Budget deal would probably give Bush victory on war funding
Way to show yourselves as the principled majority party we voted in in '06. Ever wonder why your collective approval rating rivals Dick Cheney?
CNN: (h/t miss kitty)
Democratic lawmakers and staffers privately say they're closing in on a broad budget deal that would give President Bush as much as $70 billion in new war funding.
Congress is likely to pass an additional $70 billion in new war funds, Democrats tell CNN.
The deal would lack a key provision Democrats had attached to previous funding bills calling for most U.S. troops to come home from Iraq by the end of 2008, which would be a significant legislative victory for Bush.
Democrats admit such a move would be highly controversial within their own party. Coming just weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, vowed the White House would not get another dollar in war money this year, it would further antagonize the liberal base of the party, which has become frustrated with the congressional leadership's failure to push back on Bush's Iraq policy.
"The base will not be happy," said one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss budget negotiations that have not been completed.
The Democratic aide acknowledged the president is likely to get new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before Congress adjourns for the year. "Yes, in the end, that's where we will be," the aide said.
frist
Vote ALL the bums out!
Support the troops by bringing them home. Now!
Pelosi and the rest of the ENABLERS and spineless Democrats can kiss their "careers" goodbye!
I'm not gonna say it. I'll be wasting my breath and my keyboard strokes. We're doomed.
Fuck these elected Democrats. I don't know who's worse: this administration or their enablers.
Pelosi couldn't lead toilet tissue to her ass. Maybe we should start by removing her - that way we can actually move forward with somethng.
Last election, I sent some money to the Dems. Not this time. If we wanted this bullshit, we could always vote repug.
Three nights ago, I got a solicitation call from the Congressional Democratic Committee... and I usually say "OK... put $25 or $50 or whatever on my charge card". But this time I told the young man to tell them: "Not one dollar more until you end this war."
I only hope that our Democrats in Congress use the power we gave them and stand up to Bush and say NO!
the dem cave-in was predicted last friday.
“The base will not be happy...”
No shit. But that hasn't stopped any of them from voting like republicans yet...
RedWhite&Brooklyn @ 7:
for me: no DLC, DSCC or DCCC. I registerd Democratic so I can vote them out!
Nadar was right and ya'll know it. There is no difference between Dems and Repugs. None. Do you really think that even if Dems pick up seats in both houses and win the White house that anything will change? Or anything will get passed?
Here's a small list. Tell me I'm wrong...please.
Universal healthcare or merely healthcare reform: Nope
Out of Iraq/ end of the war : Nope
A sane foreign policy: Nope
NAFTA/ CAFTA dismantled: Hell no.
Capitualation on the minority parties rhetorical whining: Yep.
So Harry Reid flat out lied when he said that there would be no additional war funding without a requirement for withdrawl. Way to be, Harry. Way to be.
The base won't be happy?!?
More like every American with common sense won't be happy!
Democrats: Spineless, stupid cowards.
Here is the dem strategy:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/13/3559/2099/574/421499
It is all about electing more dems and a dem President to ram thru their agenda.
It was great to hear all the dem candidates promising to get out of Iraq and restore the Constitution and the rule of law.
Knowing what we now know regarding the global credit crunch and the probable continued devaluation of the dollar, why aren't we screaming in the streets?
This is infuriating beyond belief. I don't know what more can be said...nobody speaks for the majority of Americans that also has a position of political authority. Sad times are these.
I hate to say this, but I have lost all faith in the Democratic party. We need a new party with some brains and backbone. This is the next in a series of humiliating defeats and it is quite pathetic to say the least.
as a "radical" opposed to this war, my only option now is Ron Paul. At least there is a flicker of hope
So the DICKtator Chimp tells his trained dogs to roll over and play dead again. And they do. He has them well trained indeed.
It is all about electing more dems and a dem President to ram thru their agenda.
They don;t have an agenda other than getting elected. I've always known that deep down, all politicians are the same cynics, but the last 18 months have really shown the Democrats to be a cynical party with no plans to reverse the damage casued by the Bush 43 regime. We're really screwed.
please take pelosi outside and tie her up and place her on the railroad track. she is doing just this to us. fuck this bitch and fuck the winnie reed too.
disillusioned @ 17:
A new party would be very welcome right now. Because the Dems in Congress aren't doing a damn thing. Stalker Joe must be proud.
Mr. Reid... I found a pair of balls on the ground yesterday. Are they yours?
This has got to be the story so far that has made me the most depressed. I'm going to go wallow in egg nogg.
getalife @ 14:
I'm aware of that viewpoint. It is wrong though. I'm going to vote against every incumbent I can.
Our party never goes for the knockout punch. They don't care that millions of people read blogs and listen to progressive talk. They are afraid of "serious" columnists like David Broder who work for newspapers with dying circulations
I'm sure the democrats will send a very strongly worded letter conveying their unhappiness along with the check at least.
Mike @ 11:
Yep. You're absolutely right. And Nader was right too. And we are screwed because even though the dems won't do what I want, the republicans will do things I couldn't have imagined.
I hate the hell out this shit too. Having said that, imagine what the repubs would say. The dems are cutting off the money our soldiers need right here at the holidays. Our soldiers are far away from their family at this time of year and the dems do not support them and refuse to give them what they need.
Of course none of that is true, the soldiers have what they need into next year, but you know those are the words we would hear.
I'm not defending anything here, just playing the devil's advocate.
Maybe the bill will contain non-binding guidelines on our ideas about looking into trying to stop increasing the number of US servicemembers sent to Iraq.
By the way, this is the Senate right? I mean, the previous bill already passed the house.
At this rate there won't be any money to be spent on our own people. It's all going into this GD war. Bush wanted it so let him and his cronies fund it. After all they have made billions on it. Bush vetoes every bill that would help this country and keeps asking for more and more for this war which we didn't want. I'm 62 and I've never been this discouraged in my life. I really don't see much hope for future generations.
Any chance we are seeing the fruits of the Emperor's domestic surveilance programs. Get enough dirt on someone and their integrity soon disappears. Couple that with enough corporatist cash and pork. Well this what you get
pissed off patricia @ 27:
I wonder sometimes how things would have turned out if Lincoln had parsed his words based on his thoughts about what the opposition would say.
