Vice President Biden noted yesterday that he hoped that the Tea Party might finally get Democratic and liberal votes out of their “lethargy.” The comment struck a nerve with me since various Democratic leaders have expressed surprise and mild criticism over the lack of enthusiasm by Democratic voters. What is striking is the fact that Biden and others continue to consider their own failure to give voters a reason to become active after years of broken campaign promises and outright betrayals of core values. The best that they can come up with (yet again) is that the other people are worse than we are.
It is unclear why Biden thinks, for example, civil libertarians should be energized after the Obama Administration embraced and expanded Bush-era policies in the war on terror. President Obama has shielded Bush officials from any investigation, let alone prosecution, for torture and has fought to block any cases that would hold companies or agencies responsible for violations of human rights or privacy.
It is unclear why Biden thinks environmentalists should be energized after the Administration opened up pristine areas of the East Coast for oil exploration and, even after the BP disaster, downplayed the spill damage to lift the moratorium.
It is unclear why Biden thinks that peace advocates should be energized after the Administration continued both wars and the gushing of both American blood and treasure.
It is unclear why Biden thinks gay and lesbian activists should be energized after the Obama Administration fought in court to preserve Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and then appealed to limit the major victory enjoining DADT.
For over a decade, the Democratic Party has based its demands for political support not on its own performance but on the “lesser of two evils” argument. They simply cannot understand why voters would be less than enthusiastic in fighting for them to retain power. Indeed, from the very start of this Administration, the clear message to liberals has been “you have no where else to go.” What the Administration and congressional democrats did not consider is that liberals, civil libertarians, and environmentalists could decide to simply go no where and stay at home.
Biden was speaking(at a fundraiser in Chevy Chase, Md. when he noted that “[m[aybe the best thing to happen to us lately is the Tea Party wins. Maybe it’ll shake some of our constituency out of their lethargy.” Biden seems to welcome that there is finally a compelling reason for voters to take to the streets: even worse people are running for office.
How about another option? The Democratic leaders could actually fight on principle over things like torture and give voters a positive reason to care about their future. If you want voters to care, you can start by giving them something to care about — other than the job security of Democratic officeholders. If the Obama Administration did not actually jettison these issues for political convenience, it might not have been more popular, but it would have been more respected and it would have garnered far more enthusiasm from Democratic and liberal voters. Instead, the Democratic leadership has repeatedly conveyed that they are concerned only about retaining their offices and power at any cost — hardly a motivating message for votes.
So here is my suggestion for a new campaign motto: “Fighting Lethargy With Leadership.”
Source: The Hill
And no public option in the healthcare bill…and a watered down financial reform bill…and no repeal yet of DADT…and President Obama saying recently at a fundraiser that Democrats “congenitally, tend to see the glass as half empty”
and Robert Gibbs saying liberals should be drug tested. And remember what Rahm said about a certain group of liberals being fu*#ing retarded?
At least Larry Summers will be leaving by year’s end!
Maybe Tim Geithner will leave too? One can always hope.
Wish President Obama had more people like Elizabeth Warren working in Treasury and as financial advisers in his Administration.
P.S. I like the new motto!
Is he saying that it could be a Titanic mistake to go over the falls at full speed instead of paddling for the bank?
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/09/titanic-mistakes-using-w-compass.html
Excellent post, Prof JT! Right on. Or as we say up here in Vermont, Right arm.
Yippee….I am like so excited about the elections coming up….wait….phone ringing……now what were you saying….oh yeah….hell let the south go Texas or Ar….phone rings again….back…what were we talking about…Fried Beer at the Texas State Fair….yeah now thats good stuff…..
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/meet-the-iinos-indies-poised-to-vote-in-big-numbers-and-vote-gop.php?ref=fpb Independents are moving to the right and plan to vote for the republicans this fall.
I am not Repuglickcan, I am an Independent….but as AY goes the nation does not…..
AY:
)
I have been a loyal Democrat for 35 years and I am really upset that the Democratic party appears to be against Pro Se Rights. Of course, I don’t know that the Republicans are in favor of Pro Se Rights. Pro Se Rights are the defining issue for me.
