Spineless Democrats? Strategery? We Report. You Decide!

[midwinter]

Here's the Democrat roll call on the Rice confirmation:

Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

I've said before, and I'll say again: the Democratic Party is badly in need of insurgents. It is badly in need of getting people to toe the line. Why on Earth would these people piss and moan about Rice for days? Why force the debate just to say "Meh. I guess I'll confirm!"

Today, the Democrats did more than ever to drive me out of the party.

Harumph.

[johnq]

B-b-b-ut she's black. And female. And (as if it is an incredibly unusual confluence of attributes) smart.

You can't not support a "smart" black female and still call yourself a Democrat.

This is the definition of being hoist by one's own petard.

That they can't criticize her and follow through with it based on her actions and words alone, is sad.

"First black female as Secretary of State" in the history books is more important than having a good, honest Secretary of State.

Roll over, there's a good Democrat. Good boyyyyyy...

(Note, I'm a democrat. That is, before I decide to leave this sinking ship of a country).

[midwinter]

And another thing...

If I hear one more damned Democrat on a talk show talking about how the party needs to package its message in a way that will appeal to Joe Six-Pack and Sally Soccer Mom, I'm going to puke.

Two things:

1) If you're going to treat your message as little more than a marketing exercise, DON'T ADVERTISE THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING!!!

2) Why don't you figure out what Joe Six-Pack and Sally Soccer Mom care about and take a stand on some things that will help them?

Ugh.

[e1618978]

The interesting thing to me is the Republicans seem to
be a lot more open to minority cabinet members than
the Democrats have ever been.

Perhaps the minorities have been backing the wrong
horse all these years?

[bborofka]

Howard Dean for DNC Chair.

[addabox]

Originally posted by e1618978
The interesting thing to me is the Republicans seem to
be a lot more open to minority cabinet members than
the Democrats have ever been.

Perhaps the minorities have been backing the wrong
horse all these years?

Of course. Because an incompetent ideologically blinkered black woman at State more than compensates for the destruction of affirmative action, deep cuts in programs like Head Start and the systematic efforts to disenfranchise black voters in swing states. I'm surprised the Negroes haven't figured it out.

By the way, what's up with your formatting? All your posts come out with 10 word lines that stack up in lengthy columns.

[johnq]

Originally posted by addabox
By the way, what's up with your formatting? All your posts come out with 10 word lines that stack up in lengthy columns.

Easier to read narrow columns than wider ones.

Read "Better Type" by Betty Binns (http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?stext=Better+Type+Betty+Binns&ph=2&image.y=0&image.x=0&sby=key&sts=t)

[addabox]

Originally posted by johnq
Easier to read narrow columns than wider ones.

Read "Better Type" by Betty Binns (http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?stext=Better+Type+Betty+Binns&ph=2&image.y=0&image.x=0&sby=key&sts=t)

Interesting. I imagined you were posting from small hand held device. Thanks for the referral, I'll take a look.

[johnq]

Originally posted by addabox
Interesting. I imagined you were posting from small hand held device. Thanks for the referral, I'll take a look.

Not me, e1618978. :D Anyway, that's my guess. ;)

Either that or he/she's over 50 and thinks they need to hit Carriage Return. ;)

[addabox]

Well, it does kind of make everything read like haiku....

Maybe I should give it a go:

As always you have managed to reach
a new low in the history of discourse and
words cannot describe my contempt for
your hideous ideology, you insufferable
self satisfied pig of a man.

Hey! That dresses things up nicely!

[johnq]

Originally posted by addabox
Well, it does kind of make everything read like haiku....

Right, and annoying incorrect haiku at that. :)

[e1618978]

Originally posted by johnq
Right, and annoying incorrect haiku at that. :)

I write this way because I am afraid of the 80 character
auto wrap - you never know when it will hit you.

Most of my typing is C++ code in 80 character wide
windows - if you use really wide windows and fill up
the lines, somebody else will complain when they try
to look at the same file with a standard window.
Also, you can really get messed up by auto-wrap
in emails - formatted text tables get really messed up.

Plus, I just like the way it looks - it just feels right.

Anyway - let me phrase my earlier point a little differently.
It sure is too bad the Democrats didn't have a lot of
minority cabinet positions in earlier presidencies, because
then they would not now be stuck between a rock (approving
Rice) and a hard spot (making minority voters mad, causing
them to vote Republican).

