The conspiracy theory of Democratic Party politics.

[John Q. Citizen]

I was on a thread last night where the OP was complaining about the fact that the Dems seem to be wimps about a lot of issues that are important to thier base.

A number of posters took him to task about this, some with the fanatic ferver of partisons defending their team, some attacking the prognostication abilities of the OP.

One reply got me thinking, because it's a point of view that I've seen repeatedly voiced; The theory that, hidden from view, that unknown to the world at large, that behind the scenes, the Democratic Party leaders are actually conspirering to do what their base wants them to, and if we just have faith, that they will deliver. The light is at the end of the tunnel, the check, though still a secret, is in the mail so to speak.

I have to wonder about this. This a theory that gets put out their by variuos people all the time. Secretly, we are told, the Dems are setting up conditions for the impeachment of bush/chaney so that when the time is right, they will strike and viola; Our national nightmare will come to an end via these secret mechanizations of the party.

We've heard the same thing over and over about ending the war, that behind the scenes, great plans are afoot that ultimatley, if we are just patient enough, and faithful enough, that through these unknown yet certain efforts, that everything will work out in the end.

It's the same with many issues. If we just hang on tight,we are told, our Dems are going to save the day, even if we don't know it now, we need to have faith now.

And I've about reached the point where I'm calling baloney. People can and will cling to this conspiracy theory of politics, but ultimatlly what you see is what you get. There ain't some great OZ behind the curtain, there's just a person working the levers making sure they get re-elected first formost, and forever. If that means bending over when some corporate CEO says to, then that's the deal. If that means talking tough on Gonzalez then going on a month vacation to shore up support back in the district, then that's all there is folks.

It's time to grow up people. It's time to put down the fairy tale books. It's time to face reality. There ain't no secret plan now, and there never was. And there isn't going to be. The conspiracy is right out in the open. See they don't need to hide it, because we cover it up for them by refusing to see it.

[trueblue2007]

1. I am sick and tired of hanging on tight

I'M MAD AS HECK AND NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANY MORE.

Dems need to stand up for what is right. I think we need HUGE marches in the streets like what was going on during the Vietnam War.

[TygrBright]

2. The notion that "party leaders" are "working in secret" to deliver...

...the stuff that 'the base really wants' had exactly the same amount of credibility and validity as the notion that "party leaders" are "working in secret" to deliver the agenda of (write in your favorite Source Of All Evil here.)

They don't 'work together' in secret or out in the open. They're DEMOCRATS, fer Crissakes.

wearily,
Bright

[John Q. Citizen]

3. I think there is a lot of validity to your post. It then begs the question

why should voters identify with a party that has no identity?

[RFKJrNews]

4. I'm mad as hell too!

And to think, we once had a revolution in this country over a tax on tea.

Sheesh. It really is time to wake up and smell the tea. The pot is boiling over.

Democrats need a REAL candidate we can ALL get behind. Our message to the candidates? "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!"

Please SIGN THE PETITION to Draft Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for President!

http://RFKin2008.com

[NanceGreggs]

5. I believe you are referring to my post ...

... on last night's thread.

What I said was: "(I) know that I am not privy to the behind-the-scenes machinations of government, nor the strategies that may or may not be set in place, nor the successful or non-successful result of the many wheels that are currently being set in motion."

That's a far cry, IMHO, from "... that behind the scenes, the Democratic Party leaders are actually conspirering to do what their base wants them to, and if we just have faith, that they will deliver. The light is at the end of the tunnel, the check, though still a secret, is in the mail so to speak."

I never advocated -- nor, do I believe, would anyone on this site -- just sitting back and having faith, confident that the Democrats will "deliver" or send the "check in the mail".

I was merely suggesting that no one, unless they are privy to every conversation among elected Dems, or between Dems and their elected GOP counterparts, can possibly KNOW with certainty what is going on "behind the scenes", and what may or may not result therefrom.

And that is NOT a suggestion of "back room deals" or a "conspiracy theory"; it is simply a fact that we DON'T KNOW what gets said, what gets done, nor do we sometimes see the political strategy behind certain actions that may later become clear as day as events unfold.

I get just as frustrated as everyone else because things don't move along as quickly as I want them to. But it took six years of BushCo to fuck up the country as much as they have, and it's not going to be un-done in six months.