Don't some of you, us, share a lot of the blame for this situation? Are many of the people in the liberal community not backing what amounts to corporate sellouts? Is Clinton (who just called freaking Obama "too far left") and Obama (who's assembling the same Wall Street economic team that instructed Clinton to abondone his progressive policies and to adopt the "bond market" strategy early in his first term) not going to be a continuation of this, with minor at most adjustments? It seems like the Democratic base deserves just as much blame as the Republican base. What has either party done for you to support either one? It IS possible to build up grassroot support for people like Kucinich, much worse odds are faced by citizens in other (much poorer) countries voting for changes that are even more deep rooted than ours, while facing more odds. THEY don't make excuses. Until the left start working on creating alternative structures than the ones that currently exist they have no one to blame but themself, myself included. The structures that currently exist were designed by the elites, for the elites, and nothing will change them enough to see things like universal single player healthcare, a change in economic policies, strong envrionmental policies, etc created.
Mike @ 11:
Sorry, Mike, you're just plain wrong. You think our environment would have been this abused if Gore had been in office the past 6 years? You Nader folks seem to be looking for any reason to justify your being responsible for this travesty of an administration.
pissed off patricia @ 27:
They can say that until they are blue in the face. The dems have to do something based on principle sometime - maybe the public would appreciate a democrat with a backbone. I mean, they don't know - they haven't tried that approach yet.
The dems couldn't even get the CAFE standards raised to 35 mpg by 2020. By 2020, gas will cost 35$ a gallon!! They should raise CAFE stadards to 50 mpg by 2015.
Old Billy @ 28:
maybe pigs will fly
CLEAN HOUSE IN ALL HOUSES.
Say it loud, say it often.
Two words: term limits
This Congress is Chicken Shit and I'm a pissed Democrat!
BLH Carlsbad Ca
It's not a matter of rank-and-file unhappiness. It's the simple fact that the base is evaporating with each passing month. There are two democratic presidential contenders who will not receive my vote next November (under any circumstance) should either gain the nomination. 5 years ago, I first refused to cast a ballot for my democratic congressman-at-the-time, or my democratic senator in 2006. My days of reflexively casting a ballot for the perceived "lesser of the two evils" are long gone, because the line of departure between the two parties has diminished to the point where it's imperceptible.
I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, I'm an American. What the hell happened to the rest of ya'll?
Yes, Antiwar Movement, There is a Santa Claus
http://www.counterpunch.org/volatile12102007.html
Welcome to the Revolution
the real problem with voting these fools out.....
Who is gonna replace em???
if it's a repuke , i'm given my house away and movin to Canadia
Matt in Texas @ 33:
That doesn't mean Nader was wrong. Nader was right on the issues, he was just wrong on the mechanism. Which leaves us with the dems.
VietVet8666 @ 31:
If there had been tv, 24/7 news channels and the internet back then, I don't know how Lincoln would have handled what he said. I'm not being snide, I just don't know.
The Democrats need to keep their mouths shut when they try and stand up to the Chimp, because it makes them look even more pathetic when they cave in. Reid and Pelosi have said no more money and yet they back down each time.
Post American @ 40:
Fuck Ron Paul. I'm tired of that crap. I went to your link because of the "welcome to the revolution" thing. Don't you realize, libertarianism leaves us at the mercy of the corporations. You think Exxon would give a flying fuck about spilling a little oil from their pipelines if the big bad federal government wouldn't exert oversight? You think anyone would pay you overtime?
Let me guess, the Dems are powerless and their hands are tied.
Old Billy @ 42:
Agreed, but the reality of voting for Nader in 2000 was the current administration. Hell, I agree with Ralph more so than I agree with most Dems (esp. the stinkin' DLC types) but I voted for Gore. Nader was never going to win, and given the neocons' extremist views, it was irresponsible to vote for Nader in such a close election. Not saying I like the 2-party system, just dealing in reality.
So let me get this straight. Bush can deny progressives nearly EVERYTHING (he just vetoed SCHIP again) and someone the Dem leadership gives him EXACTLY what he wants everytime. As far as I'm concerned, Bush is a spoiled-as-fuck rich kid who's use to getting whatever he wants, and the Democratic leadership is just reinforcing that behavior. It's as if the Senate leadership is paranoid that Bush-baby will throw a fit if he doesn't get what he wants. I say let him have is temper tantrum, but someone needs to start acting like the grown-up!
Matt in Texas @ 47:
And it's exactly that manufactured reality that has Kuisinich and Paul destroying other candidates in the polls, but not even invited to the debates. Face facts, a lot of what Americans accept as 'reality' is manufactured for the gains of the elite.
Democrats in both House and Senate = Whimps and pussies.
I agree w/another poster above, come the Primaries and Gen. Elections next year,
I intend to vote for ANYONE other than the incumbents.
How do you think any of this needed change is going to happen in the absence of a popular movement in this country? Give me a single example where radical change happened (and radical change does need to happen, if you take what you say seriously) in the absence of a popular, participatory movement? I can't think of a single one. People seem to think that they'll vote some angel into office and they'll solve everything. If you aren't personally involved and you think that voting for someone, in the absence of direct action, will solve these problems don't hold your breath. Can anyone name a single institution that doesn't need top down change? Can anyone think of a single dominant economic idea, all based on classical economics that has no relevance to the world we live in, that isn't completely outdated? I think the problems are beyond hope, the only thing that could force change, because the people won't do it directly obviously, is an economic crash and the change could make the situation here even worse than it already is.
"Hell, I agree with Ralph more so than I agree with most Dems (esp. the stinkin’ DLC types) but I voted for Gore. Nader was never going to win"
If every person who said this, and says the same of Kucinich now, actually went with their instincts and didn't listen to the press telling them who was and wasn't electable Nader, and Kucinich now, would have had a large share of the vote.
disillusioned @ 17:
say only option , bullshit thiers a better option DENNIS KUCINICH!08
getalife @ 14:
You mean back in 06 when they said the same thing?
What's worse, the Democrats are going to run a candidate for president who will ensure that America's war against the Iraqi people continues, and that the permanent military bases and the green zone compound remain intact. You know it as well as I do.
Does anyone else notice how what the Iraqi people want is never mentioned by these politician charlatans, as if Iraq and its resources belong to us and what the Iraqis want is irrelevant? It's not like the opinions of Iraqis are a mystery. There have been numerous nationwide polls of Iraqis conducted over the years, even as recently as a couple of months ago. They have all shown an overwhelming majority of Iraqis opposed to the military occupation of their country, solid majorities believing that attacks against U.S. troops are justified, and most thinking that the U.S. presence in that country is making things worse. You would never know that the Iraqi people even have an opinion listening to your front-runner Democrat politicians. All we hear from are rationalizations devoid of such considerations.