I am also upset that the new federal judges President Obama nominated for my district weren’t affirmed. I can’t understand that at all.
Hit the nail on the head JT! Unfortunately as the past two years have shown, i don’t think the dem leadership is listening or even care to.
If your product is failing, start your analysis at customer satisfaction. A happy customer is a return customer.
The article resonates with truth and the comments do also. The age old problem is even more critical today, a “Tea Party” takeover will provide us all with disaster. We can be holier than thou and watch the disaster overtake us, or hold our noses and continue with those who thus far have performed disappointingly. Remember well the “Law of Unintended Consequences.”
Mike, I agree. In 2000 they said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Once the right wingers takeover and institute their policies, it is extremely difficult to reverse them. That is what we are witnessing now.
I am a liberal progressive without a party. I won’t vote for any national Democrat. I have a Democratic President that can veto anything truly horrific, and if he refuses to do that, it is HE that is responsible for the mess, not I.
Democrats must be punished for betraying us. We have to throw the thieves out. And frankly, in the face of Obama’s enthusiastic embrace and continuance of the Bush/Cheney war crimes and war on our civil rights: I would rather have a stalemate.
There won’t be a better time to punish Democrats, so that next time we can get a REAL liberal progressive. Do not donate a dollar, do not cast a vote. Let the other side win.
Choosing the “lesser of two evils” produces a spiral of greater and greater evil, because there are no consequences for being EVIL, and plenty of reward for it, and plenty of advantage to it in getting elected. You have to PUNISH evil to stop it. It must have consequences. There has never been a safer time to impose those consequences on Democrats.
I plan to do for the Democratic Party what the Democratic Party has done for me since gaining majority of the house since 2006…
Nothing, zip, zero, zilch, nada.
Bye Bye!
Tony C Punishing is never a good solution. What happens is the policies move more to the right with each attempt to punish. I disagree that there ” has never been a safer time to impose those consequences on Democrats.” We have Sarah Palin and the tea party at our door.
There is absolutely nothing that could tempt me to vote for ANY Republican this November. I prefer not to have our country go from bad to worse…from the frying pan into the fire. Even though I’m not happy with the Democrats who are a mixed bag of apples and not all that trustworthy–for the most part–I think the Republicans in Congress have become a despicable lot.
Off Topic:
From The Nation
US Businessman: Blackwater Paid Me to Buy Steroids and Weapons on Black Market for its Shooters
By Jeremy Scahill
September 23, 2010
http://www.thenation.com/blog/154977/us-businessman-blackwater-paid-me-buy-steroids-and-weapons-black-market-its-shooters
Excerpt:
A Texas businessman who has worked extensively in Iraq claims that Blackwater paid him to purchase steroids and other drugs for its operatives in Baghdad, as well as more than 100 AK47s and massive amounts of ammunition on Baghdad’s black market. Howard Lowry, who worked in Iraq from 2003-2009, also claims that he personally attended Blackwater parties where company personnel had large amounts of cocaine and blocks of hashish and would run around naked. At some of these parties, Lowry alleges, Blackwater operatives would randomly fire automatic weapons from their balconies into buildings full of Iraqi civilians. Lowry described the events as a “frat party gone wild” where “drug use was rampant.” Lowry says he was told by Blackwater personnel that some of the men using the steroids he purchased were on the security detail of L. Paul Bremer, the original head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Lowry also claims that Blackwater’s owner, Erik Prince, tried to enlist his help to win contracts for Blackwater with the Iraqi government using an off-shore security company, Greystone, which Prince owns. The purpose, Lowry says, was to conceal Greystone’s relationship to Blackwater.
Lowry made his statements in a deposition on September 10 as part of a whistleblower lawsuit brought by two former Blackwater employees. The suit was filed in 2008 by former employees Brad and Melan Davis. They allege that Blackwater tried to bill the US government for a prostitute for its men in Afghanistan and for strippers in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The lawsuit claims that Prince personally benefitted from alleged fraud. The Nation obtained Lowry’s deposition from publicly available court filings.
