sic). (Remember Fidelity helping itself to state aid, while on its way OUT of Massachusetts?) Um, NO thanks.
Please see also this excellent post in this forum by JDDavis. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10571908
The Boston Globe has endorsed Baker.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/10/26/charlie-baker-for-governor/r4Yymw55jVr20D53EhUIkK/story.htmlThe Globe is also showing Baker nine points up.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/23/baker-pulling-away-from-coakley-new-poll/t1UAIVNm4FWE9i31bf6YTM/story.html
Other polls are within the margin of error, but Coakley is not ahead in any of them and the Globe's is the most recent.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/governor/ma/massachusetts_governor_baker_vs_coakley-3266.html
And, I imagine the Globe endorsement is going to kick him up at least a tick.
I don't often wish I had been dead wrong, but this is one of them. She is not a good candidate.
All that said, NEVER give up on an election. Schumer said Sunday that the ground game alone is worth several points that do not show up in the polls.
Vote and GOTV.
Stonehill debate cancelled, apparently because Indies were included.
The debate in Worcester was held, after indies were disinvited, but Baker and Coakley would not participate in the Stonehill debate, where Indies Falchuk, McCormick and Pastor Lively were welcome--until the debate was cancelled entirely.
I guess, in the shoes of Baker and Coakley, I might have done the same. Maybe. However, how likely is it that one of the Indies would overtake either Baker or Coakley? Do we fear ideas that much? And who suffers? Only the people who want to hear from everyone.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/10/stonehill_college_gubernatoria.html
GOOD time to help Martha Coakley; also Hillary coming.
Baker is doing much too well for my taste and his war chest and fundraising are both surpassing Martha's.
(I heard the above on WBZ this morning. Sorry, too preoccupied right now to google for a link. )
If you'd rather not re-visit the Romney years, this is the time to pitch in with money and/or volunteer efforts, whatever you can do, esp GOTV.
Also heard this morning, Hillary will be at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston this Friday, October 24, stumping for Martha. Admission is free, but you need to get a ticket from the Coakley campaign.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/17/hillary-clinton-stump-for-martha-coakley-boston/D9iOVGu8CyV4bsUAZca4AN/story.html?hootPostID=78fc986ee9afddc84b7b51335109e5dd
(If you recall, during the Democratic primary for Ted Kennedy's seat, Bubba campaigned for Martha. At the time, it was said that was in return for Martha's work in Massachusetts for Hillary in the 2008 primary, which Hillary won quite handily in Massachusetts. Knowing she would, I voted for Obama anyway.)
Daily Show: Kansas Republican Group opposes Brownback, backs Davis (D)
Turns out, if you give job creators in Kansas tax cuts, they don't hire people they don't need and they don't necessarily create jobs. They just "pocket the money." And the state economy goes to hell in a handbasket and, of course, schools are among the first suffer because all that bloviating about cutting fraud and waste never comes to fruition. Who knew?
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/6sn82w/sam-brownback-s-conservative-kansas-experiment
Under conservative assault, the Vatican backtracks on gay comments
Source: CNN
Rome (CNN) -- Under furious assault from conservative Catholics, the Vatican backtracked Tuesday on its surprisingly positive assessment of gays and same-sex relationships.
In a report Monday, the Vatican had said that gays and lesbians have "gifts to offer" the Christian community and acknowledged that same-sex couples can give "precious support" to one other.
The statement, an interim report from a closely watched meeting of Catholic clergy here, was widely praised by liberals. It is believed to be the first time the Vatican has said anything positive about gay relationships.
........
But many conservatives complained that the statement watered down church teaching and did not accurately reflect their discussions here, where nearly 200 Catholic leaders are meeting to debate pastoral approaches to modern family life.
One South African cardinal called Monday's statement, which also included positive language about unmarried couples who cohabitate, "irredeemable."
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/14/world/vatican-backtrack-gays/index.html
Damn!
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AMNumber of posts: 45,251
