« Get Your Live Election Results Here | Main | Worth a Thousand Words »
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Money Talks
Albuquerque election lament: Pop goes the weasel. Looks like all the crooks and nasties won and weasel crud will be spreading over Albuquerque for some time to come. Even the horrendously sleazy and underhanded Sally Mayer. Turnout was incredibly low. We needed a large turnout and didn't get it. Why? People don't care I guess. The Dem Party did next to nothing to register new voters before the deadline. I recall reading an article in the UNM Lobo quoting students saying they saw no reason to vote. Well.
At least Ike Benton looks like a winner. And the clean elections code. But as I leave the computer it looks like the purveyors of lies and distortions about the living wage succeeded in convincing people that dangerous radicals would invade their children's classrooms if it passed. That's what happens when you run tons of full-page ads and tv ads and radio ads and billboards touting the lies. It works. Money talks.
With moneybags Marty winning and Chavez trooper Ken Sanchez grabbing Miguel Gomez's seat in District 1, looks like the real estate scammer -- deep pocket developer -- Walmart crowd will have free rein for the next two years at least. Hey West Side, you're gonna get your road through the petroglyphs and your 2 extra lanes on the bridge. I just want to see your faces when thousands more of those ticky tacky subdivision homes are built in response. Strangely enough, traffic will still be gridlocked. Even worse.
It is hard for me to believe that anyone with a brain or any semblance of taste could vote for Sally MAY-YAY over Marianne Dickinson, but then again, we do have Bush as a second-term president so I guess we should be clued in about how most voters see things. Qualities like creativity, decency, intelligence, fairness and reason aren't in right now. Greed, vulgarity, cronyism, corruption, ignorance and narrow-minded self-interest are all the rage. Unfortunately that creates an unsustainable and basically unlivable community in the long term. But that short-term gain for the grabbers and the wannabes is just too seductive to pass up I guess.
Hooray for all of us who donated and doorknocked and phonebanked and voted for progressive candidates and issues. Hooray for all the terrific candidates who worked their hearts out for the people and went up against opponents with big wads of slimy money to spend. Hooray for our winners -- Ike Benton and the Clean Election Code. Bah humbug to those who couldn't even see it in their hearts to help people, even in the most menial of jobs, earn $7.50 an hour in the richest nation ever on the face of the earth. Shame on you. And on all the people who would have supported a living wage and progressive candidates but just didn't care enough to get out and vote because, you know, they're way too cool for voting.
Click for offical . Albuquerque population according to 2000 U.S.Census: 448,607. Turnout for this city election: 86,757. Pathetic.
October 4, 2005 at 10:42 PM in Candidates & Races | Permalink
Comments
right..clean elections campaign reform. limits ons spending. and voter ID..and guess what? you libs will STILL lose.
Ah yeaa! I won't have to pay $6 for a burger at Mcdonalds because the kid who cooks it makes almost as much as I do after 4 YEARS of college..minimum wage is just that. It was never meant to be a living wage.. why don't you push to get people educated for better paying jobs than just pushing to pay them more and raise the cost of living for everyone?
..yes everyone. End result.$7.50 and hour would soon not be "enough to live on."
Posted by: Brian | Oct 4, 2005 11:45:56 PM
No. Albuquerque loses. America loses. Ordinary people lose. Greed wins.
Posted by: El Norte | Oct 4, 2005 11:50:18 PM
Statistics show that the average age of those who would have gained is 31. You are quoting myths and lies and distortions, like most voters of your ilk do Brian.
Posted by: Pissed Off Voter | Oct 4, 2005 11:51:26 PM
Yeah, people need to read up on what the minimum wage is and how it came to be. What Brian doesn't realize is that wages for everyone except the most well off will be taking a dive or staying stagnant for years to come, thanks to the success of the insiders in convincing them that it pays to vote against their own economic interests.
Posted by: barb | Oct 4, 2005 11:53:31 PM
Brian, first off you should look into getting your money back for your college education. They obviously didn't teach you basic grammar and spelling. (Perhaps that's the reason you can't get a job above minimum wage?)
Second, why are you trolls always so afraid of posting a real email? Maybe we could send you some information on the minimum wage bill if you weren't such a coward.