Have you ever noticed how every piece of legislation that is sold to the American people as "troop withdrawal" and "ending the war" is, in actuality, once you read the fine print and spot the loopholes, legislation that ensures that the U.S. will never leave that country, and will continue its war against the people of Iraq indefinitely?
Aside from Vietnam and Lebanon, has the U.S. ever left a country once the troops and bases are in place? The empire has littered the globe with bases and troops. We maintain over 700 military installations (that the Pentagon will admit to) in some 130 countries. Why is this fact never mentioned by any of your front-runner Democrat politicians? Could it be that they like the prospect of the U.S. as a military empire, as long as they are at the helm?
The U.S. spends approx. $1 trillion dollars per year on its military, which extends beyond just the commonly cited Pentagon budget. More than the rest of the world spends on its military combined. Why is this "inconvenient truth" never mentioned by the front-runner Democrats? Isn't there better things that we could be doing with all this money? And why are people like Obama wanting to increase the size of our military???????? Is he insane?
[By the way, Obama's foreign policy speeches are a real hoot. When I have the time, I'll dissect them for you. While couched in flowery rhetoric (what tyrant doesn't do this?), his Wilsonian internationalist/interventionist globo-cop "vision" for the U.S. is frightening. These imperialist "world improvers" never learn.]
pepper @ 52:
I'll keep saying it. We need a NEW ELECTORAL SYSTEM before people will stop voting tactically. If we want more than two parties, if we want genuine representation, we must abandon our winner-take-all, single-member districts.
We have to start the movements for this in our cities and states. And we'd better start it now.
Ronin Tetsuro @ 49:
Yeah, but STILL the reality of November 2000 was either Gore or Bush was going to be elected. The general election wasn't the time to challenge the current system. And we all have been woefully ineffective in trying to change it since.
Having said that, with the lack of good candidates (save for Kucinich, who IS getting my vote) this could possibly be the year a third party candidate rises up and makes some noise, i.e. gets enough electoral votes to become a kingmaker and force the Dems and Repigs to actually address the public's concerns. He/she MUST be clear of all ties to corporate America and the political establishment. Anyone wanna nominate such a person?
And don't forget we have SCHIPS vetoed for the second time this week...Very frustrating to see where the priorities lie.
By the way, my Dad saw a poll where John Edwards beats EVERY Republican in a national election. There's the guarantee right there he won't get the party nomination. (I really hope I am wrong)
Rasputin @ 55:
Exactly. Further, why haven't any of these people mentioned the CPA's policies under Bremer? So radically free market, and so tilted towards international (and not domestic) investors that the Iraqi Chamber of Commerce actually protested! Or the fact that the Bush administration attempted to cancel the Iraqi elections and pushed through the CPA before the elections so that the Iraqis didn't chose policies that these crooks didn't wanted implemented. The oil privatization bill? Same thing. Imperialism is ok, as long as the war of theft is short enough.
I don't know...
I used to get furious every time the dems capitulated...but then I thought...A congress with a democratic supermajority..coupled with a democratic president....just imagine it.
Think of the things that could be accomplished...return to progressive taxation; strict environmental controls; real investment in finding alternative energy sources; ending corporate welfare; greater investment in public schools w/o bullshit teaching to the test; single-payer, universal healthcare; rebuilding our global diplomatic relations....and ending the war in Iraq ...finally...and completely....and not one republican could do a thing to stop it.
An opportunity doesn't come around like this very often. Perhaps it is cynical....but maybe it's for the greater good...in the long run. I really think this is a realistic possibility.
What a worthless pack of cowards.
Its enough to make you retch.
ohio liberal @ 60:
I fear those days are gone. The Corporation rules now. They are all out for themselves, not the constituents.
I told my husband if the dems don't win in 08 I'm going home to Canada. Now I think I'll have to go home anyway, and he will have to decide if he wants to come too. I am so disgusted and depressed its truly pathetic.
theexog @ 63:
You may encounter a problem getting into Canada since there will be many, many
of us on the same road and congestion will be awful.
I wish I could go to Canada. I don't like living in the Homeland - I want my country back, but it's not going to happen as long as the Dem leadership keeps caving. This country is a sick place, full of sick people - bread and circuses lull the masses, the political class is wholly owned by corporations, the general media is full of trivia and mis-information.
Hey, thexog, could you adopt me?
It hurts worse when your betrayed by the people you trust. I expect this from the Republicans. A year ago, I didn't expect this behavior from the Demo-cowards.
What do you expect fromk a one-part system? Damn Dempublicans or is it Republocrats? Who cares they are all jerking us around.
ohio liberal @ 60:
at the rate the dems are going....we'll be lucky to hold on to a 50/50 Senate....while I hope for the best,I'm not gonna hold my breath....after all the let downs,I'm beginning to expect the dems to roll over.I don't understand why.....................the only thing that can help the dems now ....is investigations into corrupt and illegal practices done by this admin and other repugs.....hopefully that will be enough.
I gotta hand it to ya Ohio Liberal.......the glass is half full.
Wow.. what a surprise! Bush gets what he wants again! Gee, haven't seen that happen except for the past 965431 fucking times.
If the dems were anymore spineless they'd be a bowl of gellatin.
It's funny, there's an analogy between the Democrats in Washington and their base.
They'd love to shove a war-ending bill down the president's throat, but they don't have the votes for that. So their options are to hold fast and not give the president what he wants or to fold. They consistently choose "fold" because they don't want to be painted as "not supporting the troops."
And then there's us, the suckers who keep supporting them. Will we bolt the Democrats in '08? Well I will. I have. No one with a 'D' after their name gets my support for one WHOLE election. After that, my vote is back up for bid, but I'm not coming back unless I see some backbone. That's what my vote costs. Sorry.
But then there's the argument that we HAVE to keep supporting the Dems because then otherwise the hated Rethugs will gain. Nothing can be worse than that.
So, therefore, the Dems need only be marginally not as bad as the Rethugs for us all to commit. Electing Democrats is to us as "funding the troops" is to them.
It's a leveraged argument. No one wants to defund the troops and no one wants to see more Republicans in power.
And as long as you let your enemies define the terms of any debate, these are the kinds of choices you will always encounter. It'll never be whether we should fund more healthcare for kids or provide more affordable post-secondary education. No. It'll always be whether we should buy more bibles with public money or bomb more poor people.
That will always be the debate so long as we keep sending the same people back. Always.
So, keep electing them. They're counting on it. They're counting on you. When the rubber hits the road, you will vote 'D.' You know it and they know it and that's why they're ignoring you completely.
And always will.
Because you're a sucker for it.
So shut up and vote for who you've been ordered to vote for.