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
Anyway - let me phrase my earlier point a little differently.
It sure is too bad the Democrats didn't have a lot of
minority cabinet positions in earlier presidencies, because
then they would not now be stuck between a rock (approving
Rice) and a hard spot (making minority voters mad, causing
them to vote Republican). [/B]

Actually, the shame is that the Democrats haven't realized that they and the Republicans aren't even playing the same damned game.

If the Democrats were smart (which they're clearly not), they'd start voting against these whacko minority candidates like Rice and Gonzales and, if anyone complains, they'd shove this down their throats and make them choke on it: it is absurd, and even perhaps racist, to think that all minorities are politically the same. We're voting for politics, not race.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, the shame is that the Democrats haven't realized that they and the Republicans aren't even playing the same damned game.

If the Democrats were smart (which they're clearly not), they'd start voting against these whacko minority candidates like Rice and Gonzales and, if anyone complains, they'd shove this down their throats and make them choke on it: it is absurd, and even perhaps racist, to think that all minorities are politically the same. We're voting for politics, not race.

If I was Black or Latino, I would damn sure notice when "my"
political party was much whiter than the other party. The
democrats must be taking race into account more often
than the republicans when promoting new leaders to the
top ranks.

I honestly believe that Bush is promoting the people he thinks
are best, regardless of race or sex, and I respect him for
that.

[hardeeharhar]

midwinter for pres. 2008.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
midwinter for pres. 2008.

Don't tempt me. I'm eligible in 2008, and my narrative is killer. ;)

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
If I was Black or Latino, I would damn sure notice when "my" political party was much whiter than the other party.

By that same logic, if I were a white conservative, I'd damn sure notice when my political party was looking less and less like me.

Sound good to you?

The democrats must be taking race into account more often than the republicans when promoting new leaders to the top ranks.

I think they're taking it into account just as much as the Republicans are now. The difference is that now, the Republicans are beating the Democrats over the head with outrageous minority candidates and the Democrats are too cowardly to vote against them.

I honestly believe that Bush is promoting the people he thinks are best, regardless of race or sex, and I respect him for that. [/B]

I honestly believe that Bush is promoting the people he thinks are the best and who put the Democrats in the most difficult position to vote against.

[hardeeharhar]

I think that Bush is actually choosing people based solely on their support of his policies. He can literally get anyone past congress, karl rove has the repubs that well ordered.

[Scott]

For those that don't get it the reason these Democrats voted to confirm Rice is because Bush won and he gets to pick who he wants. The Legislature doesn't get to pick the people that work the closest with the President.

[Kishan]

Originally posted by midwinter

I've said before, and I'll say again: the Democratic Party is badly in need of insurgents. It is badly in need of getting people to toe the line. Why on Earth would these people piss and moan about Rice for days? Why force the debate just to say "Meh. I guess I'll confirm!"

Today, the Democrats did more than ever to drive me out of the party.

Harumph.

I hear you... as far as I am concerned, the last good democrat "insurgent" was Paul Wellstone. Say what you want about the plane crash that killed him and some staffers (one a fraternity brother of mine), I think the Bushies had him killed.

[THT]

Well, midwinter, in today's world, you could start a blog and campaign for all the incumbant Democrats to be voted out during the primaries. :) That and sarcasm. Lots of sarcasm and namecalling. ;)

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
By that same logic, if I were a white conservative, I'd damn sure notice when my political party was looking less and less like me.

I don't think that most white repubicans would have
a problem with that, and it is probably very nice
for them to be the more racially progressive party -
given the (mostly false) stereotypes of "red states".

[Aurora]

As many have stated its the Presidents game and with Republicans running all branches they better behave! There i said it. But with that stated the Demo's are a confused party who dont seem to stand for God,Gun,and Applepie. Thats a bad formula for the growing S.east and Midwest. As many things as George has screwed up the past 4 years it was the democrats election to loose and they did. Demo's have lots of problems and remember what happened with Mr Opposite (Tom Daschle).tread lightly when you run nothing because at the moment the demo's run nothing.

[johnq]

Originally posted by Aurora
As many have stated its the Presidents game and with Republicans running all branches they better behave! There i said it. But with that stated the Demo's are a confused party who dont seem to stand for God,Gun,and Applepie. Thats a bad formula for the growing S.east and Midwest. As many things as George has screwed up the past 4 years it was the democrats election to loose and they did. Demo's have lots of problems and remember what happened with Mr Opposite (Tom Daschle).tread lightly when you run nothing because at the moment the demo's run nothing.