And if I didn't believe that the Democrats have the desire and the ability to undo at least some of the damage that's been done, I wouldn't be here.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Hi Nancy, I was referring to your post, but I wasn't quoting it or even reading it

when I wrote this post, but I was thinking about the general ability of humans to have faith in the unknown. And once that faith is established how difficult it is to see things at face value. All becomes filtered through that faith, so when one of our public servants does something that we strongly disagree with, our knee jerk reaction is to construct reasons, usually based on faith, for why they did that. I wasn't attempting to rebut your particular post, I was commenting on all the posts that always allow that we have less power, less knowledge, and as such we should defer to those with more power and more knowledge, and keep the faith.

I'm in favor of CHIP, and the Dems as a whole, are far better than the Repos on CHIP, but let's face it, CHIP is a band aid for a much larger problem. If one talks to health care professionals, actuaries, administrators and people involved in the funding and delivery of health care, the vast majority agree that a single payer fee for service universal heath care system makes the best sense in terms of overall cost and delivery of services. The problem is not does it work, but rather, is it politically feasible?

I know without a doubt that if the insurance industry and big Pharma were on board, we would have single payer today, even if the Repos opposed it tooth and nail based on ideological concerns. But the Dems aren't going to lead the public on ideological terms, if it means being opposed by the insurance industry and big pharma. Period.

You mention the last 6.5 years. That isn't the public's fault. We went and voted in Gore. Who agreed to seat the delegation of electors from a stolen election? Who rolled over and didn't stop the rip off before it began? The Dems didn't. They were afraid to assert the people right. Not one Senator (from the Dem controlled Senate) stood with the black caucus. And then, all these years later, why is the congressman from Florida seated in the House right now, 18000 missing votes? Because the Dems, as a group, aren't going to save us. They aren't going to stand up and say, no, you can't steal elections.

So yeah, I hope we get increased CHIP funding. And I'm glad the minimum wage was raised, to $5.72 an hour. That would be better than nothing, I agree.

[NanceGreggs]

7. I realize now that we have, to some extent ...

... been speaking at cross-purposes.

I did not mean to suggest (and if I was unclear, the fault is mine) that we should "defer to those with more power and knowledge than we have". I was merely pointing out that we simply cannot know everything that leads to a particular action (or inaction) by our elected reps.

The 2000 election is a perfect example. We don't KNOW what went on behind the scenes. Did the Dems weigh their options and decide that they couldn't prove wrongdoing, and thus would have accomplished nothing by pursuing the matter except a shitload of bad publicity that would hurt Dems in future? Or did they just say, "Screw it. Let's fold on this one, and choose our battles elsewhere"? Did Gore want to stick it out, but the party talked him out of it? Or did Gore make a personal decision to call it quits, despite the party trying to convince him to stay in the fight? These are things we don't know - and may never know. That was the kind of thing I was talking about.

All I was trying to say is this: There are all kinds of things that are going on that eventually lead to a certain action, reaction, or non-action by the Dems in office. If we KNEW what led up to a specific party decision, we might think, "THAT was brilliant! Now I realize why they did this, this, and that - and now here's the payoff!"

By the same token, we might say, "Jesus H. Christ, THIS is what they based their decision on? THIS was their dumb-ass strategy? These people are fuckin' idiots!"

That's all.

Just as, as you have pointed out, it is mindless to simply hail the Democrats as flawless and incapable of even a single bad decision, it is just as mindless to jump on everything they do and say, "AH-HA!!! They're selling us down the river. They're rolling over, just like they always do."

Some things can only be judged in the fullness of time, and rushing to judgment doesn't do our party, or our democratic process, any good at all.

As for what you've said about universal health care, I think that's a whole 'nother thread! The insurance industry has been too entrenched for too long to be routed out with ease or expediency. It's going to take a LOT of pressure from US on the Democrats to make this a priority - just as it's going to take a LOT of patience on our part while they set those wheels in motion.

That is, IMHO, the only way we can change things - cooperation between Dem office-holders and we, their constituents. It's a matter of give-and-take: You do THIS for us, and we'll SUPPORT you in every way we can - and if you DON'T do what we think you CAN DO, we'll let you know what we think of that the next time you're up for re-election.

