Haven't the Dems wrought as much evil as the Republicans?

The passage of the war resolution in 2002 October, aided by a majority of Democrats in the Senate, had compounded my sense that America had been betrayed by the "people's party". As my political philosophy shifts further and further to the left, my perception of the Democratic Party's role in post-WWII America has transmogrified into that of outrage. I always knew the Republicans have been a hindrance to progress, but the foreign policy that was to be conducted by Democratic administrations is nearly as immoral as any Republican's.


Harry Truman:

-Dropped two atomic weapons on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki--killing over 100,000 civilians. This had been done despite the fact that a deciphered Japanese code sent from Tojo had offered a surrender providing that it not be unconditional; no matter, for the Truman administration, ending the war before August 8 would keep the Russians out of the MacArthur's occupation. Eisenhower was reported to have been horrified by Truman's decision.

-Forged the National Security State with the aim of maintaining perpetual war. First exercise would come in Korea.

-Allowed the CIA to mutate into a monstrous organization that need not answer to the executive branch (leftist movements in Greece and Italy were among the first to fall victim to its influence).


John F. Kennedy

-Ordered covert operations in the hope of destroying similar movements in both Cuba and Vietnam. Possibility of war escalation in latter country probable, but not certain (NSAM # 263 and Cronkite interview leads me to doubt).


Lyndon B. Johnson

-The King Lear of the Left--unfathomably tragic but beyond redemption in my estimation. Devolved from the completer of the New Deal into a war criminal. Presided over the deaths of millions of Vietnamese; shattered the lives of countless Americans and those of their families. Delivered us into the hands of the Right Wing.


Jimmy Carter

-"Human Rights" president increased the military budget by more than 10 billion and sent economic aid to El Salvador to fight the peasant revolt, as well as Nicaragua. A foretaste of what was to come with the Reagan Revolution.


Bill Clinton

-Presided over the sanctions in Iraq that has claimed the lives of over a million, including more than 500,000 young children. If I'm not mistaken, Albright deemed the enterprise "worth it". Deployed more troops to more places in the world than any prior president. Ventures in Yugoslavia and Kosovo not entirely humanitarian; sold F-16 fighter planes to Indonesia. Ignored genocide in Rwanda.



I am not inferring that every Democratic icon is indistinguishable from those stemming from the Republican party: after WWII, Eleanor Roosevelt was to be an inspiring force to counter Dulles' madness; Bobby Kennedy-evolved from calculating realist into tortured humanist-would have changed our very world. But I'm forced to admit that the Democrats have as much blood on their hands as any Republican's.

I am only 20 years old, with a lot to learn about the world. But my Christian faith forces me to not only denounce this fanatical administration, but the immoral policies enacted by its predecessors. I fear that I'm a nomination away from withdrawing from the Democratic Party (I would eagerly support the three liberal candidates).

I would appreciate insight from my elders concerning the crimes our party's leaders have perpetrated on the whole of man, and where to go from here. Thanks.

I'll leave it to others

a new book for annie..i can`t type fast enough to reply

World War Two... Uh...how many men did the US lose in the war with Japan and how many more would we have lost attacking the Japanese mainland. Do you know how many...Can you answer that question with certainty?

North Korea... Well the communist state of North Korea had big plans dontcha think. Hey...The spread of Communisim was a real threat back in the old days and if you think it wasn't then ya might hit those history books. Let's not forget Eisenhower between Truman and Kennedy and let's not forget Nixon between Kennedy, Johnson and Carter.... There is much case history that suggested that Kennedy may have lessened our role in Viet Nam if he wasn't whacked...

Hey look... The Dems ain't perfect...not even close...but if you compare Dem actions to the pre-emptive war that Dubya started me thinks you really are full of it. MHOP...

anti-communist drivel is the only defense the dems have.