For all the God, Guns, and Applepies, Bush sure as hell isn't doing them any favors by letting the Mexico border be wide open. Wake up, he wants cheap labor for his big business cronies. The words "jobs that Americans don't want to do" is an abomination and should never come from ANY U.S. President. <spit>

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Scott
For those that don't get it the reason these Democrats voted to confirm Rice is because Bush won and he gets to pick who he wants. The Legislature doesn't get to pick the people that work the closest with the President.

Quite correct. The senate isn't stupid enough to fight Cabinet positions. Doing so would be the equivalent of nuclear war. The president has every right to expect cabinet members who are on his side because these people work for him. Even if Dems had a majority in the senate, they would never force their person on the president. As it is, they don't have a majority so trying would inevitably fail as trying would unify the republicans in the senate.

Either way, I was amazed to see the Dems shooting themselves in the foot by making their opposition to Condi front page news. Please tell me that all the dems who voted against her weren't white. No, I don't think that their opposition to her was racial, but it would look plain ugly and there are probably people who might confuse conscience or politics with racism.

Karl Rove was probably chuckling when Boxer and Kerry voted against. Boxer... man I hate my senator...

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by johnq
For all the God, Guns, and Applepies, Bush sure as hell isn't doing them any favors by letting the Mexico border be wide open. Wake up, he wants cheap labor for his big business cronies. The words "jobs that Americans don't want to do" is an abomination and should never come from ANY U.S. President. <spit>

Bush would like to make immigrant visas that allow "illegals" to legally work in the states for a time and then to return. FYI, people of Mexico are in favor of this because working here pays quite well and is a quick way to make alot of money for bcak home. You aren't exploiting someone if you are paying them well.

Jobs that Americans don't want to do? I assume that you are an experienced fruit picker? Perhaps you are a professional housekeeper? I've lived in the barrios of SoCal where my neighbors are illegal immigrants and I can say that there are normal jobs that Americans won't do. There are jobs that Americans don't want to do because we look down on them, or they don't pay well. However for people who don't really plan on moving to Beverly hills and are just here to send money back to their families, these jobs are a godsend.

Yes there is exploitation in these jobs, but if Bush removes the illegal status from these people, you can't exploit them nearly as easy because they can seek legal counsel without fear of being deported. By legitimizing what everyone is doing you can regulate it. It isn't as if Illegal immigration is destroying people's lives- it plays a constructive role in our society, but it is all under the radar which is inefficient.

So yeah, I am a republican who is in favor of granting special visa status to illegals.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by addabox
Of course. Because an incompetent ideologically blinkered black woman at State more than compensates for the destruction of affirmative action, deep cuts in programs like Head Start and the systematic efforts to disenfranchise black voters in swing states. I'm surprised the Negroes haven't figured it out.

^^^^^
The irony of calling someone ideologically blinkered when their own post demonstrates it.

Sad.
Nick

[pfflam]

Originally posted by addabox
Well, it does kind of make everything read like haiku....

Maybe I should give it a go:

As always you have managed to reach
a new low in the history of discourse and
words cannot describe my contempt for
your hideous ideology, you insufferable
self satisfied pig of a man.

Hey! That dresses things up nicely! How much better if it were in rhyming iambic pentameter

As always you have managed to reach
a low no history teacher could teach
Such contempt no words I can convey
of your insufferable, hideous ideologey ;)
Pleasure find, I know I can
when I call you a self satisfied pig-man

um . . . . ?
;)

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, the shame is that the Democrats haven't realized that they and the Republicans aren't even playing the same damned game.

If the Democrats were smart (which they're clearly not), they'd start voting against these whacko minority candidates like Rice and Gonzales and, if anyone complains, they'd shove this down their throats and make them choke on it: it is absurd, and even perhaps racist, to think that all minorities are politically the same. We're voting for politics, not race.

So basically they should do what Republicans have been doing for years and being called racists for at every turn.

Of course maybe one day the Democratic party and people in it will realize that an ideological disagreement doesn't equal stupidity, ignorance, or incompetence.

What is sad Mid is that your own thinking contributes to this problem. When anyone who disagrees with you must be "stupid", it makes not only consideration of any new ideals impossible, it also makes it impossible to win people over to your own ideals since you show contempt for their lack of agreement.

Nick

[e1618978]

Originally posted by addabox
Well, it does kind of make everything read like haiku....

Maybe I should give it a go:

As always you have managed to reach
a new low in the history of discourse and
words cannot describe my contempt for
your hideous ideology, you insufferable
self satisfied pig of a man.

Hey! That dresses things up nicely!

If I couldn't respond rationally,
and I had to "win", I might
resort to this kind of thing, also.

I forgive you, and it makes me
feel very self satisfied to do so.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by bborofka
Howard Dean for DNC Chair.