But we really DO NEED to recognize the difference between what is possible and impossible, and what can be done quickly as opposed to what will take some time to accomplish.

Forgive the rambling - I hope I've made at least a little bit of sense here.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. I find that I'm often on the opposite side of people who are critizing the Dems

I recall when Reid refered to Harriet Myers as a "nice woman" (or soemthing to that effect) and it drove people crazy.

I thought, well, I've never met her and Harry Reid has, and besides that, being a nice woman and being a great choice for SCOTUS are two completely different things. I thought it was kind of clever and smart. Reid won that round when the Repos went bat shit crazy on her and bush pulled the nomination.

I'm more concerned with long term goals and directions than the comment of the day. However, I'm also quite critical of the Dems (as a whole) , in terms of long term goals and directions.

Health care and election protection are a couple of examples of this.

On those issues though it seems the Dems (as a whole) focus is the comment of the day. They don't seem to have a cohesive stratedgy on these topics, like they did on free trade, welfare reform, telecommunication deregulation..

I would have thunk pre-emptive war, the unitary presidency, and repeated wide spread election fraud would have been impossible, but apparently they were quite doable, given that someone undertook the effort to do them and to do them succesfully. I still haven't heard the top tier of our candidates denouce the doctrine of pre-emptive war, nor have I seen the House pass a resolution condemning the practice. Is it impossible? Would it take too long? Or are the Dems in favor of these things?

That's why I'm of so little faith at this point.

[NanceGreggs]

12. I hear ya!

It's been a while since the Dems have been the majority, and I think they have yet to find their "authoritative voice". In addition, being the majority without also holding the WH is a difficult position to be in.

We all saw the swagger of the GOPers when they had the majority - they rubber-stamped Bush's every whim, knowing it would NEVER be votoed. So they were in a position to say to the country, "THIS is what we've decided to do, and look how easy it was for us to do it." Unfortunately, we won't be in that position until January 2009.

I think that is why it's going to take some time before we hear what the long-term goals are; the Dems haven't been in a position to set long-term goals with any confidence they will be attainable for quite a while now.

I have been extremely critical of the Dems on many issues (and have sent some really scathing communications to several of them over the past few years and months). However, I try to step back and appreciate the tenuous position that ANY politician is in from the minute they take office: When does impassioned outrage cross the line into being perceived as a temper tantrum? When does standing your ground on a given issue stop being seen as commitment, and start being seen as childish stubborness?

Should a politician vote according to what THEY think is best for their constituents? Or do they vote according to their constituents' demands, even if they feel it is the wrong choice in the long-term, or against their better judgment?

Some would say that a representative should never act on the basis of what might affect their own re-election. Others would say that if a representative feels they can contribute something of value in future, if they DON'T take their re-election into account, they could wind up out of office - where they can't follow-through on long-term goals.

It's like walking a tightrope; it takes experience and a perfect sense of balance, neither of which are attained overnight.

To be REALLY simplistic, I think our reps have to be 'trained' to do what we want done. LOTS of positive reinforcement when they do something we approve of (like bombarding Reid's office with faxes, calls and emails saying "Way to go, Harry!"), and LOTS of impassioned outrage when they don't ("What the hell is the MATTER with you, Pelosi? Don't you GET IT?)"

(Admittedly, I have been guilty of screaming my head off almost to the complete exclusion of offering praise when it was warranted - my bad.)

But I do try to remain aware that no Dem is EVER going to do things MY WAY a hundred percent of the time - sometimes because MY WAY is not feasible, or because it doesn't represent what the majority of my fellow Democrats want done. And I also try to remember that sometimes compromise is necessary, because each side of the aisle refusing to budge an inch means NOTHING gets done, one way or the other.

I sometimes lose faith completely in my party, and my government. But I never lose faith in my fellow citizens' ability to eventually find the right path, and set their respective parties' feet firmly upon it.

If that sounds overly optimistic, I don't apologize for it. Optimism sometimes leads to great things; pessimism, on the other hand, rarely leads to anything other than more of the same.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. This link here is an example of what I see as the worst of the Democratic party.