"Way to show yourselves as the principled majority party we voted in in ‘06. Ever wonder why your collective approval rating rivals Dick Cheney?"
Neither one gets any positive press -- Dick Cheney because he's a traitor, and the Congress because the Republicans run the press. Is this news to you, Nicole?
Quite obviously the DNC is working up a deal. The Progressives still oppose such an action, as you note. And these reports are HIT PIECES on the Democrats, in order to drive down the approval -- it is not 'reporting.'
The previous attempt to come up with an omnibus bill including money for AFGHANISTAN (not Iraq) was offered as propaganda last week by both WaPo and NYT. Nevermind Bush already said he would veto it (which is good politics on our side). Next it was that the Senate was going to fold -- also blamed on the Democrats (as if we control the votes in that body with our 25 loyal Dems).
Busy blaming the entire caucus for the DLC's pressure is just continuing to fail to support the Progressives who have succeeded now for seven months to prevent any additional funding for Iraq. Keep on bashing the Progressives, and put the DLC back into power -- and then the bashing will be even easier an excuse for political noninvolvement.
FunMe @ 2:
As I have pointed out previously, you DO NOT have the power to remove Majority Leader Steny Hoyer -- except by shifting the House back to the Republicans. He wins his elections by 70+% margins, and the Republicans don't even bother running against him.
If that's the leftist goal, I wouldn't be surprised. In fact, some have suggested this approach here -- in between talking about fleeing the country. And no wonder! With such self-destructive plans, might as well get cheap tickets before the rush.
CoIntelPro @ 10 "for me: no DLC, DSCC or DCCC. I registerd Democratic so I can vote them out!"
Them? You will be able to vote for ONE Democrat Representative, and MAYBE one Senator (2 chances in 3).
So WHICH House Dem are you going to vote against? Or are you still a ghost who threatens but never actually puts their threat in context?
CoIntelPro @ 8:
The DLC effort has been used to bash the entire caucus for weeks, if not all year.
It was characterized as 'cave-in' when it referred to an Omnibus bill, as I said above -- a bill Bush already said he would veto. So that's not a 'cave-in' -- that's politics.
YOUR politicians (who do not exist) never make mistakes, never compromise, never run into monied opposition. Your politicians don't exist -- but why should that stop them?
dadams @ 20:
Are you a person of honor? It doesn't appear so.
Didn't you read Pelosi's statement in Nicole's post? She is not the one doing this, but by the way there are others in Congress you can be angry at, but that's just too much for you. Fuck yourself -- it makes just as much sense.
ohio liberal @ 60:
Be careful what you wish for. By the time the next president takes office, the recession will be in full bloom and the dollar will be toast. The U.S. will still be in Iraq and Afghanistan (remember that ugly little war against the Afghan people?). As far as Iraq goes, neither Sadr and his bloc nor the Sunnis will stand down forever. They haven't changed their political stance against the military occupation of their country, and they aren't going anywhere. They are simply biding their time. Waiting out "the surge." Very Smart. That is how you play the game of asymmetrical warfare.
I personally think Democrats in control of all three branches would be a good thing. The party would be utterly ruined by events beyond their control. And it deserves to be ruined. It is an entirely corrupt, venal institution. The less faith the American people have in their charade of a political system the better.
You mean like the corn-based ethanol boondoggle? Like everything else in this country, the search for alternative energy solutions will be a process guided by corporate bribery of politicians, regardless of whether the left or right wing of the corporate/war party is in charge.
So a bunch of politicians who are owned by the corporations are going to end corporate welfare? lol.
Yeah. Let's throw more money at a bunch of bloated top-heavy bureaucracies whose job it is to squash the ability of children to think critically and independently, fill their head with a bunch of empire-aggrandizing propaganda, and to turn them into a bunch of obedient worker drones in service to the corporations.
That would take dismantling the empire of bases, rolling back IMF/World Bank/WTO- style "free trade", and giving up the role of "globo-cop" and the religion of American exceptionalism. Neither the right or left wing of the corporate/war party has any intention of doing these things.
Neither the right or left wing of the corporate/war party has any intention of leaving Iraq. Ever.
You've got to be a troll. Nobody is this naive.
This is exactly the reason why I refuse to vote Democratic in national elections. (Don't worry, I don't plan on voting Republican anytime soon!) What's the point if they aren't going to grow some balls and stand for something? I'm sick of being let down.
Paul in LA @ 75:
Fair enough. What do we need to do to drive a stake into the heart of the DLC?
Surely, pissing the base off THIS much is going to have a negative impact on your ability to get things done, no?
Shouldn't that fall into the political calculus at some point?
Or is the base expected to continue sucking up betrayal after betrayal after betrayal?
Rasputin @ 77:
So your politics are so lofty that you suggest that the Republicans should be elevated to permanent power, or else revolution?
Why does that smell like Naderism? Oh -- maybe because IT IS.
Matt in Texas @ 33:
First off. I've never voted for Nader, Dems, or Repubs etc. I vote Zappa and only Zappa. Simply, I think he's still the most honest candidate there ever will be. But, If you think your corporate Dems are going to come up with some meaningful environmental policy that somehow doesn't bow to their real masters then you go ahead believe that and vote for em' and remember to do your part and recycle. But you still haven't answered the questions I originally posed. When Hillary Clinton wins the election what do think is going to happen? Seriously.
JasonS @ 79:
A lot more organization than we have, obviously.
The most strident, bitter leftists here will not even mention their representatives. I know yours, I think (SF, right?), but among these other heroes who wish to bring down the only party WITH a Progressive wing, they won't say who they send -- because it's Republicans, they do NO local political work, and they are so 'rhetoricized' they are planning on fleeing rather than getting their hands dirty with sweat.
JasonS @ 79:
Don't worry little doggie. The base will be thrown a few bones to keep them voting blue team. You'll "hold your nose" and do what you're instructed to do.
Mike @ 81:
Please note, I do not blame Nader for 2000. I do think that 'Naderism' is a real force in politics, as a slur as well as the obvious. It's the spoilers' mentality.
And here, a 'Mike' who is proud to waste his vote, the famous 'protest non-vote' that not only is meaningless, but it is so meaningless it has to go and vote itself in order to achieve the height of idiocy such actions represent.
Rasputin @ 83:
H'yeah, because Rasputin is SUCH a hero, so lofty, so above anyone actually seeking a political solution. He favors revolution, as soon as a further destruction of our society can be arranged.
Rasputin, Mike, how many others are here pretending to be engaged in politics? Rasputin doesn't have any politics until the Revolution starts. Until then, he's no different than a Republican troll.