I agree - I would have voted Democrat if Howard
Dean was the nominee. Why they picked Kerry
I'll never know.

That funny noise he made made no difference to
me at all. That is one of the problems with
American politics - why do people care about
stuff like that?

[e1618978]

It isn't as if Illegal immigration is destroying people's lives- it plays a constructive role in our society, but it is all under the radar which is inefficient.

So yeah, I am a republican who is in favor of granting special visa status to illegals. [/B]

I think that we should allow unlimited access for
people with no criminal record to come and
work here (for as long as they like). If we
let the dept of immigration concentrate *only*
on criminals and terrorists, I think that they
would be more effective.

You could get this to work if you denied
social safety blanket type benefits to non-citizens,
and made peopel citizens automatically after
they were here for 20 years.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
So basically they should do what Republicans have been doing for years and being called racists for at every turn.

Yes. And notice how the Republicans managed, under Bush, to completely destroy the race argument by using hoisting Democrats up by their own petards?

Of course maybe one day the Democratic party and people in it will realize that an ideological disagreement doesn't equal stupidity, ignorance, or incompetence.

I'd just settle for some good, old-fashioned ideological disagreement, which I don't see much of from the Democrats.

What is sad Mid is that your own thinking contributes to this problem.

Huh? I want Democrats who are Democrats and not right-leaning centrists. I want Democrats who stand for SOMETHING other than not being Republicans. I want Democrats who will stop cowering in the corner every time the Republicans do something. I want Democrats, especially senators, who realize that every time they say one thing in a speech and vote another way, the Republicans will rightly shove it down their throats.

When anyone who disagrees with you must be "stupid", it makes not only consideration of any new ideals impossible, it also makes it impossible to win people over to your own ideals since you show contempt for their lack of agreement.

Where did I say people who disagreed with me are stupid?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Exactly. We
want a
*more* principled
Democratic party.
That means
calling out
the racists
where they
exist. And
it also
means Joe
Biden style
rants on
Donald Rumsfeld,
who he
called "incompetent,"
I believe.
Does not
excuse him
for voting
for Rice,
however.

The
Democrats
need
to
welcome
all
criticisim
because
they
will
never
win
again
unless
they
change
to
be
a
better
party

[pfflam]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Exactly. We
want a
*more* principled
Democratic party.
That means
calling out
the racists
where they
exist. And
it also
means Joe
Biden style
rants on
Donald Rumsfeld,
who he
called "incompetent,"
I believe.
Does not
excuse him
for voting
for Rice,
however. T
h
a
t
"
s

r
i
g
h
t
,

a
nd

t
o

b
e
a
t

a

d
e
a
d

h
o
r
s
e
,

s
o

t
o

s
p
e
a
k.

-
j
u
s
t

h
a
d

t
o
b
e

d
o
n
e
,

,

,

,

n
'
e
s
t

p
a
s
?
!

;)

[BRussell]

This thread might have the longest page 1 of any thread in AI history.

[addabox]

(wipes tear from eye)

I have never been so proud to be a member of this esteemed group......

[e1618978]

So the democrats are in trouble,
they could potentially lose a lot
of minority votes for two reasons:

1. The cabinet appointments, and the
appearance that the republicans are
friendlier to non-gay minorities.

2. The heavy christian connection, which
appeals to the vast majority of minorities
that are christian (esp African Americans
and Latin Americans).

What changes could the democrats make
to re-gain a majority? I don't think that
re-packaging (marketing) their same platform
will work.

[johnq]

Originally posted by Yevgeny

Jobs that Americans don't want to do? I assume that you are an experienced fruit picker? Perhaps you are a professional housekeeper? I've lived in the barrios of SoCal where my neighbors are illegal immigrants and I can say that there are normal jobs that Americans won't do. There are jobs that Americans don't want to do because we look down on them, or they don't pay well. However for people who don't really plan on moving to Beverly hills and are just here to send money back to their families, these jobs are a godsend.

Yes there is exploitation in these jobs, but if Bush removes the illegal status from these people, you can't exploit them nearly as easy because they can seek legal counsel without fear of being deported. By legitimizing what everyone is doing you can regulate it. It isn't as if Illegal immigration is destroying people's lives- it plays a constructive role in our society, but it is all under the radar which is inefficient.

So yeah, I am a republican who is in favor of granting special visa status to illegals.

Look, jobs pay less now because companies can just hire illegal aliens (no quotes needed). Americans find themselves not only unable to get good or high paying jobs, but they also now have competition for the low paying jobs.