I'm not a pessimist, I'm an eternal optimist. Yet I'm not so optimistic about the party as a whole, as I am about say the progressive causcas, certain individual elected public servants, and the basic liberal opinions of a majority of the country on issues. No matter how people describe themselves politically, American opinion is liberal on the issues.

Earlier this year when I was researching our candidates views on issues, it amazed me to read the very detailed and thoughtful positions on the issues offered at Dennis Kucinich's web site. He is about as mainstream and in tune with a majority of Americans as it comes, on almost all the issues. You would never know this from reading/watching the Main Stream Corporate media, but if you check out the polling of say Pew Reseach, it quite obvious.

And that get into another area of discussion which the link deals with: It seems that the Democratic agenda isn't determined by their constituents anywhere near as much as by the corporate media. People realize intuitively their consent is often manufactored, but they feel powerless to get around it.

Anyway, here's the link. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3418039

[madfloridian]

26. In a way you made my point.

The ones mentioned in your link are not the ones the PDA, Cindy, and Demmocrats.com group are going after, though, are they?

Why not?

Target the ones who are doing their best?

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Nancy signed off on the secret deal. You don't think so? She has to. She's the Speaker.

Besides, Cindy isn't working on a free trade campaign. She's working on impeachment and on ending the war.

Instead of invoking your favorite boogy man, perhaps you will go do a little civil disobedience on the issues that you are most concerned about.

Post pictures. Make sure you get some press.

Thanks for all you do!

[madfloridian]

28. You know best.

You know what hubby and I do and have done since 2003. Of course you do....your lectures to me are getting overbearing.

You know nothing about what we do, who we donate to, who we work with and organize with.

You are very judging of me...just because I think Cindy is pushing the wrong people too hard.

It is overbearing.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. You decided to reply to my post on what I considered an example bad Demanship.

And turn it into a Cindy bashing thread, your most pressing issue apparently.

This OP and nothing later is about Cindy.

If you have to stalk me about your obsession with Cindy, at least don't pretend you are a victim.

[madfloridian]

39. I replied to when you said "party of slavery"...that is Cindy's quote.

She wrote the piece, and it has been quoted here ever since.

You get lots of attention when you bash Democrats here.

[Perry Logan]

8. The OP was just the usual "both parties are the same" rant. We don't need this.

These rants seem to be based on a staggering ignorance of the Democrats' record, past and present.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. Which record are you speaking about? The party of slavery or

Social security?

NAFTA or the 18 year old vote?

Please be a bit more specific.

Perhaps you could give me a breakdown of the record of the party for the last ten or eleven decades that you believe some may be ignorant of.

[madfloridian]

14. You and Cindy need to stop calling Dems the "party of slavery"

I think that is outrageous.

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Deny our history if you wish. That is our past, and to ignore it or pretend it

isn't true is a fools game.

John Conyers believes the Dems should pass reparations. I agree with him. You apparently ask, "For what?"

If my bringing up the history of our party really outrages you, then you aren't paying attention.

[madfloridian]

19. Well, since no one else agrees, they must think you are right.

I concede. The Democrats must be the party of slavery because no one is saying they are not.

:shrug:

You win.

[John Q. Citizen]

21. As long as you base your self worth and the rightness of your ideas or opinions

on whether someone responds favorably or unfavorably, you will not be a critical thinker.

The Democrats are a party of many things, one of those things is a history of being pro slavery. That isn't currently the case, unless we are talking about the wage slavery currently inherent to the pro-NAFTA wing of our party.

Do you disagree that for a large portion of time in our history, the Democratic party was not the champion of the plantation system?

Please answer by and for youself. Don't worry if others join you or not in your reply.

[madfloridian]

23. You need to start understanding sarcasm...

if you are going to infer that some of us here are not very capable and don't understand.

You must have me mistaken for someone who doesn't criticize the party. I do, but I don't think it is right to call them the party of slavery.

Cindy is going third party. She wrote that.

I think it is wrong, and I will say so.

Apparently most here agree with you, or have given up.

Have at it.

[saracat]

36. Madfloridian is one of the most "critical thinkers on DU!

And she is more than capable of answering for herself! We have not always agreed but she is always well informed and intellectually sound , which cannot be said for some.

[ProudDad]

18. Well, if the shoe fits

:shrug:

An Offer of Proof

"A reader objected recently to my comment that Democrats were responsible for the lynching of black and white Republicans during the 19th and 20th centuries."

