All across America today, people who still believe in liberty (they’re called liberals) will be observing a Day of Mourning, in solemn recognition of what the world faces with another four years of George W. Bush in the White House.
The Day of Mourning will be observed in small towns, large cities, and private family ceremonies in people’s homes. In Ithaca, New York, a protest rally will be held on the Commons at noon. In New Orleans, a jazz funeral will take place. In Sioux Falls, South Dakota, there will be a special counter-inaugural Blue Party held by Grassroot Democrats at the downtown Holiday Inn. Oh, yes, and there will be huge anti-Bush demonstrations in Washington D.C. and San Francisco.
It’s cold in South Dakota. The weather is downright dangerous around Ithaca. Yet, people are already preparing for to go to those events.
We’ve assembled a list of a small portion of the Day of Mourning events taking place today. None of the events will receive much coverage. That all goes to President Bush, to glowing descriptions of his wife’s ball gown, and to hushed reverence for the huge million-dollar parties.
The last four years has not been a party. While the Republicans choose to forget all about it, we remember, and we mourn.
I’m throwing a party for the Prez myself!! It is a paradox really – you choose to mourn while I choose to party with 60 million others.
Also, the connection between liberty and liberal is far from reality. On the political scale liberty is on the far right while communism is on the far left. To call yourselves liberals is like being a fox in sheep clothing so to speak!!!! There is no liberty about it.
No, it’s not a paradox, Jim. It’s telling that you’re throwing a party while the country goes down the drain.
Thanks for the mention of my group’s (Grassroot Democrats) “Blue Party in a Red State” tonight. The event is also a celebration of being a Democrat and our revitalization in the future.
The only thing going down the toilet is the Democratic party! It’s on its last legs, and holding on by a thread. It has no real leadership, as proof of that the party is looking towards a completly untested Senator to help provide a sense of direction (Obama). Not to knock Obama, but he could not have that kind of an impact in the Republican party, because they have too many strong leaders already. The Democrats have no one, and lack any direction. I don’t see them rebounding anytime soon either.
Jim – “A reformed Democrat” AKA “A New Republican”
God Bless this great land!
Jim,
Barack Obama’s opponent was: Alan Keyes.
Alan Keyes.
Alan Keyes.
RIght on, J. Matthew. You know, Jim, I find it really weird that you say that liberty is a possession of the far right. Do you know who was on the far right? The Nazis and Mussolini’s Fascists! So, now the Republican nationalists are telling us that Nazism is liberty! Thank you for the Orwell moment, Jim!!!!
Neal,
You are way off base here on your knowledge of the political graph. I will must first enlighten you to the fact that Nazi was short for the “National Socialist” party. Hmmmmm that sounds real rightist to me LOL. It was actually more of a top graphed facist party more than anything actually, and they were very far from the right, which is also referred to as the liberty pole!
Also it is well known that Keyes entered the race late, and it was more of a statement not to let Obama run un-opposed. Additionally, John Thune beat Tom Daschle, but the GOP is not looking to him for their future leadership – the reason is because we have direction, and seasoned leaders already. The Democrats simply do not have that depth, and you are fooling yourself if you say otherwise.
Alan Keyes.
Alan Keyes.
The GOP’s idea of a Senate candidate is Alan Keyes.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
I haven’t laughed so hard at a Republican ideal of leadership since Newt Gingrich lectured the nation about moral standards while diddling someone who wasn’t his wife.
Ha ha ha!
Actually… if you read George Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia”, you’ll find that he classified the Soviet Communists during WW2 as being farther right than most people think of them as. SO, I suppose you could inference that the NAZI party, was actually not that far left. Also, (being a devoted fan of the Political Compass), I also have to point out that there is another dimension to where one stands politically. You can be far left, but also be liberal. For example: The Dalai Lama (spelling?), or Gandhi! (see The Political Compass to see what I mean!!!)
With pundits like Jim as representative of the “new Republicans” (known to the rest of the world as Repugnants), it may be true that the so called liberals and people who actually think and look at facts (not spin) are fighting an uphill battle against the ignorance and self-serving “righteousness” of these people. What’s strange is that most of the little people who supported Bush have no clue to how manipulated they became in the corporate/media sponsored election. Everything they hear and read is party line nonsense with no rebuttal. Carl Rove, the Prince of Darkness, has led this campaign with his bullying and conservative agenda, while the rest of the world looked to us as the champions of freedom and the upholder of justice. What a shame. Now we’re into this “Christian” (which it decidedly isn’t) mindframe of censorship, democracy at the end of a gun barrel, and ignoring the little things (like the sacrifices our troops are making, the state of the “homeland”, the environment, and the rest of the world). The Republicans claim moral superiority, yet every major religious group in the world EXCEPT the Southern Baptists denounced (the) war as a means of accomplishing anything positive (without the attendant backlash).