"Americans" isn't a code word for "white middle class", either. A Mexican American now has more competition from illegal aliens too. They are effectively punished for having come here legally and for waiting and going by the rules.

We don't live in a borderless utopia, our economies are not set up for massive migrations. Borders do matter. Proper immigration limits and regulations do matter.

Look at developing nations. Thailand for example has stringent rules against foreigners working illegally. If I work there illegally I go to jail, and some of the worst jails on the planet. Why do they do this? Are they "racist"? No. They are sovereign. A government's duty is to manage resources for it's people, establish healthy limits for immigration, maintain a healthy economy.

Here in the U.S., today, it is a race to the bottom for wages.

Originally posted by Yevgeny Bush would like to make immigrant visas that allow "illegals" to legally work in the states for a time and then to return. FYI, people of Mexico are in favor of this because working here pays quite well and is a quick way to make alot of money for bcak home. You aren't exploiting someone if you are paying them well.

Bush. Is. Not. President. Of. Mexico.

How easy that is to forget, it seems.

Anyway, there are no "jobs that Americans won't do" but how is a kid that is getting out of college with a computer science degree going to decide to be a fruit picker or janitor? They aren't until they have no choice. There is a bufferzone of a few years for the vast middle class, with many people coasting by on their parents money or savings or taking lesser paying jobs but still roughly within their chosen career path that they don't yet "need" to really take the hit and go for the really low paying jobs. But when that time comes (and it is coming fast and hard), you -will- see people vying for the so-called "shit-jobs" or "McJobs". When that happens there will truly be a clash and hopefully I won't be anywhere near it.

It's not that Americans "don't want the low paying jobs", it's that they can't afford yet to take them. They are born into an economy that was comparatively robust, so their lives have various things like cars, houses, family, that need paying for but only from middle-high incomes. You can't pay for that stuff -and- have a low paying job without also having 16 people living in your house living communally.

I'm not even talking about people with mansions and Hummers and plasma TVs, I mean regular folk.

The bottom will drop out, soon, and you will see "Americans" (that is non-Mexican nationals) doing a lot of the manual labor or at least desperately vying for the work (any work).

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
What changes could the democrats make
to re-gain a majority? I don't think that
re-packaging (marketing) their same platform
will work.

Bingo. The Democrats don't need to repackage a platform. They NEED a platform. I want to see Dems who actually care about labor. I want to see Dems who actually care about the poor. About real education reform.

Personally, I'd like to see them drop the gun stuff and distance themselves from the fringe elements of liberalism.

As I said earlier, I want Dems who actually think about what Joe Six-pack is concerned about and DO SOMETHING to help him.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
Yes. And notice how the Republicans managed, under Bush, to completely destroy the race argument by using hoisting Democrats up by their own petards?

I don't think the race argument has been destroyed. Republicans do not capture majorities of any minority group of which I am aware. I don't see the NAACP running ads associating Democratic candidates with hate crimes and having it be treated in a credible manner. There are plenty of people for whom the Republican party has been associated with racism because of baiting tactics.

I'd just settle for some good, old-fashioned ideological disagreement, which I don't see much of from the Democrats.

I'll grant that you are one of the few that seem capable of discussion without claiming the other person involved is evil, stupid, etc. However as plainly evidenced around here and in the political world in general, that is clearly not the norm.

Huh? I want Democrats who are Democrats and not right-leaning centrists. I want Democrats who stand for SOMETHING other than not being Republicans. I want Democrats who will stop cowering in the corner every time the Republicans do something. I want Democrats, especially senators, who realize that every time they say one thing in a speech and vote another way, the Republicans will rightly shove it down their throats.

Ideals are ideals and people don't have to line up uniformly on all of them.

I started off pretty purely Republican. However as the years roll on, (and especially as the deficits pile up) I find myself leaning more and more libertarian but there are certain areas (like borders) where I can't drink the full kool-aid as it were.

When I hear these discussions take place on the Republican side, I don't hear the disagreements turned into personal shortcomings. If Lieberman isn't a Democrat then what is John McCain with regard to Republicanism. Yet you don't see Republicans attempt to destroy McCain personally just to have another candidate win for example. McCain comes out just as strong as before, but happens to be the losing candidate. Does that mean he could win in the future? Who knows but the point is that the political fights don't end up with politically dead candidates who have had their throats slit over ideology.

I'm not claiming the Republicans are perfect at this, but it seems like they are less likely to eat and kill their own.

Where did I say people who disagreed with me are stupid?

