Memo to neocons: Democrats won the last election

by on January 11, 2009 3
0sharesFacebook
0tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

David Frum and I agree at last: The Democrats–the people, not the politicians– are against the Gaza slaughter. They weren't crazy about Iraq either. Apres vous le deluge.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Gaza, Iraq, Neocons

{ 3 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Dealio says:
    January 12, 2009 at 12:42 am

    I like how the neocons talk about this issue, like "you Dem leaders better figure out who these people are and kick them out of the party!"

    They are the party, nimrods. And every additional day you spend in Gaza, the party gets bigger.

  2. Jim Haygood says:
    January 12, 2009 at 6:32 am

    YAWN — another commentator penned into the two-party sandbox made just for him.

    The Depublicrats are not a reform party.

  3. LeaNder says:
    January 12, 2009 at 9:20 am

    YAWN — another commentator penned into the two-party sandbox made just for him.

    The Depublicrats are not a reform party.

    Jim, I basically understand what you mean. But then I grew up with the huge amount of parties fighting each other during the Weimar Republic (we didn't get any further then). But they did a good job in burning this into our brains with all the elections succeeding each other among the basic fight between left and right and especially its series of circular charts. Especially all those circular charts which we learned to associate with instability. Short coalitions, frequent elections. And yes finally the Nazis …

    I agree this feels like a central problem, over here too. And the fact that the Social Democratic Party (SPD) moves ever more in the direction of the Christian Democratic Party (CDU/CSU) has in fact give rise to the new party the Left further left of the Green party. As the extreme right again surfaces in mainly in the former ex-GDR countries.

    What are the underlying reasons? Are they structural, ideological or part of a mainstreaming of academic thought and its star system: Special academics regarded as prophets in the profession influencing both sides? Financial influences? Lobbies. The US law system (that can't be the only reason, we have the same phenomenon over here)? Would you consider Tony Blair a real Whig? or more a neo-liberal? For instance.

    I as usually have more questions than answers in this context.

Leave a Reply