Paul in LA @ 80:
Paul, you keep accusing other people of having no answers, but then your answers are always "shut up and vote for more Democrats."
So, let me ask this, then. Why do prominent Democrats keep promising NOT to fund the war when they know full well that they will?
Why don't the Democratic leaders just flat out say:
"Look, we don't have the votes and we are unwilling to defund. That's it. Until the Republicans come around, we're going to continue with business as usual and we're not going to waste anybody's time pretending that we're going to resist a force that we simply cannot resist. Instead, we plan to ask the president what he wants and then give him precisely that without argument. You can expect this until you give us unilateral control of the government. Until then, we'll do whatever the obstructionist Republicans want because it's a waste of time to resist them so long as they have any ability to influence policy."
I know this is substantially what Nancy Pelosi is saying...today. But that story keeps changing.
Paul in LA @ 82:
Why do you keep calling me a "leftist?" What makes me a "leftist?"
So glad to read an article on a progressive site that doesn't contain words like Dems "Caving, spineless, out-manuevered or cowards." The Democrats just love that framing, because it gives them cover for what they really are-corporate owned political whores. You put up a great battle again Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi and Harry "The Undecider" Reid. Can we expect a few more crumbs for progressives next year?
Paul in LA @ 80:
If you are an enabler of evil, then that, flatly, makes you evil. You can't polish a turd.
When the Republicans take power again, after the Democrats implode over the economy and the bankruptcy and the wars, then I'll focus on trashing the Republican party again, just like I've been doing for years.
A revolution would be nice, but the bovine, television-enchanted sheeple in this country exist in a fog of cognitive dissonance and denial. Decades of brainwashing by the state have taken their toll. I wrote the American people off a few years back.
Also, I don't plan on living in this police state shithole of a country much longer anyway.
mudshark @ 68:
You are wrong. We will pick up something like 8-10 Senate seats next year, and probably something like 20-40 House seats.
That's even with another terrorist attack, because the 60-70% of Americans who are horrified at what Bush has done will be voting their only real option.
And, I know leftists love to think (without evidence) that they and their netroots installed a Dem majority in 06 -- but it was Howard Dean running where Dems don't usually run, that picked up the seats that made the difference. Netroots has made a difference -- but the myth that it is fully-responsible for the 06 victories is a myth.
Rasputin @ 89:
You, Rasputin, are the enabler, with your 'install the Republicans' plan. And your statement that you are planning on fleeing anyhow is PLENTY to ignore your analysis.
Run away, you coward.
Paul in LA @ 84:
Paul in LA: don't be such a sour puss. Gee whiz. I mean have you ever listened to Frank Zappa? Seriously dude. I mean he is a Democrat you know.
Mark Cartwright @ 88:
The Progressives are generally not 'corporate owned political whores' -- which is why we vote for them.
The DLC, which you with your myopia are not able to distinguish from the Progressives, is indeed the corporate power in the party, and they are trying to override the Progressive part of the leadership, and may well succeed.
Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey have already made their unwillingness to fund Iraq without withdrawal timelines flatly clear. But keep on pretending that there is no difference from one end of the caucus to the other, because that's the easiest, least responsible, view to maintain. Scapegoating is PERFECT for the disaffiliated who don't vote, or vote for Zappa (or his namesakes).
Mike @ 92:
I was a fan of Zappa back in the day.
Since I was a protester even then, the 600+ hours of protest I've done in the last six years is PLENTY of reason to treat your acknowledgement of your political nonentity 'sourly.'
I just love the new disaffiliation. So much like the old disaffiliation. Vote for Zappa. That's perfect. Soak your head in a bucket of piss, Mike.
Paul in LA @ 90:
Then, what's to worry about? The Democratic leadership is doing the right thing.
They're being realistic about the situation in the House and Senate and not wasting time with silly unwinnable votes.
The base may grumble, but will come home on election day.
Naderist spoilers will always be Naderist spoilers.
Republican obstructionism is hurting their chances and will help the Democrats in the next election.
Everything is fine. What's the problem?
JasonS @ 95:
Jason, if you don't observe the split in the leadership, or the different parts of the party in Congress, you can make such facile statements.
It is a caucus gov't. It will be a caucus gov't. While voting Democratic means that I on some level support Blue Dogs, if Blue Dogs ran the party, I would not be a Democrat. All my life I have seen the only decent results of Congress come from the Democrats.
If you believe that's a conspiracy, then you are a nutcase. It's the result of very good Representatives and some good Senators doing what they were elected for.
My Representative is Diane Watson. She's a founding member of the Out-of-Iraq Caucus with its 92 members. She's in favor of immediate impeachment, and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Shall I vote instead for Zappa?
I wish I could have removed Feinstain. But for DECADES I have not had enough energy to overcome her easy wins. And that's the situation. In your district, if you vote for Zappa, you have wasted any chance that might have existed for a better Democratic party from you. But then again, there are bad districts. Mostly, there are BAD LEFTISTS. The leftists I used to hang out with worked Get Out the Vote and door-to-door, and precinct workers and all the rest, trying to get their better candidates forward. I honor that.
The chickenshits running for the exits never were Americans, and the leftists who work for the Republicans (Nader?) (Rasputin, etc.), are just potzers with too many books and not enough heart.
Paul in LA: Such a proud one you are with the 600 plus hours of protest and such. I guess you've been doing some serious work. Good for you. But enough with the games. When the house picks up 40+ seats and your Senate turns bright Blue and picks up 8-10 seats and your White house is full of those Democratic suits. Tell me what will be different. What policies will change?
Out of Iraq? No.
Beginning to bring troops home? No.
Dismantling our permanent bases in Iraq? No.
Stop NAFTA/CAFTA? No.
Say outright we will not preemptively bomb Iran? No.
Dismantle the money sucking Homeland Security? No.
Universal healthcare? No.
A sane foreign policy? No.
It does not matter if they have a complete majority or not. You are working in a corrupt broken system. I'm sorry but it's true. Enjoy your carrots when they come though and I'll enjoy my bucket of piss. Thanks.
Paul in LA @ 96:
Le sigh.
I don't think it's a conspiracy. What I'm trying to get is a sense of what YOU think should happen next.
If everything is going to be great at the next election, why should anything change about the leadership?
Suppose you were in charge of the congressional Democrats. You wave your hand and they will do your bidding.
What is your bidding?