I didn't mean to imply you exclusively. However the tone of discussion sometimes suggests that those who disagree must do so out of a lack of something rather than just a different value system.

Nick

[johnq]

Off-topic perhaps, forgive me ;)

What pains me is the inextricable linkage that certain people create between matters of immigration/economics and racial matters.

When one complains about jobs being outsourced to wherever (say, India) one is then labeled a racist/xenophobe.

When one complains about jobs being given to illegal aliens (say, Mexicans) one is then again labeled a racist/xenophobe.

However, when I argue against both, I do so with an eye towards the long-term welfare of all involved.

Look, in 1999, an Indian programmer could come to the U.S. on an H1B visa and get a very good job for a year or so. They would make $60,000-100,000 easily. They could then either begin the legal immigration process, or go home if they choose, all the richer. That was great. Those are the Good Old Days.

They could go back home and begin their own companies locally or stay here and get further education or bring their families here in style. They were working alongside American workers, and enriching the workplace and country overall. There was a co-existence and everyone benefitted. Companies profited from the expertise the immigrants brought, long term American workers benefitted from having fellow experts filling in the gaps and making the work easier.

Fast forward to today.

Now, companies say "screw the H1B". Don't come here, we'll go to your country instead. That way you can live there, we can pay you far, far less. The Indian worker then doesn't have the benefit of traveling to the U.S. (or indeed the E.U. or Canada, somewhat). The companies then benefit from lax labor laws local to the new country they are in. The Indian worker now has perhaps only $30,000 or even $15,000 for the same work she made $100,000 at a few years ago.

Even worse, now they can't afford to start their own companies, plus they'd just face more competition from international companies that are setting up shop. Sure, in the very short-term, there's profits to be made. Yes, $10,000 is better than $300. But the "foreign" worker, that is, say the Indian worker, their pay is only going to go down and down, because if the game is low price at all costs, then they certainly can't expect wages to increase.

Simultaneously, in the U.S. for example, now workers not only can't get paid more over time, or the same or even at all, since many companies have outright left the U.S., or at least have had massive reductions.

Yes, this superficially pits "Americans" vs. "Indians" (or any other country typically outsourced to) but this is not fundamentally a racial or xenophobic issue. Bothering with such distractions and falling for that trap just makes things worse, for all workers worldwide.

Think of it. The game is "lowest price at all costs". Ok, we set up shop somewhere else. "These people" over here cost the least. Oops, time passes and now they want rights, they strike, they want raises, their government starts taxing too much, etc. We'll just move elsewhere. No country, no economy, no people are safe from this. It's like a malignant game of hopscotch and only CEOs and government fat cats get richer, and the odd shareholder that invests regardless of a companies ethics.

[e1618978]

Now, companies say "screw the H1B", etc. [/B]

Change is always going to have
a negative effect for some and
a positive effect for others.

Since the previous number of H1B
visa workers from India is now vastly
dwarfed by the current onshore
workers, and since all of the onshore
pay is being spent entirely in
India, the current trend is very
good for India.

What is good for India is not always
good for every Indian (like the
old H1B people).

We need India to become rich, and
outsourcing to India is making them
rich. Rich people demand clean
air and water, because their other
needs are met.

[BRussell]

midwinter,

I'm coming into this thread late and after it appears to have morphed into other things (as usual :) ), but I'm curious why you would choose Rice's confirmation as the big issue. Presidents should get the cabinet members they want. Court appointments are different. But cabinet official should generally be approved, IMO.

I fully understand and agree with you if you're saying she was heavily involved in the Iraq policy which has been an absolute disaster. But Bush is the primary individual responsible for that, not Rice or anyone else. They do what Bush wants.

IMO, we'd be better off focusing on those who went along with Bush's legislative agenda. Although I'm usually a party guy, I voted against my Democratic Senator (Baucus) and for some Green whose name I don't even recall now, because Baucus voted for Bush's budget plans, and just about everything else Bush wanted in his first term. I think those are the important votes. Social security is the big one to keep an eye on this session.

I think it might be good for the Democrats to be the minority for a while. Reid seems to be doing well in getting unity and good plans for the Democrats. Just think, a pro-life Mormon leading the Democrats! :wow:

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
Change is always going to have
a negative effect for some and
a positive effect for others.

Or, as a Haiku:

Some will always be
Opposed to changing anything
Like the fall of leaves

[midwinter]

Originally posted by BRussell
I'm coming into this thread late and after it appears to have morphed into other things (as usual :) ), but I'm curious why you would choose Rice's confirmation as the big issue. Presidents should get the cabinet members they want. Court appointments are different. But cabinet official should generally be approved, IMO.