Posted by: KathyF | Oct 5, 2005 12:23:33 AM
Um, I understand your concern about the Living Wage (and I'm not going to argue about that with you, cause I hope the state raises it) but why the venom towards the West Side? You call Ken Sanchez the name of "Chavez's foot soldier", but he was apparently D1's pick, not by a small margin either. He demolished Gomez, and was asked by many people in the district to run because they felt that Miguel didn't have their best interest at heart.
Posted by: chanoyou | Oct 5, 2005 2:32:18 AM
No offense, but if you're for "democracy", then you can't complain about where democracy takes you. If people voted down the "living wage", then that's the way it is. Either you respect democracy, or you don't. Shame on people who judge people for not voting their way.
Posted by: John Ashman | Oct 5, 2005 3:59:34 AM
chanoyou: I'm not dissing the West Side. I'm dissing the simplistic solution that was sold to many out there by Chavez and Sanchez that putting thru Paseo and increasing lanes on the bridge will fix the traffic gridlock. Why do you think that all those big developers gave Chavez et al. all that money? To play tiddlywinks?
It was paid to ensure more rampant and out of control growth on the West Side without any pause for real planning or thoughtful analysis. What will inevitably result will be more gridlock, not less, as new areas are rushed into development by Paseo and other roads, as well as other plans Chavez will surely institute to please his donors. Meanwhile, schools, parks and other infrastructure will continue to be overun. And we'll all pay the price in an increasingly unliveable city. If you like Phoenix or San Diego, you're gonna love Albuquerque as it morphs into more of the same.
As for Ken Sanchez, he was hand-picked by Chavez, backed by the same donor group, and will work hard to support Chavez's plans for more uncontrolled growth in packed subdivisions at the expense of real communities. When a mayor with a million dollar war chest, provided mostly by deep pocket developers, financiers, real estate moguls and Republicans, recruits and backs a candidate like Sanchez, I don't necessarily see that as a victory for democracy.
And John: Democracy works best when there's honesty and fairness in the process. The Chamber of Commerce and its pals spent more than $250,000 to attack the living wage by using blatant deceptions, lies and scare tactics, bombarding voters with almost daily full-page ads, tv ads and misleading direct mail pieces. Just for one instance, check out this piece:
https://www.edgewiseblog.com/mjh/loco/a-living-nightmare/
I can respect democracy while being disgusted with how money and deception bought victory in this election. I can also be dismayed by how easily some people are influenced by the techniques used by the Chamber and others to blur issues. These are the same tactics that have been employed by Bush and others of that ilk. And when citizens of the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth no longer care to support a living wage for its citizens, I can certainly feel shame, with good reason.
Posted by: barb | Oct 5, 2005 10:10:16 AM
Then why did Govenor Dean contribute to Mayor Marty and not Eric Griego?
Posted by: AL | Oct 5, 2005 4:51:58 PM
I can't agree more about the corrosive effect of big money on this election. As we watch the Republicans sink further and further into cronyism, corruption and deception at the national level, it's very frustrating to see some Democrats here in NM joining in that approach to campaigning and governing. In fact, we may be seeing a new phenomenon here -- a linkage of corrupt Republicans with corrupt Democrats to create a sort of "people last" coalition of those who have sold themselves to the highest bidders.
I remember when Democrats speaking truth to power on behalf of ordinary citizens was THE heart and soul of the party. Now too many speak for monied interests and have left the working class behind. Time to reclaim the party for the people.
Posted by: Old Democrat | Oct 5, 2005 5:15:56 PM
Warning: Don't feed trolls.
Posted by: Coco | Oct 5, 2005 5:45:45 PM
Barb,
Would you explain to me *exactly* what is deceptive about the above ad? Maybe you're right, but is it misleading? Dishonest? Or just powerful and against your beliefs? Furthermore, would you explain the logical, sensible nature of the following quote:
"Albuquerque election lament: Pop goes the weasel. Looks like all the crooks and nasties won and weasel crud will be spreading over Albuquerque for some time to come. Even the horrendously sleazy and underhanded Sally Mayer. "
Is there anything sensible in here? Anything intelligent or quotable? Anything sage? Or does it just expose the meanness at the core of your being? What exactly is up with that? I thought liberals were kind, nice people that loved everyone? Is this the message you want to send to the world? Think about it.
Posted by: John Ashman | Oct 5, 2005 7:56:53 PM
Good question about Governor Dean, that is, Chairman Dean, contributing to one Democratic candidate and not others.
As for Mr. Ashman, it is not the place of those who have won to tell those who have lost how best to handle that. Telling your opponent to behave and engaging in ad hominem arguments is unseemly in a winner, as you emulate the behavior you criticize.