Paul in LA @ 90:
I hope you're right Paul.....btw...wasn't it 250 billion that the preznit wanted originally
Paul in LA @ 96:
Wow, I just read this one. You sound like one of those Republicans with the "they're not REAL Americans" bullshit. So you're one of those good Americans I keep hearing about on TV? With the American flag properly placed on your lapel?
getalife @ 14:
Yes!
So the dems are taking the high road?with regards to impeachment...could it be the dems don't want to further divide the country by having another impeachment trial? And you know that the repugs would boil over with hatred and hang on to that hatred for Years.If there was another ugly impeachment trial.If that's the case and choose not to impeach...well... so be it...I wish the dems would show some progress..instead of caving in on most issues... I'm tired of hoping they will do something.....I'm tired of being let down...I admire you Paul....for standing with your convictions.But attacking every and anyone here tonight is wrong....looks like you're just as frustated as some of us.......it's just you're going after anyone who says anything you dislike......
Paul in LA @ 91:
You're an idiot. I hardly have a plan to "install the Republicans." Just enough understanding to see what's coming down the pike with respect to the economy and everything else. The Democrats will be scapegoated for it, just like Bush was scapegoated for the economy that was handed off to him. The markets were tanking well before Bush's first day in office. This economy we will be faced with shortly will be much worse, though, and the Democrats will take the brunt of the public's anger over it, whether it’s deserved or not. That’s how the system works.
As far as your idiotic assertion that my "analysis" is suspect because of whatever my personal plans happen to be, that is simply a logical fallacy. One has nothing to do with the other. You are welcome to challenge me on any of the facts I present here, which I don't see you doing.
As far as my being "evil", I'm against these imperialist wars. I'm against the fact that this country has been at war somewhere in the world nonstop since its inception, regardless of which political party is in power. I think it's insane and calls into question who we as a people really are. I'm against this military empire that both Republicans and Democrats have erected all over the globe and have every intent on maintaining.
I'm against the corporate takeover of government and the major political parties.
I'm against this police/surveillance state that both political parties are responsible for bringing into reality, resulting in a prison population that exceeds that of all other countries on both a nominal and a per capita basis. Again, this is insane, and calls into question who we as a people really are.
I'm against the nonstop constitutional assaults and government power grabs that both political parties have engaged in over the decades. Our bill of rights was put there for a reason: to protect us from the historical tendency of governments to abuse their power.
I'm against this "neo-liberal" IMF/World Bank/WTO economic agenda that is being crammed down not only our throat, but the rest of the world's throat as well.
The reason I'm against these policies, "Paul", is because they are responsible for mind-boggling amounts of evil and suffering around the world and here at home. To listen to mewling little piglets like you, taking your cue from the leadership of the Democratic party and the television bobble-heads, that makes me some kind of a kooky extremist. But I refuse to lend my support to any politician regardless of party affiliation who is a supporter or an enabler of any of these policies. That's where you and I differ, "Paul", because you are an enabler of all of these policies. You are a supporter of a political party that supports and enables these policies. You are a supporter of politicians that are supporters and enablers of these policies. That makes YOU the enabler of evil, "Paul", not me. You’re nothing but a whore who puts political calculation over right and wrong, just like your Democrat politician heroes.
Evenin Rasputin.........hope all is well in your neck of the woods.............................the air in here tonight is pretty thick...see ya next time...
A water carrier is a water carrier...Dem or Repub.
Avoiding Endless Occupation
Can coordinated activity by a few thousand progressives with a realistic plan stop our bipartisan imperial juggernaut? Satisficing is an economists word. I'll use it loosely to mean finding a set of measures, regarded under uncertainty, but likely to maximize (or minimize) some quantity(ies). The quantities here will be casualties and expense in Iraq and in a much wider and longer Middle East War to come. The measures below deal only with Iraq, not the Zionist - Palestinian part of the Middle East problem. No imperial interest group is going to get everything it wants out of the Iraq disaster. A later than Lancet study of Iraq casualties puts the death toll now at about 1 million Iraqis killed in war by all parties since 2003 (in addition to our own casualties.) So let's consider a realistic satisficing set of measures to limit further harm.
When an expansive Islam met Christendom on the Iberian peninsula conflict lasted off and on from the 700s through the 1490's. A wider war or a Euro-Korean length occupation of Iraq (50 -60 years) are abysses from which we must try to save ourselves and others. Big, primitive countries like Iran and Pakistan still don't have full control over armed groups in them. Bush or the Israeli's Zionist government could still attack Iran by air. Iranians would retaliate in part by infiltration into Iraq and attacking our troops. Worse yet: Bush could order an attack that would almost certainly leave American hostages in Iran, trapping the next U.S. president in a nightmare hostage crisis. That would happen before summer 2008, while our troops are still at surge strength. In Iraq, Turks massing on the north, the Brits pulling out of the south and the bombing destabilization of Pakistan are harbingers of a wider war. And our military is not quite broken: Bush could transfer troops from the over 60,000 in Germany and 45,000 in Japan.
Soft partition should mean that U.S. troops, while withdrawing from Iraq's cities, would escort only willing Iraqis to resettle to zones of others of the same sect. Under soft partition Iraqis unwilling to move would assume the risk of fighting or making peace. Mixed marriage Iraqis should be helped to emigrate. Assumption of risk is a principle of freedom. Door-kickin'-in forcible occupation is a principle of domination. Baghdad can be partitioned along the Tigris. The Green Zone can be given to Sunni's moving from east to west Baghdad. Turn Bush's embassy into a hospital, rehabilitation center and orphanage for Iraqis. The Kurds have their own government. The Sunnis are out of Maliki's government. So we should offer Maliki's government the choice to stay in Baghdad alone or move to a self-defensible base in Shia territory. Set up a modest U.S. embassy there. Let local Iraqis defend themselves as necessary against Al Qaeda. A dozen countries have moved their capitals, largely under pressure of war.
It's fantasy to think the Military – Energy – Israel Lobby complex is going to let our troops out of oil-rich Iraq. So U.S. troops should be redeployed to new bases in relatively underpopulated areas and re-missioned basically to guard Iraq's oil for an adjustment period not to exceed, say, 8 years (2 presidential terms.) They could also engage in quick reaction against Al Qaeda. Enough room should be left between U.S. forces and the borders for insertion of a U.N. border guarding force. This is the only measure that will induce oil companies to invest the $billions necessary to increase Iraq's oil production and adjust to hiring mercenaries to guard its infrastructure. Even then, the U.S> government will need to provide “incentives” to the oil companies and do heavy jawboning to get them to invest. But it would mean all U.S. troops out, 12% per year, in 8.5 years! An enhanced SIGIR might be trusted for that time to distribute profits equitably to all Iraqis.