My point is that Bush was going to get Rice whether the Democrats rolled over or not. So why roll over? They'll just have their confirmation votes used to attack them in a few years. Why not take a stand and say "No. This is not a good choice." Make it public. Do the same with Gonzales. These two people are atrocious choices, and both of them have a clear track-record of either abject failure (Rice) or utter immorality (Gonzales). Just take a stand. They'll both be confirmed no matter what, so it doesn't matter.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
Or, as a Haiku:

Some will always be
Opposed to changing anything
Like the fall of leaves

The rest of the world
Needs jobs too, please support the
Indian free trade

Job loss, programmers
feel like steel workers, drowning
their sorrows with laws

[johnq]

Originally posted by e1618978
The rest of the world
Needs jobs too, please support the
Indian free trade

Job loss, programmers
feel like steel workers, drowning
their sorrows with laws

Originally posted by e1618978
Change is always going to have
a negative effect for some and
a positive effect for others.

Cute, but it's not as easy as "now they have jobs".

Some economies are at a crest, others at a trough, and over time the waves settle and there is ultimately a relative equilibrium, or there would be, but someone has pulled the plug, and the wages will drop and drop, globally, as they are starting to equal out. But if it happens too quickly, it's going to hurt workers globally. Global depression.

How will China benefit if suddenly it can't sell goods to the U.S., once a critical number of Americans have no jobs or expendable income? Their expansion is tied to healthy U.S. and E.U. economies. The developing world will only demand yet-lower prices from China (which China cannot afford, since it's so low to begin with), if, say, the U.S. is no longer vogue to sell to and they start selling more and more to developing nations.

It truly is interconnected but "interconnectedness" is usually a code-word for "gotta care more for developing nations than the industrial nations". Yet as "bad" as industrialized nations are, developing nations need them just as much as we need them. They are manufacturing for and shipping to, "us". Our money goes to them (although far less than should makes it to the people, usually). The vast majority of the world can't afford to buy goods from China, even at WalMart prices. Making the poor less poor can't happen overnight. Thinking otherwise is knifing the baby.

What this is, is someone saying, don't bother to climb to the mountain top, blow it up so that it is a smooth plain. Don't let some people attain wealth, it's better if everyone has a few pennies. Funny that this isn't some communist wealth-redistribution scheme. It's a result of hyper-capitalism :D

Oh, I get to use my favorite expression again. It is ultimately capitalism being hoist by it's own petard. The boundless greed of today is setting up the dominos for a big fall, and it won't matter what county you are in or what race you are from.

Meh. I'll be in a Thai jail. What will I care.

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
My point is that Bush was going to get Rice whether the Democrats rolled over or not. So why roll over? They'll just have their confirmation votes used to attack them in a few years. Why not take a stand and say "No. This is not a good choice." Make it public. Do the same with Gonzales. These two people are atrocious choices, and both of them have a clear track-record of either abject failure (Rice) or utter immorality (Gonzales). Just take a stand. They'll both be confirmed no matter what, so it doesn't matter.

Exactly.

And this thread makes clear the nature of the task for the Dems when it comes to people like Rice and Gonzales-- staying on message.

Sure the right will talk about "ideological hatred" and "trying to embarrass the president" , but (and I'm hoping the odd strain of race baiting hereabouts isn't really at play in national politics, but even if it is) the message, as midwinter says, is simple: these candidates are really bad choices.

And when the flack starts, just deep hammering away at the policy failures, lies, illegality and moral shortcomings of people like this. It doesn't have to be complicated.

Resist the urge to appear apologetic, tentative or compromising. Ignore the charges of obstructionism, sedition, or "racism". Do not engage Republican flacks in conversations about "whither the Democratic party", etc.

Just let Dem X go on the talking heads circuit and say: "I voted against Rice because she's proven herself to be really lousy at what she does and I think America deserves better." If pressed, Dem X could start the laundry list of the ways in which Rice has fucked up. Ditto Gonzales.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by midwinter
Bingo. The Democrats don't need to repackage a platform. They NEED a platform. I want to see Dems who actually care about labor. I want to see Dems who actually care about the poor. About real education reform.

Personally, I'd like to see them drop the gun stuff and distance themselves from the fringe elements of liberalism.