Communist Underground or Democrat-Bashing Underground. Most of us Dems and other assorted liberals are willing to listen to a wide variety of left-leaning views but don't start giving us the crap about not being liberal enough or not being the right kind of liberal.

the excuse of anti-communism for the complicity of the dems in crimes by the u.s. govt is mccarthyite drivel and one of the primary lessons that america has failed to learn...obviously.

to have to make a choice between what you perceive as being the lesser of the two evils. And while we're at it let me just make the point, the past performance of the democratic party is not the immediate problem. The present performance of the republican party is.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

We must vote for what we think is right. If evil still wins, we at least know we still tried to make a change for the good. We can't seem to do anything else.

A lesser evil is still evil.

Though most Dems that I've seen recently are more like a gaggle of brainless meatheads rather than beinge evil. But that is certainly no excuse to support them either.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

have you in a box. There are other ways of fixing the way things are besides a vote in a fake democracy.

compelled to show how tough they too were on Communism, how tough they were on crime, and in the process, have all too often done the bidding of the far right, lest they be labeled as "soft on Communism, soft on crime," and thereby also be labeled as un-American bleeding-heart commie-pinko liberals. This has created a no-win situation for America and, as a result and fearing the dreaded domino effect, our forces have laid waste to vast stretches of territory and killed or maimed millions around the globe since the end of WWII (and just think of our collective national wrath when 3,000 died on our soil during dastardly terrorist attacks). Some say we get the government we deserve. Could it be the government we have is the government we deserve, have richly earned?

NAFTA, the DMCA (which is being used well outside its original intentions, go ask Lexmark for an example), the unjust firing of Jocelyn Elders (who was the best person for the job of Surgeon General, just a bit too outspoken and too progressive for Bill, or the pukes who persuaded him to let her go, to swallow)... not to forget that nice 1995 welfare "reform".

Mr. Clinton did do a few things right, but I'm not going to ignore what he did wrong. And you're right not to blindly like a person totally, ignoring anything that person did wrong. Wrongdoings are wrongdoings.

I'm 31 and probably have a little more learning to do as well. What I have seen both depresses me and disgusts me, yet I'm still alive for a reason. Surely it's got to be more than just giving Democrats a vote they don't seem to deserve anymore.

Was it really a Clinton idea? I do not remember. But I do remember that he vetoed two welfare reform bills before finally signing the third.

NAFTA was supposed to be a working class scourge, but I have yet to read an analysis of it. As I recall we had record low unemployment after NAFTA was passed. At least until some people aided the greatest of evils in occupying the WH.

Clinton would have had a better Presidency if it wasn't for the elections of 1994 being such a disaster. As it was I am sorry that I did not vote for him in 1992.

It was, by sacrificing 100,000.... millions were saved. The Japanes were never going to surrender.

Second, I hear God is returning to earth in the year 2050.... only then will you have the perfect leader.

What you're saying is something I've heard often enough before.

All it is is nothing more than sugar-coated chicanery so that those who were for the bomb can sleep at night.

At least the Japanese were noble. What we did was still horrendous.

At least, if there is a positive note, is that the results of the atrocity are a reminder that we should never have, yet alone use, the abominations. These, like most weapons, are abominations.

Yeah, the Rape of Nanking sure was noble.

Quoth the poster:
At least the Japanese were noble

I'm sure the people of Nanking will back you up on this.
:eyes:


--MAB

on edit.... a little slow on the draw, huh? (having to repost will do that to ya <grin>)

Surely you don't mean that? If you do then please ask the Chinese how "noble" the Japanese were. Or, better yet, ask any of the survivors of the Bataan Death March how "noble" they were. My father was a victim of just ONE of the atrocities of the "noble" Japanese. Noble my ass! They were cold-blooded killers on a mission from their god, the Emperor. They raped and killed all of the Chinese women they could get their hands on. Noble? They, routinely beheaded captured soldiers. How about the kamakazee's? Man I can think of many things to call the World War II Japanese but "noble" certainly is a term I've never heard them called before.

