The Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan wing of the Democratic party [View All]

[murdoch]

I have been watching corporate television and the conservative pundits on it seem to have a talking point where they talk about the Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan wing of the Democratic party. I guess by that they mean that Moore and Sheehan are way out there, and unconnected to the average American.

This never makes any sense to me. When I see Cindy Sheehan on TV, she seems like the most normal, average American woman I can think of. Michael Moore's father was an auto worker, and Moore was a dead-broke thirtysomething Midwesterner when he made his first documentary by maxing out his credit cards etc. They seem to be the most average, normal, everyday people you could meet. They also are usually articulating views which polls show the majority of the country supports - to end the war.

On the other hand when I look at Bush, I see someone whose father was a senator and president, whose father's father was a senator, who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had everything handed to him on a silver platter. He went to elite prep schools, got into the Ivy League as a legacy, and even after boozing for years was still handed millions by government largesse via connections. How come I never hear about the Bush wing of the Republican party? The Bush/Coors/Mellon Scaife/Olin/Walton wing of the Republican party? They are who is out of touch with the US.

The majority of workers in the US prefer the policies of the Democrats. The only way the Republicans win is by a method going back long in the US (as well as in the English parliament days). The method is many workers can't vote. In the 1960s it was blacks in the south who can't vote. Nowadays in California, one out of five people is an immigrant. They're allowed to work here, tacitly or not, but they can't vote, thus the two of five beats the three of five. All this means however is political change will have to take methods other than voting or political parties.