NOTE: apologies for any typos...my left arm is completely incapacitated (temporarily I hope), so I'm typing this with one hand...argh!
In a recent response to one of my posts, DB made an entertaining analogy that presidents are really pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things...that they're merely front men - kind of like Roger Daltry, and that he was more interested in what the band was playing. I very much liked and totally agree with that analogy which is the reason for the subj line. So in keeping with that spirit...
There's been a big "Battle of The Demorockers" festival going on here in my town over the past several days. John Kerry and "The Electo-rate" opened the competition to a packed house at a local plumbers and pipefitters union hall on Wednesday. They were followed up by J. Edwards and the "Everyman Band" playing to loyal fans and a large contingent of cheering, striking steel workers over the weekend at a nearby outdoor venue. Oddly, both bands seemed to have very similar current hit singles, neither of which were bad at all btw, especially for being written by the two frontmen. Even more strangely though, was that both band's new songs dealt with eerily similar subject material. The Electo-rate band was probably a little tighter on their set than Everyman, but I just attributed that to having had a bit more practice. Everyman's song is newer, but no less well composed. Electo-rate's song was called "Trade and Labor Were Stolen By The Neighbors" and Everyman's song was called "The Mill is Gone". I was just glad that they didn't play their songs "Bush was AWOL" or "Bush is Hitler" stuff that the local radio stations have seemed so fond of recently. Those are just the fluffy pop tunes afterall..catchy hooks, designed for the masses. No, these guys finally rolled out their newest stuff, the songs that could make or break thier respective new albums, which is what I was really hoping to hear. But in the end, it was hard to declare a winner and I'd say it came down to a tie. Both bands were well recieved and I think the whole town was happy for all the attention it brought, not to mention surprised that they didn't trash any of our hotel rooms. They'd all be welcome back anytime.
ugh..ok..enough fun with the analogy. I'm getting carried away. Besides, my other arm is already getting tired (as is my head) and I haven't even come close to making a point yet. So onto that...
I guess you can see where I'm going with this. I was happy to see that both dem camps that came here directly (well, in the manner of campaigning politicians anyway) addressed an issue that I wanted to hear them on. Labor. It was the right choice of topics for this area too, where a lot of jobs have been lost in recent years(and by no means all on Bush's watch). I think it's possible that the left can make a viable stand on this issue, but it's a very slippery slope for both parties. But it doesn't have to be a muddy one and that's what people really want to see (or hear)..who can get down the slope first without throwing mud in the other guy's eye.
Seriously though, before I engage in a debate on this very personal topic (for me anyway) with my heavily fortified democratic friends here on the board I need to know the answer to what I've come to believe is the one most basic fundamental difference between our politics on it. (sorry if it's leading, but my position will be obvious)
Do you believe that it is your government's responsibility to provide you with a job if you've lost or don't have one?
A simple yes or no will be fine. I'll take it from there.
Marc