Did you ever hear about how the Japanese treated their POWs? Did you ever hear of the Baatan death march? Did you ever hear how they treated civilians in the Philapines (sp?)? Not so noble after all.

Within days of the surprise attack (see naked aggression) on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese set their sights on Wake Island. Wake Island was defended by about 500 marines, 1200 civilian construction workers and 12 Wildcat fighter planes. After the first day of bombing, the marines were down to 4 planes, but they fought off two Japanese invasions, sinking numerous Japanese ships and mauling the both landing parties. During the second invasion, CINCPAC cancelled a planned reinforcement mission because it was believed that Wake Island would be over run before the mission arived. Because the reinforcement mission was scrubbed, the commanders on the island realized that they would not be able to hold out much longer. The Japanese had the resources and the manpower to force the issue. So the decided to surrender and here is were the Japanese nobility really shines through.

Initially, all of the american personnel on the island were gathered on the air strip where they were to be executed (mowed down by machine guns), but at the last minute the Japanese commander stopped the execution on orders from the Emperor. Instead, all of the marines and all but 98 of the contruction workers were put on a ship bond for forced labor (POW) camps in China.

On the trip to China, the Japanese officers decided to have a "Samuri Party." Soldiers were brought up from the hold, a bag was tied over their heads and they were decapitated.

90 construction workers were left on Wake Island to build fortifications, because the Japanese believed that the United States would try to retake the island. Instead, the Americans bypassed the island cutting it from resupply, but they constantly bombarded the Japanese installations from sea and air. Near the end of the war, the Japanese became so angry, they executed all 98 contruction workers.

After the war, the Japanese commander was hanged as a war criminal.


Some of the American soldiers captured in the Philipines were used to test the effectiveness of Japanese artillary.

In Korea, women were forced to work in brothels for Japanese soldiers.

The Japanese behaved extremely poorly in WWII and even when it was clear that they were beaten, they refused to surrender. Instead, they fought savagely using suicide tactics in the hopes that the U.S. would sue for peace.

The idea that the Japanese would have surrendered if we had not dropped the bomb is stupid. If they were going to surrender, why didn't they. They did not even surrender after we dropped the first bomb. It was not until we dropped the second bomb that they realized that we were serious. Many more people would have died had we invaded. In particular, many more Americans would have died.

Don't start nuttin'. Won't be nuttin'.

The Japanese were ready to surrender, but there was a miscommunication. I don't have time to look it up but I am sure someone more up on their history than me will set this straight.

and there probably wasn't a miscommunication. Rather, Truman wanted to show Russia what we had and that they had better watch their step.

Truman regretted Nagasaki. The Japanesse were not ready to surrender, ask any vet for Okinowa (sp?). Once Hiroshima happened, then the Japanese were ready to surrender. Communications were poor, it took Tokyo a long time to assess the damage -- by then the second plane was on the way. Please read John Hersey's book Hiroshima.

and there probably wasn't a miscommunication. Rather, Truman wanted to show Russia what we had and that they had better watch their step.

Is anyone else having trouble posting with the new system in place? Looks like this one got posted twice. I have also recently lost posts completely, never did show up, and the text I had already typed just disappeared. Hmm.

Do you really understand so little about how history is written, that you don't know blatant self-serving propaganda when you see it?

You are mouthing the precise equivalent of "The USA liberated Iraq," except that the lie you are so smugly repeating is 58 years older.

Japan was surrounded and OUT OF FUEL by summer of 1945. You can't "keep fighting forever" when you're in that situation. They had no choice but to surrender; it was only a question of time. But the US wanted to demonstrate to the Russians that we now had a big very special bomb. THAT is the origin of this nonsense that you repeat.

You might want for a corrected picture have a look at
Gar Alperovitz's The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb ... good read and lots of newly declassified material...or war without mercy by John Dower....
Yeah the Japanese tried to surrender lots starting in Dec 1945--FDR and then Truman dodged it in order to test their new toy...