They aren’t paying attention to consequences; they don’t care about what ANYONE (including U.S. citizens and even people in their own party) says or thinks otherwise. Some actually believe they are doing “God’s will”. With this kind of thinking, Bush won’t be happy until he’s begun World War III. Let’s hear it for the “Apocollapse”!
What liberties do the far right want to give us? The liberty from dealing with people different from us? The liberty from having a sense of responsibility to others? The liberty from having our superstitions challenged by common sense and science? Thank you, but no.
Barbara Boxer.
Barbara Boxer.
This website’s idea of a Presidential candidate is Barbara Boxer.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
I haven’t laughed so hard at a Democrat ideal of leadership since John Kerry voted for (insert the issue) before he voted against (insert the issue). Or when Bill Clinton needed clarification on what text the word ‘the’ was being used. Or when Al Gore claimed he invented the internet. Or when Barbara Boxer lamented on the demise of Communism (Senate Commerce Committee hearing in May 2002.) Or when Ted Kennedy lectured on ‘water torture.’
Kevin, I share your amusement on considering B. Boxer for President in 2008. That one idea of course would indicate to you that the particular liberals that suggested it are firmly locked into some kind of ether-world, where nonsense rules and reality doesn’t apply.
I think, however you are wrong is stating that Boxer lamented the demise of Communism. I think you’re referring to when she stated that no matter what Castro thought, communism was dead in Cuba. I think she said (speaking in absentia to Castro) that “I’m sorry to say”. I don’t believe she was actually lamenting it for her own sake, but that is a mis-understanding of the quote.
I’d love to see her run too. Far funnier than Kerry’s campaign could ever be!
Actually the GOP wanted Iron Mike Ditka to run for the Senate against Obama, but he turned down the idea. Keyes was a late minute entery into the race, and never had time or effort to gain any ground in the election. Given the chioce I too would have voted for Obama in that election, but the fact that he is largely unproven makes you wonder about the footing of the Democratic leadership. The truth is that they have no leadership nor any sense of direction, and they will praise anyone that appears to have a small amount of charisma. Obama has that, but he has little experience to qualify as a real executive leader in a presidential sense. The Republicains are filled with leaders however, and they do indeed have a great sense of direction. The Democrats are on the road to extinction!!!!
Jim, I’d hardly say that you can extrapolate that they are on the road to extinction, but your point is well taken that they seem to have a dearth of presidential-quality leadership. Just suggesting that Obama, with his limited record should be the national candidate is so foolish as to be totally laughable. And Boxer, please, let’s not even bother to go there. If they put her up as the national candidate I might start agreeing with you that Demos are dying!
Benny and Jim display their ignorance about Barack Obama. Do they know what he’s been doing professionally and publicly over the past two decades?
Oh, let me ask them directly: Benny and Jim, do you know what Barack Obama has been doing on a professional and public basis over the past twenty years? If you did know, you’d also know that Barack Obama is no John Edwards, no Mike Ditka and certainly no Alan Keyes. He’s been fully engaged for some time. You just didn’t notice until now.
While admitting that Castro had helped to spread communism, she (Boxer) told Reich and her colleagues: “It’s a new day. Comunnism is dead. It’s even dead in Cuba. I hate to say it, it’s dead.”
Sounds to me like lamenting.
I wouldn’t say, “It’s a new day. Satanism is dead. It’s even dead in Texas. I hate to say it, it’s dead.” That would make me sound dissappointed that Satanism is on a downward slope.
I personally like Barack. I think he’s a pretty level-headed guy who seems to be the Dems best hope to turn a sinking ship into a forward-moving ocean liner.
Contrast his calm and clarity with Boxer’s tantrums and disoriented thinking and well, the contest seems clear.
I’ve read Obama’s website, public opinion on him and seen him speak several times on TV. To suggest that going from a Illinois state sentate to the Federal government in 2005 and then go for United States President in 2008 is laughable. Not to say at all that he doesn’t have accomplishments. I never said that. And he’s very smart and personable. I noticed him long before you did, as I grew up near Chicago and still have many friends and relatives there. To put him up for President in 2008 is your idea, and it’s a pretty dumb one if you want to win in ’08. Keep plugging him, it’s fine with me. Actually, wait, no it’s not. By suggesting that he runs before he has any actual chance of winning, you really run the risk of making him into another loser, like Kerry and Gore were. I don’t think he deserves that stigma. He might have great opportunities if he waits until he at least completes one full term.
Illinois State Senate
Professor of Constitutional Law
President of Harvard Law Review
Author
Community Organizer
Voter Registration Activist
Civil Rights Law Practice
Barack Obama is a long-time public servant of many facets and depth.
I say he is better qualified to be the president of the ACLU at this point rather than the executive office of the United States. On a serious note, the man is qualified to be in the Senate, plain and simple. Nothing more, and nothing less. His record does not yet qualify him for any further office until he should demonstrate the leadership of larger organizations. Personally I think the Senate is a bad place to go prior to running for president, and I think you will see many more former Governors run successfully rather than people in the Senate.