I know Barb Wold. She has worked her butt off on campaigns, meetings, and this web site for a couple of years. She has fought harder, smarter, and longer than anyone I know, including myself, for what she believes in, for making her city and this country a place to be proud of because of what we have made it. You have an honorable opponent, and don't have the wit to acknowledge it.
It shows a lack of grace on the part of the opposition - yourself and Brian - to show up here the day after an election which you have won and protest that those, like Barb, who have worked so hard, should not have their moment of grief and frustration without having to endure commentary and superciliousness from those who are celebrating their victory. Those who win and gloat tarnish their victories as well as their characters. Those who have lost may, in time, be in your shoes. You should show them respect now, so that they will respect you then, and not try to stomp on your sore feet.
Posted by: John McAndrew | Oct 5, 2005 9:06:42 PM
I gotta disagree with you Barb, I've seen a lot of dissing of the West Side by progressives during the election cycle (and even before). From people in the North Valley who have said to blow up the Montano bridge to those who blog about putting up a "Gaza Strip-style wall along the West Bank of the Rio Grande."
And in the past I've heard a lot about Paseo and "West Side Developers". But where is the progressive action plan to help traffic on the West Side? I've mainly heard about people continuing to move to the West Side. Not a plan or a response but complaints while the people on the West Side get no help.
That's one reason why Ken Sanchez won in D1, and why Mayor Chavez was re-elected. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that's a reason why the minimum wage lost, the further you went from downtown, the closer it got. When the counting started in earnest on the Westside, it started to flip. Not because people on the Westside don't want it to pass (in fact if what everyone said was true, they were looking at getting some businesses to move out there, thus defusing the argument of "there are no businesses on the West Side"), but because it was linked to Griego and those who they saw as being antagonistic to them. (Anyone remember 4 years of Mayor Baca? The 2003 road bond issue? The failed attempt to get an anti-Paseo resolution passed at the state Democratic meeting?)
And Mr. McAndrew, you're wrong. You said that those who have lost may be in our shoes eventually. I'd argue that it has already happened, but in reverse. From the 2003 Road Bond defeat and gloating that came from it, now the losers then are today's victors.
People from downtown and D3 and 6 are going to have to learn to get along with those dems from D1 and D5. (despite Paseo, the things that bind us are stronger than those that divide us).
Because as D1 and D5 continue to grow and people who can't afford $250,000 lofts move away from downtown, I predict that the balance of power is going to keep shifting.
Posted by: chanoyou | Oct 5, 2005 10:28:36 PM
Despite Coco's excellent advice, I'm going to try to answer the question "... what is deceptive about the above ad?"
It is deceptive in that it claims that the proposed ordinance could include 'break rooms' and 'school yards'. It doesn't.
The first rule of statutory construction says that to figure out the meaning of a statute (or ordinance) you have to look at the whole thing, and give meaning to each part taken together, and not just take little pieces out of context. (I'm too lazy to do the research and find cites, but the NM Supreme Court has repeated this rule often).
The second rule says that words have their ordinary dictionary meanings, unless there's some good reason to give them a different meaning - a reason such as an explicit definitin or context indicating a special or technical usage.
So look again at the language of the proposed ordinance: '...non-work areas ... that are otherwise open to the public or customers generally, such as parking lots, sidewalks and pedestrian areas ...'
That's clear language. It imposes two requirements (non-work AND open to public) and gives examples.
So are school yards 'open to the public or customers generally'? Nope. Last time I went near a school there were big signs saying that the public was forbidden to walk in and wander around. School yards are not both non-work and open to the public. Thus, the ad was clearly lying when it said the ordinance could include school yards.
Are break rooms 'open to the public or customers generally'? Not at any place I've ever heard about. That's a lie too. Of course, if you are talking about a place where employees take their smoke breaks in the parking lot, they'd be fair game their.
How about 'hospital waiting rooms'? Yes, those are open to customers generally. But are they non-work areas?
The ad claims that this term is undefined. But it seems perfectly clear to me: a non-work area is somewhere a particular employee isn't expected to be working. An area of non-work. Such as a sidewalk or parking lot, usually.
So a hospital waiting room would be a non-work area for those employees who weren't supposed to be working. In other words, for the clerks and nurses working behind the counter or passing through in the course of doing their jobs, it's a work area. Off limits.