Roosevelt died in April 1944.

but Nagasaki was a bloody message to Uncle Joe.
History, read it and weep.

Nice work DerekG....why stop here? Slide right on by to "Independent Party".

If you can't find it, ask Terwilliger....I'm sure he knows where it is.

By all means, don't dirty yourself with this Party.....you are truly enlightened and I'll bet there are lots more 20 year olds that will follow you and Twill to the promised land.

In the meantime, get used to electing Republicans...K?

I'll let others refute your points, suffice it to say that the prism of hindsight allows absolute judgement. But if you were living in those times, it's quite possible you'd have thought differently about things.

Hell, if you go back far enough and dig deep enough, I think you'll find none of the Presidents will meet with your approval.

You know the same old Dem bashers on Democratic Underground! How they hang around us bad old Dems is beyond me... It seems to me that they'd want nothing to do with us... I guess it's the equivalnat of registering on a repuke board and holding your nose but sticking around anyway.... Why they are still here is beyond me.

Maybe some of us realise that 3rd party power is a long term possibilty at best and in the middle term the only way to effect a left/green agenda is to take over the party by participating in it.
Kucinich 04'

because this sorry ass country has lost its way

with suave words and nondescript foresight, with dollars flowing over to keep the wealthy boys from facing the "reds" (i've heard that term somewhere else...) and the poor boys with lead in their ass' (same story different war) ... at the end of the boston tea party with business owners and "peasants" trying to oust the corporation of the east indian company... the peasants went haywire the money gobbers got scared and the rest is the censored and propagandized truth of how the west was won and where it got us...

i know god is on our side 'cause we keep winning... 'cause if we lost god would be on the other guys side... and then our cause would not be righteous...

the laws have been layed by the aristocrat, for the aristocrat and of the aristocrat... the words say people, people and people...

in the words of my patriot predecessors, " tyranny is tyranny, wether it is from here or england."

revolutions need not be violent...at first.

Yes, both parties, all parties have done regrettable things. Truman said he regretted two things: creating the CIA out of the OSS and dropping the second bomb in Japan. Kennedy was left the Bay of Pigs plan by Ike. I can see where Cuba might seem a threat to us, justified as the "Missles of Oct." proved. Were their actions wrong -- yes. Can we see that clearly now -- yes. Could you see it clearly as it was happening -- not always. I like to think that what is happening now is a sign we can learn from our mistakes. Things are and never will be perfect -- but we can always strive to learn and improve.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I knew what was best for everyone again. I once had all the answers and saw everything with a perfect moral clarity (I thought). Remember the All You Need Is Love generation? Well kiddies, this is the real world. And you need a hell of a lot more.

Revolution? Do you not realize that putting a democrat back into the White House will be a revolution. We had an election stolen from us in 2000. An illegal take-over of the federal government took place right under our noses with the help of the Supreme Court.

Also, let's try to find a solution out of the mess we are in that is actually rational and feasible.

Hmmm you mean voting for someone who takes corporate donations.

If you think that those donation from corporations and PACs are not a subversion of our constitution and the spirit of democracy then...well then IMHO you are part of the problem.

we are in, not sitting around dreaming about a utopian government which ain't gonna happen. Reality is an ugly thing. Sure, there is a better way, and if you live a "good life" you will find it when St. Peter lets you through the Pearly Gates.

You think I am the problem? You sir, are the problem. What you want is perfection. Maybe someone needs to break the news to you, it doesn't exist in this world. And as for solutions, you sure as hell aren't providing any. All I hear is a lot of criticism and bitching. If you have the great cosmic answer to all our problems, please, tell us. But as for me, sir, I will continue to try to get a democrat back into office. I have not seen a candidate yet who can walk on water, but I do see a party that has concerns about the policies of the Bush bunch that are ruining our country. Tax breaks for the rich, the intelligence fiasco, lies about WMDs, etc. I am realistically going to go for a political solution that is at least obtainable.

