What it Really Means to be a Democrat
It is a hard task to be a true Democrat. We defend the rights of free speech and believe in it.
We are fighters and have died for our country. We do not take for granted our liberties and will march in the streets to protect them.
We believe that ALL people have rights and that is what this country was founded on and we embrace it. We think that ALL children should have good schools and we as a nation should keep our children healthy even the poor ones.
We think the government should help our poor and middle class and train people to work.
Our seniors need help with Social Security and presciption drug programs.
Why is it wrong to be a liberal? Is it natural for our society to be so conservative? Are we really a conservative nation? Don't we want to help the poor and middle class with things like healthcare and education?
I asked one of my Republican friends why he hated Hillary so much. The only thing he came up with was that she was ruthless. Of course, Guilliani isn't ruthless and neither is Romney.
Another one said she should have left Bill. Is that what family values is all about?
Where are our values? Let's fix up this country. We can do it. It begins with us. Of course it should begin with our leaders. If I can find one in both parties I would be happy.
posted by Sandy Trupp @ 8:52 AM
9 Comments:
We have a leader and it is our president. He is the leader of the free world. And he is a good and thoughtful person. We should be proud of him. We have ben a free country and terror free since 9/11.
The difference betrween Dems and Repubs is that one will never say they are sorry and the other will say it too soon. Can you guess which one?
My own philosophy is indepedent. Independent from a label - I may be registered as one thing, but don't believe in so-called "party lines." There are good Democrats and good Republicans. Well-meaning people who want to serve. But I take issue with "conservative" being misconstrued as destructive to the elderly, education and children. I also take issue with "free speech" being touted in the commentary as though it is something Democrats protect. Most conservatives would die to protect a liberal's right to free speech. Rabid liberals are name callers - nasty and vitriolic, period. I adore a good bout with someone who finds themselves on the opposite side of my beliefs, but I don't attack them. Unless you're a liberal, other liberals are very myopic about who should enjoy free speech.
Has annonymous ever listened to oh.. let's say Rush or Sean Hannity? Or Ann Coulter?
There is nothing better than a good debate and I agree many and maybe even most conservatives would protect the right to free speech, but please, don't think they are all well-mannered.
Whatever happened to just being a good American? Realizing that with every person in this country, there could be a different definition, I still find it disconerting that we're more worried about defining what makes a good Dem (or a good Republican,for that matter). What we need are people who believe in the basics. Restoration of our borders, a solid economy, mechanisms (not over governance) toward better, more responsive healthcare for all (there are plenty of middle class workers who can't afford it - it's not just a "poor" person's issue), alternative fuel research and support -- so the question is not which party can deliver that, but which American can.
With respect to the person who mentioned Ann Coulter (who, somewhere over the last decade, completely lost all sense of reality), I'm talking about the average, garden variety liberal. I've witnessed recent conversations with people who can't have a civil conversation with a moderate. Not ALL liberals are this way, but in cocktail party conversation, I've met an over-abundance of hysterical, over-the-top individuals who are outraged to think that anyone would not share their personal perspective in goose-step fashion. They resort to name-calling (mostly about the current Administration or anyone linked to them). The "spewage" is rather tasteless, misplaced and lowbrow. It doesn't convince me to 'be on their side'- in fact, it makes the edges of my mouth curl in a smile because it brings to light the bitter intolerance that many liberals have for anyone who disagrees with them. Sad, really. I would rather have a civilized discussion about our differences and dispence with the theatrics.
Since when is it the government's responsibility to train people to work? Free society provides the opportunity for all people to take advantage of a free education, at least through high school. After that, opportunities reveal themselves in many ways for training - on the job, college, tech schools. But our success is directly linked to our own choices.
The politics of divide and conquer, of wedge issues, of "political morality," and so much other tactical babble has not served us well. We offer up bumper stickers in place of ideas. Liberal? Conservative? How did these constructs get into the mix? As a nation are we really so simplistic? At the risk of sounding entirely insane, I suggest we might be better off to view our society as a collective, organic and very human accomplishment, held together by an ideal of some greater good and the will to achieve it as an ongoing responsibility.
I am personally tired of both sides, of the name calling and nothing getting done. This country is more polarized than ever and it is impacting everyone in a negative way. This President isn't a true Republican. He's for hands-on government with a "Father Knows Best" type of mentality. It's frightening. Most Democrats will down Bush while most Republicans are still talking about Bill Clinton. I don't want to hear anymore about how awful Bush is. We get it. I want to hear the specific solutions that the Democrats are offering. As for Bill Clinton had an affair in the oval office about 10 years ago. Disgraceful, yes? But you don't think Bush has probably had one or like most men? What is more shameful-dragging kids into war and trading oil for blood or hooking up with another consenting adult while married? Both are morally wrong but one polluted the world. I want to see this country move forward.
First we have to clean up the mess of the past 8 years and then we have to move forward with a government that helps to provide but does not create dependence. It's easier for a poor mother to sit home and collect welfare than it is for her to get out there and get education. Why can't she be rewarded for trying to improve herself and get more education? What about those types of programs? What about rewarding people who are working and keeping the minimum salary consistent with the true cost of living in this country? I really don't see why we can't have some reasonable standards of assistance, but continue to reward work, creativity and entreprenurship? Why does it have to be one or the other? We can have a strong thriving business community without throwing the poor to the wolves but yet not having everyone be dependent on the government.
I know two Republicans who were fine with saying that there shouldn't be these type of programs until both of them had emergency circumstances where they needed some help and got WIC and assistance when they needed it. They are both hardworking people and were able to pick themselves up for the most part but still needed a little help. They didn't sit around and collect help but used it when they needed it and moved on. Still, they voted for people in office who would have had that help taken away. One of these people has fallen into a category where she technically makes too much money to get help, yet can't provide with what she makes. She wants to go back to school but how is she supposed to do that if she can't afford care for her children while she's in school or tuition? We all make mistakes and choices and for many circumstances, it is our own doing. But sometimes there are other things that happen. A lost job from corporate america, (50,000 people from Citbank were let go today), a husband that leaves you abandoned, going bankrupt because you had a health crisis, etc. It's easy to point fingers but most of this country is one paycheck away from disaster.
I maintain my moderate status as an Independent because I find the truth not so black and white as the parties do. I want to see a strong country that is fighting terrorism and has strong security in addition to an excellent education system, good healthcare, safe communities, and a strong economy. Why does it have to be one or the other?
Post a Comment
<< Home