Of course, if a school employee was supposed to be working in a school yard - supervising kids or whatever - they'd be off limits for this reason, too.
So the ad was lying about the hospital example, too.
Posted by: Michael H Schneider | Oct 5, 2005 10:52:46 PM
Well, yes, of course, Chanoyou: one's own lack of graciousness usually is attributed to someone else.
Posted by: John McAndrew | Oct 5, 2005 10:52:50 PM
Touche Mr. McAndrew. I probably did not explain myself adequately and for that I apologize. I think you are wrong when you said that because I felt that this change had already happened. In fact I think it was that gloating from progressives over 2003 that led to what happened yesterday, and that the tables had turned. (as witnessed when a friend of mine from the West Side said he finally felt vindicated) Again, yesterday's losers are today's victors.
Do I think the people on the West Side have the right to be happy after all of this? Yes. Do I think the anti-minimum wage people have the right to come on here and say "We rule, U suck!!!!"? No. Again I apologize if that didn't come across clearly.
Posted by: chanoyou | Oct 5, 2005 11:10:31 PM
Mayor Chavez was one of the few state/local officials who endorsed Gov. Dean in the primaries. It would have been churlish to endorse his opponent, I suppose.
Posted by: KathyF | Oct 6, 2005 1:37:08 AM
John M, look, I didn't show up here for any other reason except I was curious about the site and was a little blown away by the language, anger and even seeming hatred. Obviously the vote on it was close, and it got shot down. Things happen. I often get horrified by how people vote on things, but how does namecalling and anger solve anything in the world? I'm a registered independent and mostly libertarian, so I kinda would like to see a return to civility, introspection and ideas, rather than anger, attacks and name calling. Given the name of the website, it seems incongruous to attack the results of an election.
Michael, I'm not sure I'd call the ad deceptive, perhaps misleading, or certainly taking the law and showing off its worse possible scenarios with a littler hyperbole thrown in. And that is unfortunate because it clearly uses scare tactics which dumbs down the conversation. But this is the tool of both sides and its hard to complain about the other side unless your side has a clear conscience. It doesn't.
This is a football game, folks. Do you think football players hate each other? They play and win or lose. Then they shake hands, pat each other on the back and go drink a beer.
Here's an issue I have with the living wage solution and many other solutions coming from the Democratic party. There seems to be two primary ways of solving problems. 1. Make taxpayers pay for the solution. 2. Make businesses pay for the solution. But, for instance, does anyone advocate reducing waste in government to pay for these things? Or simplifying laws? Or offering incentives? Not very often. What about lowering taxes that more greatly impact the poor? Cigarette taxes, phone taxes, gas taxes, etc? Rewriting insurance laws, especially car insurance laws that allow insurance companies to punish poverty or charge extra over credit issues? What about offering a tax break to employers who pay higher wages? What about attacking the problem of predatory lending? What about the idea of unshackling business by lowering taxes? Government competes with business for dollars and diverts money from the economy. But if there is more money in the economy, business grows and good employees suddenly become rare and valuable.
There are LOTS of possible ways to improve the lives of the poor that don't involve unfunded mandates or taking money from one person and giving it to another. Employers already take a beating with rules, regulations and their associated costs in order to hire someone. For most employers, the viewpoint is "show me you're a good worker and I'll give you a raise".
Of course, the libertarian solution is to simply allow workers to make themselves invaluable to the employer and therefore, get raises that keep them from leaving. That's what I always did. And when it didn't work, I simply took my skills elsewhere. Or, in the end, start my own business and compete with my ex-employer.
Posted by: John Ashman | Oct 6, 2005 3:36:20 AM
Oops, sorry for the triple post, I was getting server errors rather than comfirmations.
Posted by: John Ashman | Oct 6, 2005 4:10:35 AM
man i thought i went into a vortex where the john ashman post would keep coming up and coming up. I just finished reading this whole thread and I laugh because the meanest words are from the guy who is bashing the meanness in his opinion on this web site. Funny, just more of the reverse world we live in. What a world this john paints. Kind of dream like...in this world there are no sweat shops...one human treats another human with dignity. Just as he is exhibiting on his posts. John - i guess you have yours. and that is very good. i am happy for you. too bad you see no reason to share, but somehow it is typical for what we have brewing in this society. Now we can see it locally and nationally. Thanks for reminding me again how prevalant GREED and self rightousness are here is NM and albq.