Blackwater, Lowry alleges, paid for the steroids using company funds and the purchases were coordinated by Blackwater’s Iraq country manager. “Not only did I purchase the pharmaceuticals,” Lowry said in his deposition, “but I was also given money and asked to acquire syringes and other forms or modes of injection as well.” Lowry said that Blackwater used him to purchase the drugs and other devices because, unlike Blackwater personnel, he could move freely and discreetly around Baghdad. Lowry says he personally witnessed several Blackwater operatives injecting themselves with steroids.
Lowry says in the deposition that he was a close friend of Jerry Zovko, one of the four Blackwater men killed in the infamous ambush in Fallujah, Iraq in March 2004. Zovko, Lowry says, “provided me tremendous insight into the company and confirmed that the use of steroids and human growth hormone, testosterone, were pretty endemic to them and almost companywide.” Lowry said that it was a “wide-ranging problem, and this included individuals that were on [L. Paul] Bremer’s personal detail.” Bremer was guarded by Blackwater when he ran the CPA from 2003-2004. Lowry says he would purchase the drugs for Blackwater “by the case,” adding, “It was as large a quantity as I could get, which was usually a case.” He said that the “volume I was being asked to purchase on a daily basis was going up substantially as time went on.”
I agree with every bit of dissatisfaction and frustration with the Democratic party and its elected officials in the Senate. A couple of things come to mind though: never in the past has it been normal to require a 60+ vote to get any piece of Democratic legislation passed and a Democratic Senator is not necessarily a liberal Senator. We don’t need more Republicans in office and we don’t need more Blue Dogs in office. We need more Liberals in office and they need to be voting to craft and pass liberal Democratic legislation.
Excellent, excellent post ‘Fesser T.
I agree mostly with Tony C.
We have 2 years to make some changes; therefore, since I respect the opinions herein from the many very good, decent people, please provide me–a lifelong registered Republican–names of potential presidential candidates of any political persuasion for whom I might cast a vote. Lacking such a tenable list, I simply cannot and will not vote for the common phrase “the lesser of two evils” as I have done too many times previously.
I will NEVER vote again for Mr. Obama. He is fraudulent liar of the worst sort and he is exceptionally naive and gullible–the gulf oil disaster illustrated that without a doubt.
To date, there is only one person for whom I would unequivocally cast a presidential vote—Jonathan Turley is his name, integrity is his fame, and Constitutional Law is his game.
“It is unclear why Biden thinks” …. because he doesn’t think … he’s simply repeating
Democrats lost the high ground and now they are in the same position as the Republicans … the only thing they can preach is fear
It is a sad commentary for in 2008 the path towards change was broad … the opportunities were wide open … the promise was believed. During the 2 years from then to now the path has narrowed, the opportunities shrunk, and the promise goes largely unfulfilled. Thus democrats are left standing next to republicans each pointing the finger at the other and parroting the same phrase … “Be afraid, be afraid of THEM.
When we look at our government over the last ten years we see institutions unable to manage our affairs intelligently. In response to our voiced frustrations they tell us we have unreasonable expectations but is it unreasonable to expect competency? Is it unreasonable to expect that promises will be kept?
Many of us on this blog closely watched every minute of the Senate Impeachment Committee’s hearings. I can state with complete honesty that McCaskill was as bad as any Republican chair I watched during the years they held the majority. She was so bad that her counterpart, Orin Hatch, seemed, by comparison, fair and open minded. Orin Hatch!!??!!
In 2 short years democrats have fallen from change you can believe in to be afraid, be afraid, be afraid …
Anonymously Yours
1, September 24, 2010 at 10:04 am
I am not Repuglickcan, I am an Independent….but as AY goes the nation does not…..
===========================================================
love it, love it, love it
Soft chuckle #2
Thank you
Blouise,
Good post @ 1:46.
If you’re gonna keep only 2 parties you might as well just split the county threeways and give republicans the middle so we don’t have this pretend battle anymore.
I’m an outsider, what was wrong with Nader?
