Convention Thoughts – Moon of Alabama

July 26, 2004

Convention Thoughts

Looking at the Democrats Convention site under ->Convention Info ->Party Platform – if you have Acrobat installed – is the REPORT OF THE PLATFORM COMMITTEE. Great – here comes the definite program of the opposition to the Bush catastrophe:

…
Our overriding goals are the same as ever: to protect our people and our way of life
…
To rise to those challenges, we must strengthen our military, including our Special Forces, improve our technology, and task our National Guard with homeland security.
…
Cutting taxes for middle class Americans.
…

Upps – not what I expected.
Who may call himself Democrat and claim as overriding goal to protect our way of life?
What Democrat may task our National Guard with homeland security?
Talking about tax cuts for the middle class Americans, would a Democrat probably mention what should be done for the lower class Americans?

Some years ago I was working in marketing intensive company. The advertising folks did run ads that claimed the product to be the Best Antibiotic Against Viruses. It was beyond their comprehension when some objected that there might be some problem with that claim. (Later a satiric magazine reprinted that ad series.)

Posted by b on July 26, 2004 at 22:46 UTC | Permalink

Comments

The Democrats
@ Bernhard
Kerry might have a severe problem with his National Guard strategy unless he gets his Iraq policy right…
Army National Guard recruiting falling short
On the eve of the Democrat’s National Convention in Boston, Ralph Nader used the pages of the Boston Globe to predict issues that won’t be on the agenda for discussion…
12 topics the Democrats will duck at their Convention – Ralph Nader
Is he right?

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 27 2004 0:05 utc | 1

@Nemo
For my money he is right, right that they are incredibly important issues and right that they will not be mentioned. Here’s #13 – gay marriage (Ralph has never been particularly comfortable with that area of progressive politics). We already know that the Kerry people went to great lengths to keep many of those items Ralph mentioned off the platform.
After all, this platform pretty much reflects what the Democrats are about and have been about for a while now. Fortunately, I live in a “safe state” and don’t have to agonize about not voting for that shit.

Posted by: tgs | Jul 27 2004 2:06 utc | 2

Maybe I’m slow this morning, but I don’t quite understand Bernhard’s horror at the idea of the National Guard’s being used for “Homeland Security.”
I thought that most National Guardspeople were already signing up primarily for domestic defense and crisis management purposes, at least until recently. The idea of having Guardspeople inspecting ports or loitering around looking menacing on subway platforms bothers me less than having them run raids in Fallujah.
Can you walk me through your reasoning here?

Posted by: Jackmormon | Jul 27 2004 8:58 utc | 3

Jack: keeping in mind Bernhard is German and knows his national history, let’s just imagine a system where the Army conquers and pacifies newly conquered areas, and National Guard “pacifying” and “keeping order” inside the homeland. I would assume he fears this could lead to the Guard being under the D. of Homeland Security’s watch, which is one step short of having them turned into NKVD, Stasi or Gestapo.
Of course, that may not be at all what is promoted by the Dems, but you could twist it that way pretty easily.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Jul 27 2004 14:09 utc | 4

Well, it is my understanding that the Posse Comitatus act prohibits the use of U.S. troops for domestic law enforcement, for one thing.
Then you get into questions like, what laws are they enforcing? The local policeman you see today is an officer of the court, authorized to directly act when he observes certain laws being broken. Federal agents can’t arrest you for a traffic violation, and there are a lot of restrictions on what the cop on the beat can arrest or interfere with you about.
Putting the National Guard in a law enforcement role raises a lot of questions about whether they actually have the legal authority to act, and just how they got that authority.
And if there were ever a time to wonder if authority is acting legally, this would be that time.

Posted by: serial catowner | Jul 28 2004 22:43 utc | 5

I’m afraid I agree with Bernhard on this one, and as a native-born American. It unnerved me after 9/11 to watch the fighter jets flying over me on the expressway home from work – I knew they were “protecting” us but somehow – at my house we still make black jokes for the flyovers and local surveilling at intersections (from weird experimental-looking craft) – I felt like a foreigner in my own land. And I’m not at all sure, catowner, that current Repugs care a whit about posse comitatus unless Clinton’s in office, and then they scream it (Janet Reno). Our military already say they do urban exercises in anticipation of when the poor may rise up …

Posted by: francoise | Jul 29 2004 18:30 utc | 6

Back to Main