Posted by: meb | Oct 6, 2005 8:33:21 AM
I removed the repeat posts.
I think it's entirely defensible to call a spade a spade in this climate of big money operators owning politicians and backing massive alarmist, deceptive ad campaigns to defeat a measure that would help real people deal with real inequities in the system. The Chamber of Commerce was so cowardly in their attack campaign against the living wage that they had to form a front group called "Stop the Deception." I wish they had stopped their own deceptions before they started.
It was obvious their strategy was to avoid at all costs any debate on the pros and cons of a hike in the minimum wage because they knew they would lose that argument. Eric Griego even challenged the chamber to a debate on this. They countered they wouldn't do that, but suggested a mayoral forum on the topic would be OK. Despite Griego agreeing to that, the chamber then punted and refused to hold one.
Instead they concocted a conspiracy theory about the living wage proposal and used it to deflect and distort the debate. Sorry, these are the tactics of weasels.
I get to call Sally Mayer a weasel because she won in my district using weasel-like strategies as well. After taking money from the Walmart forces, she pretended to be neutral. She ended up having to recuse herself from that vote. She ended her campaign by sending out an attempted smear of Marianne Dickinson on the last day. Just watch a city council meeting sometime on TV and tell me she doesn't act like a weasel there too, rudely ignoring citizens testifying, talking on the phone, leaving her seat and whispering and giggling with her cohorts while making strange faces.
Chavez attained weasel status in my mind due to his many capitulations to power brokers and scandals like the ABQPAC bribery and extortion plot, the police evidence room fiasco, his pressure tactics and implied threats used to "encourage" campaign contributions from those doing business with the city and, last but not least, his campaign fundraiser at the home of Angelo Garcia, bagman supreme for the current state treasury extortion scandal.
Any Dem who joins forces with the likes of Republicans Sally Mayer and Tina Cummins to work against Democratic Party core beliefs is a weasel in my book.
Liberals don't just like being nice to people, we actually work to buffer the naturally self-serving interests of corporations and other forcese so that justice and fairness can prevail. That is the proper role of government in a capitalist society. Because we support this role doesn't mean we can't express our disgust when underhanded, dishonest tactics are used to defeat us. As they say, if something walks like a duck and sounds like a duck....why not call it a duck. Or a weasel.
Governor Dean stayed loyal to Chavez because, as KathyF says, Marty supported the Dean campaign for president. We tussled with DFA on this, believe me. I can't imagine that if Dean knew the facts about the path Marty had chosen, he would agree with it. DFA-Democracy for New Mexico held a mayoral forum early on so our members could check out the candidates. Despite confirming he would attend, Marty's staff called an hour before the forum and cancelled, as they have at too many forums to name, due to "city business." A member saw Chavez wearing shorts and walking his dog minutes before the forum. Some business.
We later took a vote of our active members about who they wanted to endorse. About 86 percent voted to endorse Eric Griego. Chavez got one vote. We tried to get DFA national to follow our lead, but they again cited the loyalty factor for Chavez and declined to join in our endorsement. We weren't pleased, but politics can make strange bedfellows and loyalties for past support aren't easily put aside by someone like Dean.
Posted by: barb | Oct 6, 2005 9:39:38 AM
PS: Politics, and a living wage for hard-working citizens, have nothing to do with a football game. There are serious issues in play today for working people, the environment, the future of Albuquerque and much more. This ain't no party, this ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around. (Apologies to David Byrne.)
Posted by: barb | Oct 6, 2005 9:51:33 AM
John Ashman simply repeats his conclusion, saying "I'm not sure I'd call the ad deceptive, perhaps misleading, or certainly taking the law and showing off its worse possible scenarios with a littler hyperbole thrown in."
Wrong. The ad is a lie. It's not a 'worst possible scenario' - it's a wholly impossible and implausible scenario, as I explained.
It's not hyperbole. Hyperbole would be to say 'this ordinance will bring the collapse of civilization'. Misstating a clear fact, such as the claim I heard on the radio ad, which was alluded to in the print ad, that this ordinance 'would allow complete strangers into your children's school and your doctor's office' is simply a lie.
I'm with Barb when she says we should call a spade a spade, and that ad is a lie.
John Ashman goes on to say "But this is the tool of both sides and its hard to complain about the other side unless your side has a clear conscience. It doesn't."
"This is a football game, folks. Do you think football players hate each other? They play and win or lose. Then they shake hands, pat each other on the back and go drink a beer."