If the Republicans take the house and the Dems retain the senate,it brings to mind although it envolved football,former coach Jim Mora and he was asked about his former team the Colts making the playoffs.
I would use he angst and relate it to the above scenario.
“GRIDLOCK,GRIDLOCK!!
Jericho
1, September 24, 2010 at 1:57 pm
If you’re gonna keep only 2 parties you might as well just split the county threeways and give republicans the middle so we don’t have this pretend battle anymore.
I’m an outsider, what was wrong with Nader?
===========================================================
There was nothing wrong with Nader and a whole lot would’ve been made right …
Former Federal LEO
1, September 24, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Blouise,
Good post @ 1:46.
========================================================
Thank you … how’s the future grandpa doing?
Nader is on tape saying he was running to give Bush a better chance to win since America would be so disgusted with the results it would turn to him as the savior. Look how well that turned out.
Nader would have gotten no support from either party and the problems caused by the complete paralysis of the Federal machinery would have been awful. As bad as those Boy Blunder and his super friends have left us? I don’t know, better in some ways worse in others I would guess.
Chtulhu 2010 – why vote for a lesser evil?
Frank,
Csn’t help myself … I’ve always liked Nader from the day he came out against the Corvair
No one has mentioned the other dreadful action Obama has taken: appointing his “bipartisan” commission to cut Social Security, I mean ” on deficit reduction.” The Congress wouldn’t appoint the commission so Obama did it himself and appointed 14 of the 18 members who oppose raising the income ceiling on Social Security taxes but like raising the age to receive benefits to 70. And SS has nothing to do with the size of the deficit!
The very idea that a Democratic president would put Social Security on the chopping block! Maybe the administration is going to welcome a Republican Congress that will pass the dreadful commission’s recommendations. Of course, Obama will be for sure a one-termer. But maybe that will be okay if he can say he was the one to screw the people on behalf of the have-mores. It’s baffling to me what is going on with the Democrats.
As people here can probably guess, I agree with Mike S. and Swarthmore mom. I’m sorry, but the fact that the Democrats are a bunch of blue dogs and pussies that have allowed good policies to be watered down is beside the point. Progressives (myself included) seem to have thought that their work was done with the 2008 election of President Obama and solid majorities in both houses – that was the beginning of the job, not the end of it. If we truly want to enact progressive policies, we need to elect more progressives and then keep pushing them to the left. If you think that conservative policies will help our country, then stay home or vote Republican – your action will be (in my opinion) tragically wrong, but politically defensible. If, however, you favor progressive policies and do as Tony C suggests and attempt to punish the Democrats for their fecklessness by voting for Republican or TEA party candidates that will be worse in every way to punish the Democrats, then you deserve to pay trillions of dollars for tax cuts for the rich, have social security and medicare privatized (or eliminated altogether), have the modest health insurance reform that was enacted repealed, have the new consumer financial credit agency castrated or eliminated (does anyone think that Elizabeth Warren will favor corporate interests over consumers?), and so on… Keep in mind that one additional thing that the Democrats are completely terrible at is taking credit for the good things they’ve done – but that doesn’t change the fact that taxes are lower under President Obama than they have been under any recent president, that the deficit shrunk this year (even with the stimulus) something that never happened under President Bush – even though he kept his wars off the books (a typical example of the Democrats getting blasted for doing the right thing – President Obama included the cost of the wars in the budget and got trashed for putting forward the honest numbers that the Bush administration was hiding). If you ever want to see things like a balanced budget, a public option (or single payer), an end to the recession, the use of diplomacy over military force, our troops out of Afghanistan or any more progressive policies enacted, then you can get off of your butts and work to preserve Democratic majorities in congress or you can do as Tony C suggested and sit back and watch the far right take control the national discourse and steer the country back into the ditch (or off the cliff).
When Elaine M. says:
“There is absolutely nothing that could tempt me to vote for ANY Republican this November. I prefer not to have our country go from bad to worse…from the frying pan into the fire. Even though I’m not happy with the Democrats who are a mixed bag of apples and not all that trustworthy–for the most part–I think the Republicans in Congress have become a despicable lot.”
