Just an interesting read…
Others are actually saying things similar to views expressed in this article but…
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| In some theoretical way, this may be the case. But in the real world, as they say, you tell me what Democratic program would have improved the economic well-being of your average family members so that, even for a moment, they would weigh trading off a cultural conviction. |
How about minimum wage & the family leave bill? How about environmental laws like controlling mercury levels? And outsourcing is a real issue.
There are many such “Democratic” issues that I beleive are in everyone’s interests, even evangelical Christians.
For me, the irony is that I don’t believe Bush will really fight for the average fundamentalist Christian. Sure, he’ll attempt to support ban of gay marriage and prevent abortions, but heck those issues don’t even directly affect most of us.
In any event, everyone has to make their decision & 51% decided that Bush was their guy. I think it will take a swing back toward liberalism before people start voting for Democrats again. Democrats don’t have to change themselves completely, or become re-born as Carville suggests, but we do need to make sure people understand what the issues that we’re concerned about are. And we do need to come up with some new ideas.
Toker,
Could it be that voters didn’t trust Kerry would get those programs you mentioned, done?
Could it be that voters didn't trust Kerry would get those programs you mentioned, done?
Maybe but do you really think that was the case?
Maybe but do you really think that was the case?
Here’s another real example of the differences between the parties.
Bush’s energy bill is being resurrected. One thing that the Democrats fought against was whether the petrochemical industry should be shielded from the burden of cleaning up MTBE, which was originally produced to make gasoline burn cleaner, but which has contaminated groundwater in at least 28 states. The cost has been estimated at $30 billion or more. Now Tom Daschle probably led this fight & it made him an obstructionist?
Seriously my fellow conservatives, you’ve been mislead by the spinsters & right-wingers. They don’t want to help you - they want to help big business & their supporters who want bigger tax breaks, etc., at the expense of us - the little guys.
toker,
Question. As I am employed by said “Big Business” shouldn’t I be ok with them getting a break now and again?
For sure but don’t you think they got lots of breaks already? We’re not saying that all “big businesses” are bad, we’re just saying that left solely to the free market, they will not make decisions that benefit society as a whole. Business’s obligation is to maximize profits, for their share holders if they’re public, or for their executives if they’re not.
So you tell me how never regulating businesses, we’re going to end up with a clean environment. Now the libertarians will tell you that we, as individuals (instead of the government), will have to sue the big businesses if they harm us in the environment for example. Can you seriously imagine how that might work?
And in the example I’m using here, it’s the oil business I’m talking about. Do you think they’re hurting right now?
My main point is that people have forgotten all the battles that we fought in the 60’s/70’s, and thhat I fear things are going to get worse before they get better.
wasn’t it the democrats in congress that forced this down the throats of the “big oil” companies in the 1990 energy bill? I say, make the democrats pay for it. It’s this type of Junk Science that the democrats practice that is going to destroy our environment.
Oh, I’m sorry. It was the Clean Air Act of 1990. Although it didn’t specifically require the use of MTBE, it did require that oxygenates be used such as MTBE or ethanol. It does however appear that everyone knew MTBE would be used.
I’ve also just learned that MTBE has shown no health risks. Only taste and odor in drinking water. It appears that MTBE is just another scare tactic used by trial lawyers to make a buck.
They don’t know if MTBE is harmful when ingested. The health studies that were done was based on breathing it.
As far as the health risks of MTBE, the jury is still out.
The University of Oregon has shown statistically significant increases in liver cancer of mice and rats subjected to it.
But, so far, no risk to human health has been proven.
But, the concern is with the level at which it is entering the environment.
If it’s harmless to humans and the ecosystem, so what?
But, think back to DDT and PCBs, both considered harmless, but subsequently both turned out not to be so.
I remember filling transformers with PCBs 30 years or more ago; standing in shirt sleeves pouring the stuff in, and more recently, being dressed in full protective gear removing it!
But now PCBs are an irremovable part of the environment, measurable amounts even detectable in deep sea currents, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
So, what if the same is true about MTBE?
Minor amounts of long lasting toxins are being poured into the environment all the time, and on their own, they may not be more significant than an extra cigar after dinner, but the cumulative effect?
In southern England, the fresh caught trout brought sparkling and fresh from the river is best returned to that river, or at least, don’t feed it to your kids. One of those trout will elevate your daughter’s estrogen level 12 fold, and your son’s more than two hundred fold.
Ali