Wrong. This isn't a matter of my side and your side. This isn't a situation where if you cheat I am allowed to cheat.
There's truth, and there's lies, and the Chamber of Commerce lied. Lied repeatedly, deliberately, in an effort to mislead and deceive. That's reprehensible. I'm pretty easy going, but I'm not one to shake someone's hand and congratulate them for winning by being a better and more effective liar.
Posted by: Michael H Schneider | Oct 6, 2005 11:56:18 AM
Michael, do you remember the assertions made about GWB in the 2000 election? I think it went something like......
More old people will die
More kids will be stick
Kids will be starved at schools
More blacks will be killed
Black churches will be burned
The environment would be destroyed
and a whole lot more I forget.
I don't recall any of this happening. And if you bring up the hurricane, that was a "black on black" crime, a "Democrat on the poor" crime with a poor federal response to cover for state and local failures.
Fact is, both sides lie, both sides exaggerate, both sides use doomsday scenarios. But the Dems are the worst at it, generally. If that's your choice, that's fine, but logical independents such as myself tune out the BS. I don't buy "you're killing the poor" arguments. I also don't believe it is the governments job to force anything on business aside from, perhaps, so basic safety requirements.
And, regardless of what Barb thinks. Calling people names and trying to make busines "the boogeyman" will simply guarantee further losses in the future. The blame shouldn't rest in your opponents, the blame rests in whether you presented a good, clear message.
As a business person, I know that consumers don't like personal attacks. If I called my competitions "weasels", they wouldn't buy ANYTHING I'm selling. Rather, I logically compare and contrast benefits of the products we sell. The only customers I know that would listen to personal attacks and suggest that they are persuasive are the ones that already believe the message. You don't persuade well by tearing down the competition. Sure, "they" do it too. But maybe you didn't lose because they were better liars. Maybe you just lost because people weren't buying what you're selling.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who calls other people "weasels" openly and publically should stay out of politics because it's just making a mockery of democracy. And it certainly isn't doing anything for your cause. Want to call someone a weasel? Do it in private. Thats what Republicans do. Which is why they're winning the debate. Republicans didn't give liberals a bad name, liberals did. Maybe you should all try to work on that first, craft a more palatable, more logical message, then try again, this time without all the venom. Let the other side look bad for a change.
Posted by: | Oct 6, 2005 12:20:27 PM
wow this last post above by of course a non signer is a doozy. I think it is the one from further above. Who ever you are you must be on a diferent palnet then me. To say that the right wing wackos do not rag on dems...I am shocked! You are bagging the word weasel here, when meanwhile people of your ilk can be literally killing people, but hey do not call anyone a weasel. Wow such rightousness!!!
Posted by: meb | Oct 6, 2005 12:59:48 PM
round and round the mullberry bush and POP goes the weasel.
Posted by: meb | Oct 6, 2005 1:03:12 PM
BTW, an addendum to my above post.
The Marketplace of Ideas concept is something to well remember. The theory by the founding fathers that GOOD ideas are like cream will will rise to the top over bad ideas. That with all of the competing BS, the good, well founded, reasonable argument will float to the top because people are smart enough to see this. I believe in this.
The reason why bad ideas often win is because they are only competing with other bad ideas. Or very badly argued good ideas. The best defense for an underhanded strategy is an above board one. The best defense for a lie is the truth. The best defense for a mean-spirited message is a genial one.
I'd also like to remind folks that we *do* live in a country that was founded, not on liberal beliefs or conservative beliefs, but on *libertarian* beliefs. The idea that the best government is small and relatively toothless government. That the primary job of government is defense, maintaining order and handling interstate commerce.
It is NOT the government's job to create a great society. It is the job of government to create conditions in which a great society can flourish. The problem that has caused all this is that Roosevelt and Johnson conflated the two, seriously damaging the precepts on which this country was founded, possibly irretrievably so.
Now we have created a whole society of victims and dependents. And, we have solved few, if any of the main problems facing society. But it is society's job to solve these through evolutionary growth. It is not government's job to force this evolution on society. We certainly have found that charity and good works of private individuals are more competant and effective than the blunt instrument of throwing money at the situation. Government has proven entirely ineffective at lifting people from poverty.
Poor, uneducated immigrants come here and succeed with now help where our own educated people fail *with* help. That is the great conundrum and it is not something government itself can fix. Society, and by this I mean *private* society is the solution. And I think more people realize this than you might imagine.