Who do you suggest we vote for? Can he/she walk on water? Because anything less sounds totally like they would unacceptable to you.

if people refused to vote for the frauds that come from the republicans and democrats and instead: Vote third party/vote write in/initiate general strikes etc...

I understand how many liberals feel about the current state of our nation but one must find faith in the fact (as exemplified many times around the world) that corrupt sysytems can and will change if poeple refuse to continue to prop up the failed system.

I believe that the foundational philosophy of our nation is sound but I do believe it has been currupted by the scourge of capitalism.

Not all democrats and republicans are tainted but at the National level almost all are.

If you must vote at least vote for the person who still believes in the rights of indaviduals not corporations and PACs.

Voting for the person you think will win is a sell out, it is short sighted and NOT the solution to the problem.

I remember how smart I was at 18.....

Present Democratic leaders do not have blood stains from former ones. They aren't Klingons.

The fact is, the U.S. government has suppressed many a leftist movement since the end of World War II, at the expense of helping our poor at home. And Reagan, Bush and Nixon (as perverted as their ethos is) are not solely to blame.

HOW COULD THEY HAVE SUCCEEDED WITHOUT A BIPARTISAN EFFORT.

I think a better world is possible; that doesn't make me a Trekkie.

I am a Catholic and try to choose candidates who champion the sick, the poor, and the elderly. I vote for individuals, not the Party. There will always be a scattered Democratic Party because it thrives on diversity. Unfortunately, the Party is currently plagued by spinelessness. That's not a flaw with liberal philosophy, but rather a character flaw shared by many in the leadership.

Dick Gephardt? Joe Lieberman? Tom Daschle? They'll either get a spine or they won't. All could be replaced by my senator, Dick Durbin.

First of all, you're right. You're on the right track.

Second comment: about where to go from here - read Howard Zinn, Chomsky, & Michael Parenti. Read www.wsws.org for daily news coverage & analysis.

Don't listen to Democrats. They don't begin to understand the big picture. The more loyal the Democrat, the more corrupted, narrow, & generally worthless the viewpoint.

The 2 Democrats you complimented - Eleanor & RFK - are particularly well-chosen. You have good taste.

The whole thing with Democrats & Repubs: it's a clever game, & it fools almost everyone. Even smart educated people are fooled by it. They make the D team always a little less brutal & ruthless than the R team, so people of good heart always think, "Well, I guess I should vote for the lesser evil." The D's are ALWAYS less evil, but not by much. What this accomplishes is that power always resides in the SAME group of people, & virtually nothing meaningful ever changes in the system.

The D's & R's are just 2 factions of the same political party, & that party ALWAYS represents US capitalism. It NEVER really cares about the little guy. The function of the Democrats is just to maintain the pretense that we have a "democracy," that we have a "choice," when actually, we don't. The Democrats are a little nicer, certainly, but they are just as opposed to REAL change in the system as Republicans are.

Keep thinking independently. You have good instincts!

speak the truth.

"The D's & R's are just 2 factions of the same political party, & that party ALWAYS represents US capitalism. It NEVER really cares about the little guy. The function of the Democrats is just to maintain the pretense that we have a "democracy," that we have a "choice," when actually, we don't. The Democrats are a little nicer, certainly, but they are just as opposed to REAL change in the system as Republicans are."

n/t

poeple who believe in the constitution and the spirit of democracy.

can I assume you split your posting time evenly between DU and FR?

Must be damn frustrating being in the rarefied 3% that voted for Nader and knowing that you helped faciltate this idiot's "victory".

Yeah, I'm sure if Al Gore was President, he'd have -

*let 9/11 happen.
*Sprung Homeland Security on us.
*Rammed the 2 taxcuts through Congress that helped convert the Clinton/Gore $250BB surplus into a $500BB deficit in 2.5 years.
*Lied to get us into Iraq
*Handed out no-bid contracts to Dick Chemey's friends
*Prometed RW judges for the Federal Bench.

