Mark Weisbrot wrote:

"But 80 percent of the electorate did not vote for Republican candidates. So
it takes quite an imagination to see this election as a mandate for anything
except fixing our broken-down democracy."

You don't need to be a diehard "Republican", nor a "radical right wing Conservative", nor a "fundamentalist Christian", nor an "anti-Semite",  to realize what a disingenuous, dishonest, erroneous, misleading, self-serving, arrogant statement this jew made.

If he's correct that 80% of "the electorate" didn't vote for the Republicans, then it logically follows that he knows that 85-90% of "the electorate" didn't vote for the Democrats, which marginalizes his position even more than he succeded in marginalizing the Republican position.

Who are these radical "liberals" who constitute less than 10-15% of "the electorate" who DO support the Democrats, who believe they have the right to impose their views and "opinions" on the 86-93% of Americans who are Christians, who DISAGREE with their agenda and the Democratic Party platform?  With less than 2% of Americans being feminazis, and less than 1.9% being jews, and less than 1% being sodomites, and less than 2% being "liberals" (and with jews being all of the above, plus some), it's hard to imagine that they could constitute more than 5% of the American population.

It's clear that their adverse influence far exceeds their numbers.



Mark Weisbrot: 'Democrats could try telling the truth'
Date: Saturday, November 09 @ 08:36:09 EST
Topic: The Democrats
By Mark Weisbrot, Common Dreams
The Democrats' loss in both houses of Congress has prompted more than the
usual debate over what went wrong. It seems clear that the most fundamental
strategic error made by the Democrats was to allow President Bush to
displace their issues by making Iraq dominate media coverage of the election
It is important not to bury this lesson, as the history of this election is
already being rewritten. Trent Lott, Senate Republican leader, claims a
mandate for the President: "The American people said, 'Yes, we trust this
man'," he said. And Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, whose surrender
President Bush helped seal his party's fate, concurred, saying that the
elections have given the President "an opportunity here to enact and
with the plan (on Iraq) as he has articulated it."
But 80 percent of the electorate did not vote for Republican candidates. So
it takes quite an imagination to see this election as a mandate for anything
except fixing our broken-down democracy.

Back in August, things were moving in the Democrats' direction. Due to
massive fraud and corporate crime, millions of older employees had lost
their savings and began postponing their retirement. By a lopsided margin of
55 to 25 percent, the public said that President Bush cared more about the
interests of large corporations than about ordinary working people.
Democrats led Republicans on the economy, the budget, Social Security, and
almost all of the biggest election issues except "national security and
Then George W. Bush discovered Iraq.
The Democrats could have said, why now? How did Saddam Hussein suddenly
become a national security threat just 8 weeks before the election? Or more
politely, they could have told President Bush to bring this up after the
election, as his father did with the first Gulf War.
But they caved instead. What is most amazing about this surrender is that it
is not, as in so many other cases, a result of the corruption of our
politics by campaign contributions. There was no clamor from Wall Street or
the Chamber of Commerce for attacking Iraq. There may be oil and gas
companies that stand to profit from this war, but they give most of their
political contributions to Republicans.
Of course corruption is still part of the story here. Democrats could have
pursued a whole set of scandals that might topple the Bush administration.
The Democratic leadership has apparently decided to tread carefully in the
area of corporate malfeasance for fear that some of their own luminaries
might wind up on the wrong side of an investigation. Clinton's former
Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, for example, might have to explain some phone
calls he made to Treasury last year, asking whether they were going to
intervene to protect Enron's bond ratings.
But the Democrats' betrayal on the war is a different story. It is the
latest, and the most morally repugnant, of a series of crucial political
decisions in which telling the truth would have been a much better strategy
even from the standpoint of their own self-interest. When President Bush
proposed his massive tax cut, with 40 percent of it going to the richest 1
percent of the country (average income: $1.1 million), they could have
opposed it on the grounds of fairness. Instead they chose to complain about
its effects on the federal budget deficit. They posed as the party of fiscal
conservatism, making up all kinds of gross exaggerations about the effect of
tax cuts on the deficit and the economy.
Thus voters are increasingly left with a choice between a party whose
principles favor the rich and powerful, and another that has almost no
principles at all. It is no wonder that most do not bother to show up at the
Fixing this problem will require a major overhaul, including real campaign
finance reform that puts an end to the legalized bribery of our elected
officials. But in the mean time, the Democrats might want to consider a
novel strategy: tell the truth once in a while, at least when it's in your
favor. You can hardly do worse than you have done with your poll-driven,
don't-challenge-a- president-with-high-approval-ratings, gutless
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research,
in Washington D.C. (
� Copyrighted 1997-2002
Reprinted from Common Dreams:
"A pig was placed on the American center stage in November/December of the
year 2000. The mainstream media painted it with lipstick, and the Democratic
leadership kick stepped behind, wearing pink tutus. Were it not for the
massively armed military orchestra in the pit, with weapons aimed at all who
fail to applaud, the world would respond accordingly, with rotted tomatoes
and cabbages, to this misplaced vaudevillian joke."
- James Higdon