<Clip>

"The answer is that the Civil War wasn’t between whites and blacks, but between Republicans who wanted to end slavery, and Democrats who did not. And as ugly as the Democratic Party’s roots and legacy of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, and Disenfranchisement is, why does the party still exist today?"

<clip>

"The first clue of this information blackout comes directly from Democrats. Although the Republican Party proudly discloses their Abolitionist roots on their website, the Democratic Party (DNC) website ignores their slavery agenda, excluding the entire period between 1848 and the 20th Century. Instead, the DNC boasts the “longest running political organization in the world”, the “Democratic cause” (slavery) and their dominance in urban (e.g., black) politics — as if Democrats had nothing to do with the brutality used to round up blacks."

http://www.errvideo.com/Press/An%20Offer%20of%20Proof.html

----------

"Both Whigs and Democrats made slavery a central part of their message during the Jacksonian era, and their dialogue was framed around republican values and libertarian ideals. Both parties asserted that they protected slaveholders' rights within the constitutional system; they claimed to do so as part of an effort to protect white males' political liberties."

Roots of Secession
Slavery and Politics in Antebellum Virginia

http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/link_roots.html

----------

Of course, no Democrats own slaves anymore -- except our corporate capitalist masters...

[madfloridian]

24. And the Republicans are just so very good.

And there are many here who never criticize them at all.

[ProudDad]

40. I hope you're not talking about me...

I loath everything the repukes allegedly stand for and everything they actually stand for... That goes without saying and has been said by me on this board...

So, no, I've NEVER IN MY LIFE said the repukes are "just so very good"...

But, being a lifelong repuke loather, I don't have any pull in the repuke party.


However, being a lifelong Democrat, I expect the people in the Democratic Party to be better than their repuke counterparts.

When they aren't better, when they display the same tendencies; the same kind of obsequiously slavish behavior toward the corporate capitalist masters and their globalist new world order; the same kind of blind support for the Empire's war machine and the many wars that inevitably follow from that delusion; the same kind of lip service with no substance toward bettering the lot of the People - especially if it costs the corporate masters any treasure...in other words the DLC "third way"...I call them on it...

You may enjoy wallowing in the logical fallacies that allow you to misinterpret that criticism as support for the pukes...but that's your problem, not mine...

[madfloridian]

41. I have never written about the Third Way/DLC.

:shrug:

I just thought I had?

This is really funny that you guys are acting toward me like I never criticize them.

It sort of blows my mind.

:shrug:

I don't know whether to laugh or be serious.

[ProudDad]

42. You seem to have missed my point

You accused me of supporting republicans because I criticize Democrats...

I answered that cognitive disconnect in my post above...

I don't understand your post...it makes no sense.

[loudsue]

31. I didn't see the OP that way at all.

There are some serious problems with money/corporations ruling the votes of our elected officials of both parties. Until you understand that problem real clearly, you'll continue to support people who are not supporting you one iota.

I believe all of us here agree that what the TRADITIONAL Democratic base stands for is (as in FDR's time) the right thing for the vast majority of people in this country, and certainly what 99.9% of all DUers believe in. But it is obvious with every piece of legislation that the vast majority of us are NOT being represented as to our best interests. Not by EITHER party.

:kick:

[rucky]

11. Those who think our leaders are in control of this...

need to listen to what Senator Levin said about the Alito nomination.

Fact is, the current batch of Dems in power are ineffective at best, complicit at worst.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. You said it!

Just before the 2002 election, a long-time DUer claimed to have met with a prominent Senator who revealed a 'secret' plan to really nail Bush. However, this DUer claimed to be unable to reveal the secret plan, told us to just watch for it, and told us that we would be surprised and delighted.

I'm still waiting.

I feel like I'm in a bad marriage with a spouse who keeps promising to do better "next time," only "next time," there's another excuse.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Reminds me of this thread:

KERRY PREPARING GROUNDS TO UNCONCEDE, AS TRIAD VOTE CRIMES DETAILED

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=194892&mesg_id=194892

[jgraz]

35. Ouch. That one still smarts

He was for concession before he was against it. :crazy:

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. I am amazed at how gullible people were regarding the Kerry 'unconceeding' story

Perhaps that is why gullible is not in the dictionary.