Yeah, RichM, you sure have us Democrats figured out....

I didn't say there's NO difference, did I. I said there's always a small difference, which is designed to be small enough to guarantee that there's no threat of meaningful change in the system.

You assume that I voted for Nader, but I didn't.

And of the terrible things that have happened under Bush: many happened WITH Democratic support; others happened with their silence, cowardice, & complicity. I won't bother going through the list for you.

"And of the terrible things that have happened under Bush: many happened WITH Democratic support; others happened with their silence, cowardice, & complicity. I won't bother going through the list for you."

Is their complicity any worse than the complicity of the American people? Their backbone is the support of the American people which you seem to want to take away. Sure I have sent dozens of emails to Congressional Dems urging tenacity and suggesting tactics, and I bitterly call them the Doormatcrats. But to suggest that means we need to either not vote or vote independent and put more Repubs in office is preposterous.

You said they NEVER act in the interests of the lower class. So increases in the minimum wage, the family and medical leave act, and tax cuts at the bottom, and job creation are not in the interests of the lower class? Sure, and neither is national health insurance.

The things he listed are not small differences. They are major changes
for the worse.

Sorry, but I keyed off this little gem in your post

"The D's & R's are just 2 factions of the same political party,"

So you didn't say there were NO difference between them...you said they were the same party.

Spin S'mores.

Sorry if I infered you were an Independent...you obviously must be one of those "I hate the Democrats" Democrats.

No difference between Dems and Reps. No difference between Dems and Reps. No difference between Dems and Reps. No difference between Dems and Reps. No difference between Dems and Reps. No difference between Dems and Reps. No diff--Something wrong with circuits. Something wrong with circuits. Something wrong with circuits. Something wrong with circuits. No difference between Dems and Reps. Something wrong with circuits. Something wrong-wrong-wrong-wr-wr-wr-wreps. Think independently. Think independently. Think independently. Think independently. Think independently.

Think indep
end
ent


ly.

Dean '04

:eyes:

Republicans steal with both hands.

Your choice.

I'll take my chances with the Democratic party. I've been around a long long time, and have never seen any good of the right wing.
Go ahead, hop on me, but I have a right to my opinions too.

that you are 100% right.
The utopian sieve-heads who scream "voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil" don't realize that we live in an EVIL world, and that EVERYTHING is a compromise from the ideal.

I'll bet they're all virgins too.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Politicians is bad, you too good for it. On election day, get drunk and let bush have his way with the world - THERE"S NO ALTERNATIVE! Hey, where did I see this POV? Oh, I remember: on EVERY DAMN TV, RADIO, NEWSPAPER phony debate between "Left and right". You have the GOP-er who says: bush is God and the guy who started this thread (or his friend) says: No, he isn't, but the Dems are no better".
And after this "debate" you have here people calling Americans "sheeple" and wondering why fascists win elections.
Thank you Karl, thank you his designated mouthpieces (aware of it of not). I am voting Democrat and I feel fine about it. Politics is the art of the possible - the only way I am going to make a difference is to cast my vote against the nazis. And you can stick your accusations where the sun don't shine - this time people will vote - in spite of your efforts to end this democracy! :kick:

as naive 20 year olds on Democratic boards, do you?

Nah, never happen, right?

and use the word bipartisanship in a positive way (some subsequent post of dear Derek). Hadn't read that one when I addressed a "leftie"

If you read my succinct second post, I labeled Nixon, Reagan, and Bush's ethos as sick (e.g. demented, immoral, craven, inhuman). I'm fully aware of their atrocities: the Cambodia bombing, destruction of the Great Society, economic aid to the death squads in Central America, Gulf War I.

Despite my low posting record, I've been with the DU since May of 2001. Just because you don't agree with my post, don't accuse me of being a spy for the right-wing. My hero is Bobby Kennedy, and I quote him often.