A large U.N border force is the only thing that could keep Iraq one federated country, let unarmed refugees return and keep us and the Iranians apart. The U.N. performed poorly for Iraqis under sanctions, partly because the U.S. and U.K. blocked shipment of any dual use exports to Iraq and because Iraq's oil was irresistible to corrupt oil dealers. But it's the only game in town where you can rent developing country soldiers, through peace keeping – peace enforcement programs, for about $1,000 per month. That's about what it costs for a U.S. soldier with combat support for one day! And of course, Blackwater mercenaries are paid 4 to 6 times what U.S. soldiers are paid. The U.S. should pay for this force to keep Iraq “one” country. In the long run it will be cheaper than combat and paying mercenaries. We could allow U.S. air support for attacked U.N. And U.S. troops so long as its ordinance only falls within the borders of Iraq. The Zionists get out of this a 8-year friendly force U.S. occupation in the Middle East. By “Zionists” I mean those persons who want to keep Israel a Jewish state rather than a secular democracy and keep most of the now about one-half million Jewish colonists in place who have moved into the area called the “West Bank” of the Jordan River. The Iraqis get offers they can't refuse: we stop killing so many of them, our support for keeping “one” regionalized country, and equitable, if insufficient distribution of profits from their oil. The contractors get to build new bases and the mercenaries get extended guard jobs.
It's also fantasy to think the U.S. can democratize Islamic countries by force and then they will automatically be favorable to U.S. - Zionist interests. It's a worse fantasy to think even that we can eliminate all armed groups in Middle East countries that attack us now and then. When Napoleon and Hitler each invaded Russia, a vast, primitive country with difficult terrain and bad weather, their armies were destroyed. Likewise with the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan. We are already just holding on in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we have to fight Iran and in nuclear Pakistan as well, our military and economy will be severely stressed. War deficit spending will erode the dollar to the point where it will lose status as the world's reserve currency. Americans and our economy can tolerate a limited occupation, much less than in Europe since 1945 or Korea since 1953, but will not tolerate a two-generation war for “democracy.” Antisemitism and isolationism would damage our historic bond with Israel beyond repair. So all Americans and especially true friends of Israel, better step up and vocally and officially support the measures listed above and require Congress to refuse further war funding unless the President makes the redeployment and re-missioning of our troops described here the “way forward.”
I don't claim that this set of measures is at all just, merely that if adopted, it is likely to produce less casualties and expense than the endless occupation of all Iraq, and not worsen the Palestinian part of the crisis. Every vote front-runner Senator Clinton makes suggests to me she would be an enabler of endless occupation. So if Congress won't refuse further funding until these measures are adopted by Bush, progressives ought to unite in urging rank and file Republicans and Democrats, following the primaries, to de-register from their parties to show their disapproval with current office holders and candidates. Hopefully candidates with real alternative ideas, e.g., a Green Party candidate, or Bloomberg, or some other non-oil, non-Zionist, wealthy, self-funding person will emerge to run an independent campaign.
Ah! I think I'm seeing the fall of Rome.
These clowns need to learn that sometimes it's ok to play hard ball.
Idiots.
Once again, I'll reiterate ... we're looking at a one party system, and we have for quite some time.
The two sides exist only hypothetically, and serve to distract Americans into thinking that there is in fact a side to take. In reality, whichever side mainstream americans vote for, they will find themselves disempowered in the end.
It will take a revolution to set things right. I believe that to the very core of my being.
JasonS @ 98:
I don't believe the leadership is the problem. The problem remains the Blue Dogs who vote with Bush, and the 25 or so Dem DINOs in the Senate. The DLC remains an issue, but if the Progressive caucus can grow -- and it will -- then we will remain in charge of the House, which is excellent. Excellent because the primary result of a Dem President and a Dem Congress will be America signing a nation-changing environmental bill, like the one the House passed last week -- and better.
Or, you can elect Republicans by playing spoilers, try to remove the Progressive leader of the House in order to replace her with the DLC you oppose. It's really not as complex as the conspiracists believe, but if they continue to believe that R=D, then they will continue to be part of the problem, not part of the AVAILABLE solution.
Eric in Ottawa @ 109:
So how many millions should die in your revolution? And who will run the country afterward? THE MILITARY. If you think that's an improvement, keep on shooting down your other options.
Counselor1 @ 106"Can coordinated activity by a few thousand progressives with a realistic plan stop our bipartisan imperial juggernaut?"
It is NOT bipartisan, except when Republicans wear the Democratic label in order to get elected.
"Hopefully candidates with real alternative ideas, e.g., a Green Party candidate, or Bloomberg, or some other non-oil, non-Zionist, wealthy, self-funding person will emerge to run an independent campaign."
Good fucking luck. You realize that most of this will be settled within four months or so? If your candidate isn't already running -- with a huge machine -- they are not going to be the winner.
But don't trip on your rhetoric, while you're trying to get down the stairs with your box of reality.
I'm heading to the mountains for the meteorite shower. Have fun, stay warm, and if you leave the country in flight before I come back, please turn off your lights.
Progressives have no representation in this country. A majority of people want the war stopped, they elected people to do just that, and these people have the power but refuse to do it.
It is literally that simple.
Our leaders continue to display their lack of honor and their disdain of the truth.
Democracy isn`t dead;it merely smells funny.
I agree that I think there is not enough representation of progressives in the Dems, and I am quite unhappy with the constant capitulation, and even less happy with the assumption that the base doesn't count in terms of political maneuvering. I understand it though. I go to school all day and talk to kids, adults; I talk in the store and listen to people talk as they pass me and I've noticed a distinct lack of the training in thinking critically that I thought was an important part of both being an adult and being a citizen.
I think, as someone who will be teaching, that I can address the critical thinking in my classroom (I wish I could reach more people than that with it, but the teaching is important.) I try to regularly ask questions that are designed to make people have to think in casual conversation (and I think people find me occasionally quite boring.) I do these things because I am afraid that we don't ask questions any more.
I write about these things also. I vote and heckle people into voting, reminding them and a few times pleading with them (I try not to be too strident.)
There is a tremendous momentum at work here, a tremendous withdrawal and concern with immediate things (some of which are important to be concerned with; rent and groceries and other such have do be dealt with no matter what.) There is also good; this is good. Citizen journalists, bloggers, people watching politics and reporting back to the rest of us and making things seen-- all these things are the foundations of Democracy. I go to rallies or protests when I can and I pay attention. Mostly, I worry that the American people (present company excluded, of course) are so busy trying to simplify their lives that they want an expert to make all their decisions so they can get back to living.