As I said earlier, I want Dems who actually think about what Joe Six-pack is concerned about and DO SOMETHING to help him. I Agree, instead of running around with the gay flag,the suckerfish,and France perhaps they should be listening to those Nascar loving, Bible thumping Gun carring Beer drinking Pot Smoking yahoo's who actually work for a living. Demo's Platform is screwed up. Come on George could have been Hammered on Mexico and they didnt touch him. Thats because they have the same shitty interests as the republicans. Both partys have used 911 as a excuse to grow the govt while still doing little about stopping those from walking in. Its a farse. Take your shoes off at the airport but we are going to ignore Texas to California while Mexico is handing out pamphlets on how to walk in.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by midwinter
My point is that Bush was going to get Rice whether the Democrats rolled over or not. So why roll over? They'll just have their confirmation votes used to attack them in a few years. Why not take a stand and say "No. This is not a good choice." Make it public. Do the same with Gonzales. These two people are atrocious choices, and both of them have a clear track-record of either abject failure (Rice) or utter immorality (Gonzales). Just take a stand. They'll both be confirmed no matter what, so it doesn't matter. I think you do have to pick your battles, and I'm not sure if Rice is the right battle. Presidents should get the cabinet they want. It's Bush and his Iraq policy that are the real problems, not Rice.

I think they need to do what Reid is doing - propose a specific set of plans that all Democrats can get behind. As you said, get a fucking platform and run on it.

[BRussell]

BTW, Barbara Boxer has a post on DailyKos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/27/124226/410) ( :lol: maybe we should invite her to PoliticalOutsider too).

I can't thank all of you enough -- the Daily Kos community, and the blogosphere as a whole -- for all of your effective work during the recent debate over Condoleezza Rice's nomination. Your support and participation in this critical debate meant so much to me.

More than 94,000 Americans from across the country signed my petition and stood together to demand the truth from Condoleezza Rice. It was truly an overwhelming response -- much more than I could have anticipated. You helped to get our message out to millions of Americans -- I couldn't have done it without you.

And you made a difference. You gave me the voice I needed to ask the tough questions during Dr. Rice's confirmation hearings. And you gave the entire United States Senate the voice it needed to take its "advice and consent" responsibility seriously. In fact, Condoleezza Rice received 13 votes against her confirmation -- the most votes against any Secretary of State's nomination since 1825.

Diaries :: Barbara Boxer's diary ::


Two weeks ago, who would have thought that Condoleezza Rice's nomination would allow us to have a full debate about our policy in Iraq? Who would have thought that we'd have the chance to truly expose all of the misstatements and misjudgments that led us into that conflict and continue to plague this Administration to this very day?

The Republican Senate leadership intended to easily approve Dr. Rice's nomination in a routine voice vote last Thursday afternoon, after President Bush's Inauguration and before the Inaugural balls got into full swing.

But you didn't let them ram this nomination through the Senate. You forced the Republican leadership to give us the debate we wanted on the floor of the United States Senate, and you gave us the opportunity we desperately needed to hold Dr. Rice and the Bush Administration accountable for their failures in Iraq and in the war on terrorism.

[e1618978]

John - neither you nor I are economists, I think that we will just have to agree to disagree.

I think that oursourcing is good for the world, and what is good for the world is good for America. We send jobs over there, we pay less for programmers, they get richer and we do also (because we can then sell our products for less and gain market share).

I don't think it will result in a world depression, you can't convince me that the world economy depends on maintaining the difference between rich and poor countries in the world. They can do the job, and we want to pay them - even now, Indian wages are going up and the jobs are going elsewhere.

As a programmer, oursourcing worries me personally - but I still think that it is good for the country. Our job mix will change, artists will finally get their due because their services will start to be more in demand, and the world will be at peace.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by BRussell
I think you do have to pick your battles, and I'm not sure if Rice is the right battle. Presidents should get the cabinet they want. It's Bush and his Iraq policy that are the real problems, not Rice.

But it's not a battle and Bush is going to get Rice either way.

I think they need to do what Reid is doing - propose a specific set of plans that all Democrats can get behind. As you said, get a fucking platform and run on it.

Right. I don't necessarily mind Reid, and think he's probably what they need at the moment.

[Existence]

Barbara Boxer 2008!

She won by 20 points in California and recieved the 3rd most votes of the 2004 election--after Bush and Kerry.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Existence
Barbara Boxer 2008!

She won by 20 points in California and recieved the 3rd most votes of the 2004 election--after Bush and Kerry.

I'm pretty sure that when Boxer laid into Rice during the confirmation hearings, she announced that she was running in '08.

More power to her.

[BRussell]

Hillary the religious versus Boxer the boxer. Cool. Oh, and versus Obama, not the terrorist, the other guy.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by BRussell
Hillary the religious versus Boxer the boxer.

In the clearing stands a boxer....