[ProudDad]

16. K&R

[illinoisprogressive]

20. Actually, both parties are made up of human beings acting like human beings.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. This is true. n/t

[ProudDad]

43. Yep

Other human beings:

Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, John Wayne Gacy, Jeff Dahmer, dick cheney, tom delay...

all acting as "human beings"...?

Not a good excuse...

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. K&R!!

No there is no OZ behind the curtain. I live in Kansas, so I oughta know. LOL

[LittleClarkie]

32. Oh, I don't think there are secret grand plans

but I also don't think that the leadership goes around telegraphing their every move. That just wouldn't be good strategy.

I think they're going after the low hanging fruit, which is Gonzalez.

These people are not sports cars. They're station wagons. They'll do what they think they can do safely, and not much more.

I'd rather they didn't try and fail at impeachment just to satisfy someone's need for them to look like they're fighting. I don't need a dog and pony show.

[puebloknot]

33. During the Vietnam War, there was much going on behind the scenes...

... that We the People didn't find out about until years later. Those who protested the war didn't sit around and dither about whether they might be misjudging their leaders. They didn't assume that the duty of a citizen (of any party) is to play small and assume that someone bigger and wiser will take care of things. They demanded that the war be stopped.

The current Dems are going to do absolutely nothing that they aren't pressured into doing. It isn't up to us to understand that they're having a "bad hair" term. They were hired to do a job, and we need to keep holding their feet to the flames until they deliver.

If the Dems were serious about impeachment, they'd be pursuing it. The right time is NOW, and has been for a long time. Continuing appeasement will lose us our country.

[snot]

47. Exactly. nt

[tom_paine]

34. I hope you are wrong, but am afraid you are 100% correct

And is that not a recipe for the denial of which you are speaking.

However, I am willing to wait another half-year before judging so harshly.

I am not saying that the "conspiracy theory" will come true, but maybe some semblence of restoration of Old American values and our Constitution will ultimately occur.

[autorank]

38. John Q Citizen - K*R - I agree, what you see is what you get

That's a great theory because it generates faith and requires no proof on the
part of the theorist.

The real record is the record. It would be hard to get bills signed, but getting them passed in the House should be fairly straight forward. When it is
not, it just indicates that we have a major problem. Getting bills passed in
the Senate is a real problem. Look at the votes on bankruptcy and Bush tax
cuts. There were a lot of Democratic Senators voting yes. How can you get
those folks to do anything for the party.

Getting signed legislation is virtually impossible. Getting legislation passed
in the House should be the measure. If it's there, they're working for us,
if not, well.....

[Solon]

44. I don't have any faith in any self serving group of people...

Back when the Democratic party renewed the funding for the war in Iraq without any timetables or demands on Bush, I was pissed. Then I realized that the Democratic leadership WANTS the war to continue, what better way to practically guarantee a victory in 2008 than the Iraq war? This is when I realized that the Party leadership just simply doesn't care about anything but the Good of the Party, not the troops, not the Iraqi civilians, nothing. If another 10,000 people have to die between now and 2008, the Party will think it is worth it if they get the White House. Its this type of evil calculation that makes simply disgusted with them. This isn't to excuse the Republicans either, the key difference between both parties isn't that one is selfish and the other isn't, its just that the way they get votes, for self interest, is slightly different.

For example, I have little doubt that the Democrats, if they win the White House, with any candidate, will ultimately withdraw from Iraq, with the Republicans, I think we will have a perpetual and possibly expanded war. However, at the same time, the winds of public opinion can change, oddly enough the Repukes are more ideological, they actually believe in the neo-con agenda of permanent war and American dominance in the Middle East, the Democrats a little less so, or, at the very least, they would change tactics in this regard. The fact of the matter is that neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party has the best interests of the citizens of the nation at heart, they are machines of politics, their first, and only concern, is to win elections, the Democrats, at least, will throw a bone or two to the people after they win, they are just a little less evil in this regard.

[NotGivingUp]

45. There is no secret plan. There is nobody working for us. Our gov't works for the ruling elite. nt

[Capn Sunshine]

46. Secret plan? win in '08

Everything else is bullshit.