What is everyone else doing?
This is why Dems are "weak" on security. Every time there is a fight, we back down. Think the public doesn't see that. If we back down to slimy Republicans, imagine us at the table with Iran, North Korea or Russia? Wimps, that simple.
can we have another tea party now? can we see that the redcoats are back?
mouthyb @ 116:
I quit paying my income tax.
1. Total disregard of the Constitution.
2. Contempt for International Treaties to which the U. S. is a signatory
3. Leading us into an unprovoked war based on lies and innuendo.
4. Failing to provide sufficient troops and resources to do the job and protect them from becoming casualties.
5. Illegally using unauthorized channels of communication to conduct White House business
6. Erasure of e-mails to thwart detection of any illegal conduct
7. Electronic spying on American citizens in contravention of FISA.
8. Torturing prisoners / waterboarding
9. Appointment of incompetent cronies to key governmental positions
10. NOLA.
11. Plamegate
12. Signing statements
13. Guantanamo
14. Rendition
15. Blackwater / Halliburton
16. No bid contracts
17. Politization of the DOJ
18. Tax breaks for the rich
19. Under-funding and undermining social and regulatory programs upon which the poorest Americans rely.
20. Suppression and revision of government reports that fail to meet conservative and religious orthodoxy.
21. Silencing or firing of government officials who fail to toe the political or religious line regardless of their job performance.
22. Widespread graft, corruption, and moral turpitude within Administrative and GOP ranks.
23. Corporate favoritism at the expense of the American public and the environment
24. Obstructing passage of needed health care legislation
25. Blocking stem cell research
26. SCHIPP vetoes
I’m sure this is but a partial list of the travesties that the Bush Administration and the GOP Congressional delegation can claim as their accomplishments. I would like to know when the day of reckoning will arrive to justly reward these miscreants for their achievements. And merely voting them out or allowing them to retire from office falls far short of what they deserve.
steve @ 114:
You left out the part about the Republicans.
Kool Aid Salesman @ 117:
Yeah, imagine us making profitable peace with Iran, feeding and settling with North Korea, and helping the Russians overcome Putin's corruption and helping the Chinese overcome their lousy gov't.
More importantly, imagine a Dem president, a Dem Congress, making fundamental changes to our energy policy, cutting pollution by half at least, and establishing massive wind farms instead of nuclear power plants.
Want to take their energy from wind and wave -- can't handle nuclear power and ten thousand year toxic waste terrorism targets.
Wimps.
milquetoast @ 119:
All you succeed in doing is getting yourself into court. Hope you have enough money for a good tax attorney who can settle your bill when the time comes.
neverbeenfooled @ 120:
We need prosecutions, without doubt. However, impeachment is not a prosecution, especially when you only have 25 votes and you need 67.
Grand juries and a major Congressional investigation/reconciliation -- only going to happen under a Dem president.
NONE of the Republicans, and that includes Ron Paul, will prosecute these traitors.
Paul in LA @ 124:
Mike @ 125
We know FOR SURE that Zappa will not seek prosecution.
But there are very angry people in Congress, and there WILL be prosecutions, grand juries, and a major set of Congressional committees.
But keep telling yourself that you're justified in your ridicule of our system of gov't. SO much easier that way.
Paul in LA @ 126:
First: youre a humorless chap. Second: I know FOR SURE that the Democratic -majority having- party WILL NOT prosecute anyone responsible for this mess we're in. They will bend to whining Repugs and their media counterparts. I know you know this. I'l put any amount of money on it. Telecoms will get a free pass. Predatory lenders will get bailed out. The CIA will still torure (as they have even before Bush/Cheney), no one will be held accaountable for the Iraq dibacle, our troops will not leave Iraq, the permanant military bases will remain, the systemic changes needed to address the environmental damage we cause will not be addressed, our imperialistic oil adventures will continue. Please tell me what part of this is false and if you can; tell me what a Hillary or Obama or even a Gore administration will do to prove me wrong?
neverbeenfooled @ 120:
Never.
Can anyone here bashing the posters here strongly criticizing the Democrats name another country that only has two parties, with no mass participation in the decision making of either party being able to reform itself at the wishes of the general public? It doesn't happen! You have a lot of faith in your elected representatives and their ability to defy human nature. If fundamental change happens it isn't going to happen by a top down organizational restructuring directed by wise men who will have all the answers. If the American public doesn't get much, much more involved, if they don't make it so they empower themselves and take it away from the wise men who have all the answers at the top, nothing will change. What you are saying will happen has never happened, outside of an economic meltdown. It seems that some "liberals" belief in representative, traditional democracy is just as strong as the right's belief in the "free market". Neither is warranted and both are outdated. Say what some of you want about Chavez in Venezuela, but take a look at the Venezuelan constitution and see the right given to average working people, not just social rights but the right to directly control their government, not some naïve faith in their elected representatives.
That they know the base will not be happy is slightly more refreshing than the republican's base which does not utter a peep about their party, except that they want more bans on gay marriage and abortion.
No matter what happens, I do not want republicans having any say in government, they have more than proven what they will do by their actions under unchecked power.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=14495
This is what I'm talking about regarding a REAL democracy, where people do more than vote, expect marricles from their elected nobles and bitch when it doesn't work out. This type of participation by regular people is unheard of here. I don't think things will change until, or if, this happens.
Rasputin @ 103:
I disagree, Paul in LA is more of a jerk than an idiot.
Paul in LA - please, stay in the mountains, don't come back. You can bitch at the squirrels for hording too many nuts, complain to the trees that they are blocking the sun and causing global freeze, and blame the shrubs that they are trying to start wildfires by being dry.
Mmmm, I love the smell of new money in the morning. Smells a lot like napalm, toothpaste and low-fat strawberry-orange sunrise yogurt.
"The Democratic aide acknowledged the president is likely to get new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before Congress adjourns for the year. “Yes, in the end, that’s where we will be,” the aide said."
Do Santa and the Baby Jesus know? Yes? But they're crying? Crap, I thought we elected new Dems to Congress for a reason.
uppity kitty @ 133:
Don't worry because according to "Paul in LA" there will be 20-40 more of these boobs in the house and 8-10 more in the Senate after the next election. And they will do amazing things like get us out of Iraq, restore our rights and save the environment. Yay!
If the Democrats stand fast; they will see their numbers rise.
When Pelosi won the election last year with a scared lost look on her face, I knew she was a hack!
Pelosi "I won? F-UCK! They're gona hate me."
Comments are closed on this entry