Posted by: John Ashman | Oct 6, 2005 1:03:28 PM
Hey John Ashman, you're a weasel. And a wordy one at that. Your posts would fit in much better over with the freepers. So would your logic and lack of basic factual content.
Libertarians: Unrealistic dreamers who don't want to pay their taxes while pretending to be enlightened.
Posted by: El Norte | Oct 6, 2005 1:27:18 PM
Enlightened people don't use the word "weasel to describe those with whom they disagree.
Posted by: John Ashman | Oct 6, 2005 1:33:35 PM
https://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/wildlife/viewingguide/images/wl-weasel.jpg
Posted by: IzzyL. | Oct 6, 2005 1:40:40 PM
BTW, it's my "ilk" that is the swing vote that decides whether your agenda lives or dies. Calling me a weasel (or anyone else, for that matter) isn't exactly making me think I should vote with you. The sooner you realize this, the more effective you will be.
Posted by: John Ashman | Oct 6, 2005 3:02:32 PM
Go pop yourself.
Posted by: IzzyL | Oct 6, 2005 3:15:01 PM
I guess "weasel" must be slang for "goddamn motherf--ker."
I miss out on this stuff all the time. People are constantly inventing new slang words, and I'm clueless as to their meaning. (I used to beg Jonathan at the Dean headquarters to teach me slang words so I'd sound cool. I still remember some of those!)
But now we know, so be careful what you say, Barb. Or run these posts through a Slang-o-meter.
Posted by: KathyF | Oct 6, 2005 4:21:13 PM
weasel, crooks, nasties, weasel crud, horrendously sleazy, underhanded, purveyors of lies and distortions, lies, moneybags, scammer, greed, vulgarity, cronyism, corruption, ignorance, narrow-minded, grabbers, wannabes, slimy
Barb, rationalizing hatred, anger, venom is the very same problem we have with Muslim extremist. When the "mullahs" are rationalizing bad behavior and hatred, then problems are eventual. And you can see that many of the other folks here mimic this because it is a cheap way of arguing and because "the end justifies the means". No. Not really. Republicans are often called "mean-spirited" by the left. But if the use of all of these words is not mean-spirited, what is it? Want to help people? Show good leadership, not irresponsible leadership. Change the tone. It's the only way to actually achieve anything of value. Even your victories will be cheap, otherwise.
Posted by: John Ashman | Oct 6, 2005 4:36:57 PM
Hey weasel, you never answer the arguments, you just keep repeating like a broken record. By the way, I think all those words you just listed are perfect for the weasels we're talking about. That's not angry prose, it's just graphically descriptive and on target.
Posted by: IzzyL | Oct 6, 2005 4:42:27 PM
Get used to losing, then ;-)
Posted by: John Ashman | Oct 6, 2005 5:26:58 PM
When the corrupt house of cards nationally and locally comes crashing down of its own weight because it is inherently unsustainable, we'll see you what have to say. You'll be the first in line begging for help and complaining about the injustice. It's always like that with people who refuse to believe that luck and privilege have anything to do with where they are in life, preferring to believe it was their own personal merit. It will be eye opening.
Posted by: Old Democrat | Oct 6, 2005 10:31:04 PM
John Ashman, I'll be serious for a moment. By lumping those words together, you're ignoring the subtle differences between them. It's these differences that give our language its richness, and make a piece of writing so entertaining and thought provoking.
Would you have preferred the deliberately bland "ethically challenged" instead?
You also forget what a blog is, a record of the spur-of-the-moment thoughts of the recorder. It's not for the fainthearted. You've no doubt figured that out by the responses on this thread.
Posted by: KathyF | Oct 7, 2005 12:47:57 AM
Old D, I've never experience luck or privilege and I work very hard for remarkably little. But I believe that hard work eventually pays off. I'm pretty sure I make less than most starting teachers. If there's a great collapse in this country, it will be because of the massively inefficient social programs and costly legal structure that has been built up over the last 50 odd years.
Kathy, are you seriously suggesting that there was something "subtle", "entertaining" or "thought-provoking" in the original rant? And that somehow, I just missed it? I guess that's one way of looking at it.
The problem here is that both parties have rampant corruption. So, this is simply a case of "pot/kettle/black". Need I bring up Robert Vigil?
