Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« I Cram 2 Understand U | Today's Council Intrigue »

Monday, January 9, 2006

The Really Cool Thing About Finkbeiner’s Decision is This

Posted by on January 9 at 19:45 PM

After passing Murray’s civil rights bill, the Democrats will finally be forced to get some new issues. Beyond being pro-choice & pro-gay rights, I can’t really figure out what Deomocrats stand for.


CommentsRSS icon

Think Bill Clinton for a few moments.

Then, think George Bush for just three seconds..

Any differences in the country under these two quite different leaders?

Finkbeiner's younger brother once gave me a detention slip in 7th grade at Kirkland junior high. However, he wasn't staff - he was a 9th grader, and the wrestling coach had a practice of giving his senior wrestlers pads of detention slips in order to maintain order at lunch. I think that's pretty bad practice, and as a teaching assistant for 18-19 yr olds, I wouldn't think of using either group punishment or elevating students as hall monitors. I'm glad that they tore down the central building of Kirkland junior high. The field and woods by it are nice, and the gym and portables okay, but they had this awful design where they put lockers for 800 students (3 to a locker) in a small room with three exits, and everyone had to file in and out within five minutes, so fights would break out due to shoving. The history teacher Mr. Bliley was sent to jail for his relationship with an 8th grader,

Well there's the environment. We've passed some good stuff in the last session and there's more coming down the pike. We could get serious about taxes for a while. Maybe actually move a discussion towards an income tax (I know, I know, Sims). We could always get better on labor issues.

Of cours much of this ties into the "Urban Archipelago" you guys like to mention from time to time. Make the Puget Sound cities more vital and grow the other ones. Give people a reason to live in Spokane. We could make real moves on rapid transit or at least make ST more effective.

Oh please, Josh. Whine, whine, whine, what do Democrats stand for? How about: public education, the environment, non-corrupt government, universal health care, progressive revenue systems. Really Josh, do you think that all that's been going on in Olympia for the last 30 years is squabbling over whether it's okay to fire people who appear to be gay? While you smug wealthly, and increasingly irrelevant urban hipsters have been busy looking in the mirror, Republicans have been excavating the foundations of public education, environmental protection, and healthcare while skewing the tax system in favor of those with inherited wealth. And then you come along and whine about how "Democrats don't have any issues." PATHETIC!

I don't know what Democrats would do EITHER, and I am one. We don't have any "big vision" type stuff to lay on the table.

Why not totally revolutionize public education by dramatically increasing teachers' salaries to attracted new talent while loosening restrictions on firings shitty teachers?

Why not dramatically increase funds on a per-student basis (to an unheard-of $15,000 a year) while at the same time allowing parents to use this money at any school they wish? When it comes to Seattle, the district is hemmoraging students from well-to-do families. People are NOT choosing public schools in this city unless they are poor or can get their kid into Roosevelt, Ballard, or Garfield. And parents totally Seattle's middle schools.

Just a thought.

should read totally 'avoid'

Yacht Clubber,
The reason the Republicans have been able to wreak all the havoc you're talking about is because they have a better, simpler message. (Try putting the Democratic agenda that you just ran off on a bumper sticker.) The Republicans have broad themes—personal responsibility, for example— that allow them to synch up issues in a way that people sign off on skewing the tax system and excavating public education. I'm not saying the Republicans' themes are genuine, and
I'm not saying the Democrats don't fight the good fight against that stupid agenda. I'm saying that all the Democrats seem to be able to articulate is that they're the the party that's pro-choice and pro-gay. (I'm coming out against the same elitism of the party that you seem to be accusing me of.)
And where do get this "wealthy" "hipster" stuff?
I haven't gotten my ZOG check in months.

What the Dems really need to do is adopt the Care Bear strategey and use the Care Bear stare. We Care! We Care!

That's weird. My ZOG check came today—and I only look Jewish.

Think Bill Clinton for a few moments.

Then, think George Bush for just three seconds..

George, if I may.

The party (what Josh is talking about) is not the same as the leadership. At any road, neither Clinton nor Bush are able to run again for office so the point is moot. Moot again as those two were never campaigning against each other. Clinton (and Bush, after 08) are history and while you can learn _from_ history you can't go back.

You can use the Clinton / Bush thing if you want to - and I bet it gets some wise nods and knowing chuckles around the campfire - but it's a useless argument for any but the true believers.

Thank you Brian.

I was suggesting that the Clinton era and the Bush era are both metaphoric of the baseline philosophy of the political parties.

The regressive Geo. Bush era was not just concocted in a recent Texas strategy confab, but goes back decades and just takes all the historic right wing ideas and puts them into practice. Those of us a bit older who have been following the R's are not surprised at all. Even expected worse.

And of course, Clinton, although a avowed new Democrat, still reflected old-line party ideas. Example - Humphrey like, FDR like, getting people to work - the steaming worker at work economy.

Have the Dems fail to articulate, yes. Has Bush and Co. matstered the art of propaganda, yes.

I still see rank differences in the parties and it extend to dozens of issues including civil rights, the green issues and worker benefits.

A thought floating in my head for months. a bit off topic --- One of the reasons that I think Hillary Clinton can be elected is Bill.

He will use all his skills at speaking and rallying folks and raising millions to help her. He is hyped at the thought of being bak in the center of power. Historic, redeeming, very Clinton.. Sort of the total, total, reverse of keep Bill stashed which was a capital Gore campaign mistake.

In addition, the glow of the Clinton years will project like blast furnace. Even the sexual - so inflated scandal will pale to nothing compared to the corruption investigations now underway.

De facto, voters will be voting for the DREAM team. IMO, it is a two ace deal for Hillary at this point.

Uh, Josh, we democrats are against the culture of corruption. DUH! I'll be happy to tell you what other titillating things democrats stand for over a margarita haze.

I was suggesting that the Clinton era and the Bush era are both metaphoric of the baseline philosophy of the political parties.

Why didn't you say so? Good heavens. Metaphors are tricky inelastic things and have a short shelf-life. Can't be too careful with them.

I can't speak for the Democrats - but there are certainly some noisy people claiming Clinton betrayed the roots of the party with this or that legislation, moving to the center and stealing the Republicans best ideas.

Likewise there are some noisy Republicans claiming the same thing about Bush.

I'm not a capital R republican - though I voted that way last election. I'm a fence sitter who believes you should go with what works and that ideology of any stripe is (generally) a triumph of hope over experience. More - all of the ills of the late 20th century can be traced to ideology. A pox on it.

The regressive Geo. Bush era was not just concocted in a recent Texas strategy confab, but goes back decades and just takes all the historic right wing ideas and puts them into practice. Those of us a bit older who have been following the R's are not surprised at all. Even expected worse.

I do think you're wrong about machinations of the Republian party. Pols are out for power - it's what they do, lord love 'em and which party they belong to has little to do with that drive. It does have a great deal to do with how they acquire the power and the terms they use to mask what they are doing.

If you accept that power corrupts - and I think that is an unassailable ephitat - then handing power of any kind over to people who seek such power is the wrong strategy long term. Which is a reason I tend to lean right - at the last the core principles of the Republicans are small government and checks on power.

A thought floating in my head for months. a bit off topic --- One of the reasons that I think Hillary Clinton can be elected is Bill

Depends on how people remember Clinton's terms of office between now and '08. I would be tempted to argue that Bill is a drag on Hillary's campaign. But we'll see what happens. She is going to run, no doubts.


Democrats are for liberty and justice for all.

What is a ZOG check--and how do I get one?

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).