DerekG,
When people tell you there's no significant difference between the two major parties, ask them to list the GOOD things the two parties have done, as well as the EVIL things they have done. I can't think of many GOOD things that Republicans have done except when they worked WITH the Democratic Party, but here's what the Democratic Party can take credit for since the great depression, which occurred the last time the Republicans was in control of most of the Federal Government:


Under the leadership of President Franklin D. Roosevelt,

1. Civilian Conservation Corps
   
2. Civil Aeronautics Act
   
3. Public Works Admin.  and
   Works Progress Administration
   
4. Unemployment Relief Act
   
5. Federal Communications Act
   
6. National Industrial Recovery Act
   
7. National Housing Act
   
8. National Labor Relations Act
   
9. Home Owners Loan Act
   
10. Securities and Exchange Act
    
11. Lend Lease Act
    
12. Fair Labor Standards Act
    (min.wage & max.  hour laws)
    
13. G I  "Bill of Rights"
    
14. Social Security Act
    
15. Tennessee Valley (Power) Authority
    
16. Rural Electrification Act
    
17. Twenty-first Amendment
    (repealing prohibition)
    
    Under the leadership of President Harry S. Truman,
    
18. Full Employment Act
    
19. Permanent School Lunch program
    
20. Integration of the Armed Forces 
    
21. Veterans Emergency Housing Act
    
22. Public Health Service Act
    
23. National Housing Act
    
24. Marshall Plan 
    
    Under the leadership of President John F. Kennedy,
    
25. Peace Corps
    
26. Aid to Dependent Children program
    
27. Small Business Investment Act
    
28. Establishment of Arms Control
    and Disarmament Agency
    
29. Consumer drug protection laws
    
30. Equal Pay Act
    
31. Manpower Development and Retraining Act
    
32. Clean Air Act
    
33. Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act
    
    Under the leadership of
    President Lyndon B. Johnson,
    
34. College and Vocational Education Act
    
35. Civil Rights Act
    
36. Voting Rights Act
    
37. Mass Transportation Act
    
38. Omnibus Poverty Act:
    { Office of Economic Opportunity, VISTA,
    Job Corps, and Public Assistance programs }
    
39. War on Poverty 
    
40. Head Start (for pre-school children)
    
41. Land Conservation Fund
    
42. Permanent Food Stamp Program
    
43. Appalachia Regional Development Act
    
44. Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    
45. Higher Education Act
    