Sure, a blog can be sort of a free-form rant, but it can also be something far more constructive and inclusive. I was just horrified by the content of that particular rant. Even disgusted. IMO, that makes Barb no better than the people she attacks. And that is unfortunate. Maybe it was a momentary lapse of reason. But it certainly wasn't productive. Perhaps the name of the website could be changed to:
www.ouragendafornewmexico.com/oryouareaweasel
but "democracy"? You can't just believe in Democracy when it gives you the result you want.
I would like to be able to vote with the Democratic Party again someday (I was turned off after voting for the "ethically challenged" Bill Clinton and the ensuing "Republicans are evil SOBs" rhetoric). But in order to get guys like me to do that, the attacks need to stop and productive, economically sound, pro-business (or at least not anti-business), efficient, smart proposals need to be created and laid out (not just same old, same old). And eloquent, honest, statesmanlike front men need to be in the leadership, not angry name callers such as Tom Daschle or Harry Reid (Harry Reid used to be more statesmanlike) who simply attack anything Republican, rather than saying "it's a good idea, BUT....."
Bill Richardson, though he's done a few sneaky, "ethically-challenged" things such as attempting to require top peoplel to submit their resignations in advance and removing people who don't walk in lockstep, is as close to a model you could have for how Democrats need to comport themselves, publically at least, in order to move any kind of agenda forward.
In addition, rather than automatically coming up with the most anti-business or pro-government spending idea possible, the party needs to look at alternative methods of solving the problems. Not every fix costs $millions or creates an unfunded mandate for business.
I have a saying, that I like to call "Ashman's Razor". Given two competing solutions for the same problem, the one that is simplest, least expensive and allows the most freedom must be the correct one". Unfortunately, the policy people of the Democratic Party repeatedly come up with the most complex, most expensive and more restrictive solutions to every problem. And often the least effective.
Remember welfare reform, something of which Bill Clinton is particularly proud? It was a Republican idea, it was simple, it worked and worked better than had been expected. But I'll never forget the day Clinton signed it while saying that it was going to be a horrible thing for the poor (and yet was goiing to sign it anyway). As it turned out, the doomsday crowd was wrong, it worked, Clinton took credit for signing it and developed selective amnesia. But at least he signed it.
So, perhaps, instead of taking credit for Republican ideas, instead of simply opposing new ideas, bringing something new to the table will bring people back. Right now, Republicans speak of tax reform, welfare reform, social security reform, school reform, government reform, etc, etc. And the big ideas coming from the Democratic Party? "We're against that". It's high time for the DP to say "I wonder how ELSE we can solve these problems, besides just spending money or stonewalling the other guys?"
Anyway, I'm off, I stumbled onto this site, I'll stumble off. You can all take what I've said as good advice, or you can line up and call me a weasel or the ever elegant "mother f@#$er". I try to avoid politics as my business is politics free for good reason. People of all political stripe do business with me, including a few on this blog.
Posted by: John Ashman | Oct 7, 2005 6:50:38 AM
john i bet you anything you are a white male. That is how you are able to run whatever business you have and like you say even get a few on this blog to do business with you. I guess you have yours. Your discussion here shows how little you understand or have experienced or any compassion for humanity. You are perfect in todays world. You really are. Sounds like an old lady being a victim signing off here. Funny you selectivily choose not to talk about the deficit or the massive military spending waste going on. Check out the rotating $ ticker at the top of the website here...almsost 200 bill. I guess that is sound spending for your tax dollars mr enlightened liberterian. 200 B $ going over to iraq and directly into halliburtens pocket...yeah that is a good use of our money. Iguess you do not see this as welfare huh. Too bad you are leaving because it is refreshing to hear first hand the logic that is runnig the world right now. Good luck.
Posted by: meb | Oct 7, 2005 7:35:20 AM
Right on Coco-DON't FEED TROLLS!
Posted by: Jeanne | Oct 8, 2005 12:23:32 AM
Right on Coco-DON't FEED TROLLS!
Posted by: Jeanne | Oct 8, 2005 12:24:10 AM
That's not what I said at all, for the record. What you implied was that there was no difference between the words. There is.
Just as there is a lot of difference between Democrats and Republicans. If the Republicans had written welfare reform the way they wanted, I bet we wouldn't be talking about how it "worked" (a debatable concept).
And I think Barb does an excellent job of pointing to corruption when it exists in the Democratic party. In fact, she should have a separate category called "corruption".
Posted by: KathyF | Oct 8, 2005 3:24:38 AM
