Skip to main content

A few laughers from the 2008 Democratic Party Platform for those of you who think those national platforms matter

One commenter here (who shall remain anonymous) thinks it is a cute exercise to quote either the Libertarian Party platform, or the Green Party platform, or any other cherry-picked item to challenge the legitimacy of anyone who would self-identify as anything other than one of the major Demopublican flavors.   

Libertarians are dangerous because they want to eliminate civil rights or public education; look, it says so right here in the platform, and if you don't subscribe to every word of your platform then how can you claim to be a Libertarian.

So let's take a look at some of the promises and positions from the Democratic Party Platform of 2008 that turned out to be, ah, problematic"
"We will eliminate all Federal income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 per year."

"Our Children's First Agenda, including increases in Head Start and Early Head Start. . . ."

"We will make an unprecedented investment to provide teachers with better pay . . . ."

"We need . . . to promote public charter schools that are accountable . . . ."

"We support full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act."

"We will start a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank . . . ."

"We will strengthen privacy protections in the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy."

"We will maintain fiscal responsibility so that we do not mortgage our children's future on a mountain of debt."

"We will not increase taxes on any family earning under $250,000. . . ."

"We will insure that savings incentives are fair to all workers by matching half of the initial $1,000 of savings for families that need help. . . ."

"America cannot afford to continue to run up huge deficits. . . ."

"We will not raise taxes on people making less that $250,000, and we will eliminate Federal Income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000."

"We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO--including necessary assets like satellites and predator drones . . . ."

"We must also be willing to consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense. . . ."

"We support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 troops, and the Marines by 27,000 troops."

"We will aggressively address Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury [among our veterans]."

"We will double our annual investment [in the UN Milennial Development Goals]."

"We will make it a top priority to reduce oil consumption by at least 35%, or ten million barrels per day, by 2030."

"We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked."

"We will repeal the prohibition on negotiating prescription drug prices . . . ."

"The government we create will . . . protect our civil liberties."

"We will pay for our new spending . . . ."

"We will close the revolving door that has allowed people to use their position in the Adminstration as a stepping-stone to further their lobbying careers."

"We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspeted of a crime.  We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war.  We reject torture.  We reject sweeping claims of 'inherent' Presidential power.  We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years.  We will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine duly enacted law."

"We will close the detention camp in Guatanamo Bay. . . "

So I'm wondering just how President Obama gets to claim he is a Democrat, if he didn't carry through on so many critical planks of the Democratic Platform?

Cause, you see, if he's not a Democrat, then I guess he'll have to come clean and run as an independent.

National party platforms don't matter worth spit, which is why nobody but trolls and people with too little else to occupy their time ever go back and read them.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...