46. Older Americans Act  { Medicare & Medicaid }


47. Law Enforcement Assistance Act
    
48. Immigration Reform Act
    
49. Freedom of Information Law
    
50. Fair Housing Act
    
51. Housing and Urban Development { low-income housing }
    
52. Clean Water Restoration Act
    
    Achievements of
    the ninety-first Congress, 1969-1970
    
53. Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
    
54. Child Protection and Toy Safety Acts
    
    Under the leadership of President Jimmy Carter
55. Federal Ethics Code
    
56. Civil Service Reform
    
57. Creation of Superfund { for cleanup of toxic waste }
    
58. Secretary of Health Joseph Califano
    { fights tobacco health threat }
    
    Achievements of the 97th through the 101st Congresses
    {1984 through 1992}
    
59. Voting Rights Act extension
    
60. Highway and Mass Transit Funding bill
    
61. Civil Rights Restoration Act
    
62. Head Start expanded
    
63. Americans with Disabilities Act
    
    Under the leadership of
    President William J. Clinton,
    
64. Major tax increase on the wealthy to fight tremendous deficits
    left by the 12 Reagan and Bush years.
    
65. Family Medical Leave Act
    
66. Attempt to extend and/or improve health insurance coverage for
    millions of Americans
    
67. Creation of Americorps
    
68. Restoration of democracy to Haiti
    
69. Restoration of peace to Bosnia
    
70. Promotion of peace in South Africa
    
71. Promotion of peace in Northern Ireland
    
72. Promotion of peace in Israel & Palestine
    
73. Increase in minimum wage
    
74. Promotion of spending on inner-city schools
    
75. Opposition to abolition of safety net for the poor
    
76. Protection of Social Security & Medicare
    
77. Promotion of justice for victims of racism
    
78. Protection of children from tobacco industry
    
79. Constantly frustrated efforts to enact thorough campaign finance
    
80. Appointment of many minorities and women to major cabinet positions, Federal judgeships, etc., etc.,
    
81. Resolution of long-standing black farmers' discrimination issues
    
82. Leadership Role in NATO's campaign to stop
    the "ethnic cleansing" of the people of Kosovo.
    
83. Major efforts to challenge the
    dangerous proliferation of guns in America

From http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Democrats
See also http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/DemsvsGOP
for an extensive comparison of the two major parties.

with the 'The Economy, stupid' args aside...(the state of the economy is always fleeting)
Clinton was pretty disgraceful and the level of hyprocrisy of some 'liberals' to simply support the guy because he was a Democrat is pretty shocking...
for instance...this stroll down memory lane...

http://www.hrw.org/press/1999/jun/labor699.htm

A argued with a Freeper once...he scooped me with one line...
'If you add it up, Clinton has so far attacked more countries than Bush'
He's right you know...

Luckily I don't support social democratic parties anymore, but his point is well taken

and this is coming from a jaded Green and frequent Clinton detractor (Clinton realist?). You cite a number of valid points, but you also have to consider what a Republican- particularly today's variety of sociopathic Republican, would have done in their place.

I understand your moral dilemma with respect to certain Democrats. I'd prefer that they had some epiphany and showed more courage and less avarice. But that's unlikely to happen in the short term, and will never happen unless and until we the people change the rules of the game so that our voice shouts louder than K Street's.

its the little people you claim to be looking out for that get hurt while your trying to make a point.

Frankly... just giving Repukes a chance to appoint judges is MORE THAN ENOUGH reason to vote Dem.

That's so nice...you recognize the frailties of the GOP and attempt to say "Hey, we all did it.." What kind of defense of GOP policy is THAT????

:argh:

over the years. A few mis steps by both parties but over all, the Dems have it in terms of doing something good for America.

Please remember the Pubs are the CLAP. Cheap Labor Assinine Pubs, it is they who wish to exploit Americans by way of suppressing our unions, our middle class. It is they who has screwed up the economy over the years until we now have a 6.7 trillion$ National debt and a 450 Billion deficiet. All this other stuff the Dems have done PALES compared to the PUBs.

Want a better future for the kids? for yourself? for the family? for the Planet? Vote DEM. the answers lie not with the Pubs.

NOBODY IS PERFECT!

Worst government ever! Except for some of them.

among so many things-
Clinton's responsibility for Haitian hijinks that killed thousands.
The Democratic complicity in Whitewashing the October Surprise investigation which Robert Parry broke despite media blacklisting.
The media takeover which was and remains a bipartisan betrayal.
The installation of Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall, that WAS a high tech lynching, of the Black American commmunity.
NAFTA GATT and
too many other things to list.
but hey a litte blind loyalty goes a long way, just keep staring at your TV.

Idealism is useless right now, just as it was in the 2000 election. Read Greg Palast. Yes, rich ambitious greedy people do really bad things, regardless of their political affiliation.

The problem is that the really poor people in this country are getting poorer and losing their access to benefits that the democrats, largely, have provided them with. I think the souls of the dead are rooting for the poor, not the guilty political millionaires.

The presidency may be pretty useless any more, but it's worth voting democratic just so won't have to listen to 4 more years of bullshit republican spin on all the major networks.

I'm voting for the party that at least has a pretense of caring about the disadvantaged. Sometimes you have to be pragmatic and go with the lesser of the two evils.

eom

nt