…I agree completely.
Whereas it is not pleasant to consider that you’re simply voting for the lesser of two evils, it is downright stupid to think that NOT voting leads us to a better future. Therefore, one MUST vote to earn the right to even comment on the political process. In addition, one must vote with the intent that one’s vote will make a difference–as if your own vote is the one that will break a hypothetical tie. Otherwise, it really doesn’t count as voting that way. Thus, one must vote for a candidate that actually has a chance to win, and in our present system–love it or hate it–that typically (but not in all cases!) means voting for a candidate from one of the (two) major parties.
I honestly cannot fathom ANY argument from the sophists who say that they will do nothing for the party that has dashed their precious hopes, or that they will even vote AGAINST that party in order to punish ‘them’. This is the height of idiocy! We vote in order to provide FOR OURSELVES, not to deliver messages or punish anyone as a class. As individual voters, once we get into second-order analyses of political motives/actions, we have lost the primary purpose of it.
You vote, and you vote for someone you actually want to win. That’s pretty much it. If you can’t manage that, you really don’t deserve to be a citizen. I personally believe voting should be MANDATORY, with jail time as a penalty for not voting. But apparently that’s just me.
Slartibartfast said it better and said it before me! I started my note, got distracted, went for a walk, and only hit ‘Submit’ after I got back.
Obama….. what can I say I voted for him, I worked for his election, I gave money to help elect him…..I CRIED election night watching him at that park in Chicago..I dont think I was ever so proud of us as a nation….now…everytime I turn on the news, read a paper heck read this blog I can only keep thinking what a mistake I made..
Sagacity,
For decades Congress has written “IOUs” to Social Security. The solvency of the program is at their doorstep. Presenting an IOU that one fully intends to never repay is theft. The Baby Boomers are getting set to demand their benefits for which they have been paying all their lives. Congress is desperately trying to avoid accountability. It is going to get very interesting.
Slarti,
With facts like those you mention, what in the world are the democrats afraid of? That is why they must stop pushing the fear buttons and talk about the future going for the positives.
This election season presents a golden opportunity. Republicans have lost control of their party and the good ones can’t win a primary. The democrats need to take full advantage of the crazies the republicans have put forward for this kind of situation isn’t going to present itself again. Telling democrats to be afraid never works … pointing out the opportunity that has presented itself will.
“If you can’t manage that, you really don’t deserve to be a citizen. I personally believe voting should be MANDATORY, with jail time as a penalty for not voting. But apparently that’s just me.”(Tim Whitley)
Thank god …
@Swarthmore: REALLY?
You say, “Punishing is never a good solution.”
Right, that is why we don’t imprison thieves, murderers, or deadbeat dads. Because it doesn’t work, it really just leads to more crime. Right?
Punishment DOES work. I know for a fact that there are people tempted to do things from which they abstain because they are afraid they will get caught and face consequences. Both legal things (like adultery) and illegal things (like embezzlement, or cheating on taxes, or padding an expense account they know is not going to be audited).
The less you punish a crime, the more it occurs. And no, the policies do not move more to the right with every attempt to punish. The problem is that the RIGHT is where the politicians make the most money, because they get their money from corporations and corporations want less regulation and less enforcement of existing regulation. Every time you do NOT punish, everybody takes another step to the right. When you DO punish, the result may be a lost Democrat, but the other Democrats will see they are straying into dangerous territory and take a step back to the left, because another step to the right and they might fall off the cliff and join their former colleague on the sidelines.
Punish the Democrats. Sarah Palin is not “at our door,” she is just on your TV. The last thing she wants to do at this point is give up her ten million a year, and the vast majority of the USA does not think she is qualified or intelligent enough to hold office anyway. Not even the majority of Alaskans think that, and she screwed them by abandoning her office.
If you are truly afraid that a few Tea Partiers are going to somehow twist Obama’s arm away from the veto pen, then you truly think he is an unprincipled, craven weakling. So LET THEM TRY. If he caves to them, we have no hope anyway, he will cave to anybody on anything. So, no difference, and we might as well PUNISH THE DEMOCRATS.
