Why Are Democrats Afraid of Peace?

and try to answer that question .... why SHOULD they?

The question is NOT whether or not there exist voters who would prefer that the Democrats stood for peace (there are, perhaps many, perhaps a majority of the party, but read on).

The question is rather are there any who because the Democrats do not take a peace position will vote Republican? (I seriously doubt THAT).

How about people who because the Democrats don't take a stand for peace will withhold their votes, vote for some thid party? Yes, there are SOME people like that, call them "A"s. Now how about people who are pro war, any of them Democrats who would then vote Republican if the Democrats added a strong peace plank? Yes, let's call that group "B"s.

Are you telling me that the Democrats are making a mistake judging the relative size of the "A"s versus the "B"s? Or are you saying "the Democrats should support "peace" because it's the right thing to do regardless of votes?

If the former, I would agree with you that IF that were true, the Democrats should include a peace plank. But that's a big if (I think you are wrong about the numbers).

If the latter, I suggest that you do NOT understand what democracy is. Democracy is NOT about making the "right" decisions, good decisions, wise decisions, moral decisions, etc. Democracy is about making the decisions the people want, for good or for ill, what they will vote for.

The "job" of a poliical party in a democracy is to represent interests. I'm truly sorry, but there does not yet appear to be any significant groundswell of suport for the "peace" interest.

Winning the voters is a secondary matter. Corporate sponsors are the ones whom the Democrats have to please. Those corporate sponsors are essentially the same ones who also fund the Republicans, but they're also quite willing to fund Democrats who think, act and legislate like Republicans.

If Kerry loses the November election, the Democratic Party will still survive as long as it can get corporate funding for the future elections. But if Kerry were to win the election at the cost of alienating the corporations, then corporate funding would dry up and Democrats would stand a poor chance in the future. (In fact, a Democratic president might even be impeached on some trifling grounds if he were to go too far in offending the corporations.)

In short, this is government by the corporations, of the corporations and for the corporations.

Devil's Advocate, how can you call what we have a democracy when the people are influenced by a LYING MEDIA that is owned by corporate puppetmasters? The same ones that fund the candidates that rig elections and give them favors? The same ones that help create fear campaigns to influence the election how THEY want it to go to best serve their interests. War is profit, and those making the profit want to keep that going don't they. They will spend any amount to ensure it.

That is why movies like Fahrenheit 9-11, even with all it's flaws, has power to let a just a sliver of doubt in there. It managed to bypass the gates. Have Americans have lost their desire to question authority and blindly accept the status quo? I don't think so, but the media would have you believe otherwise. Long live independent media.

I think that we need to rethink our democracy, who is serving it up to us and why and and overhaul it.

And by the way, I'm dissapointed that in Fahrenheit 911 Michael Moore didn't go the full nine yards and realize to the audience that it is bigger than Bush, so his film will end up pushing voters to Kerry, who voted for the freaking Invasion of Iraq in the first place. Conundrum? Yes, well, maybe that will be the 2008 film.

Michael Moore did NOT make the Democrats look good. He showed the Democrats surrendering their 2000 victory. And that was one of the best parts of the film.

They're a danger to us all.