That is my intent. I typically donate about $500 a year to political campaigns. All Democrats. I have voted in every election since I was 18. This year: NOT A PENNY. And no vote for any national office of any kind. I will still vote on local props and officials. Maybe some state people. Not for any Congressmen.
No one has mentioned the fact that because of the filibuster you need sixty votes in the Senate to pass anything. Even if all the democrats voted for a bill, there are only 59 votes. Mitch McConnell runs a tight ship and if you want him to run the country, stay home or vote republican. If you become unemployed, don’t count on extended benefits of even watered down health care. Huckabee compared pre-existing health conditions to burned down houses. If you don’t want government involvement in providing a safety net and you want the government involved in restricting your personal freedoms, stay home or vote republican.
Blouise,
I’m not arguing that the Democrats aren’t total gutless idiots, just that the Republicans are worse (and not just by a little bit) and the teabaggers are worse still by orders of magnitude. I agree with you that the Democrats don’t have a prayer trying to play the politics of fear better than the Republicans even though the fact is that we have far more to fear from Republican rule than we do from Democratic rule and I have no idea (not really true – see below) why Democrats are afraid to run on their accomplishments and tie the Republicans to their own actions.
As an aside, most of the commentary I’ve seen brushes over the nuance that the Democrats never had progressive majorities = they got their majorities by backing blue-dogs to win purple-red districts. The kind of progressive red meat that, say, makes Anthony Weiner a lock in his very liberal district would almost certainly lead to a double-digit loss for, say, Blanche Lincoln. While I certainly would have preferred her to be more progressive in her politics or to have lost to her (more liberal) primary opponent, I don’t think that anything could have saved that Senate seat for the Democrats.
Tony C Some men could care less about “freedom of choice” so they say they are staying home. They don’t seem to care that most of the republicans want to take away abortion even in the case of rape and incest. It is in their platform.
Slarti, Swarthmore mom, et al: How does it feel to vote for someone who just spent 2, 4, or 6 years spitting in your eye? How does it feel to vote for a Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, or Joe Lieberman because they are “the lesser of two evils”? Especially when some of these dirtbags defeat Progressive primary challengers by means of large donations from the national Democratic Party. When you vote for these corporate-owned jerks, you are saying to them, “It’s o.k. that you voted to invade Iraq, voted for the ‘Patriot’ Act, voted to give billions of taxpayer dollars to the richest people in America, voted against a ‘public option’, etc.,etc,etc. – at least you’re not a Republican”.
Tony C,
Your attempt to ‘punish’ the Democrats will most likely be interpreted (by pundits and pols alike) as a tacit endorsement of the Republicans (and the Teabaggers) over the Democrats. If your goal is enacting progressive policies and legislation, you cannot (in my opinion) have picked a tactic more likely to produce results that are the exact opposite of what you desire. Just to take one example, how would having Harry Reid replaced by Sharon Angle for the next 6 years accomplish anything that you (or I) wanted? The opposition is running on trying to reverse every progressive policy of the last 80 years that they can – you can either fight to defend what you believe in or let it be raped before your eyes. I could care less about the individual Democrats who will lose their jobs in this election, but even the loss of the most spineless blue-dog is lost ground by the progressives that will likely take years to recover. I don’t know what you think you will gain beyond some abstract and fleeting feeling of moral superiority by rewarding Republicans for creating this ultra-partisan atmosphere and attempting to prevent, delay, or sabotage every single legislative initiative, but to me it is total lunacy.
Swarthmore mom,
Thanks for pointing out that Tony C is implicitly supporting requiring 60 votes for the Senate to pass any legislation and forcing women to carry their rapists babies to term. Are those policies that you really want to support, Tony?
I encourage all prgressives to donate money to Russ Feingold’s cmapaign. It would be a tragedy if he loses his senate seat in November.
“What is striking is the fact that Biden and others continue to consider their own failure to give voters a reason to become active after years of broken campaign promises and outright betrayals of core values.”
—————————————————
Thank you Mr. Turley
thank you for saying it
and I agree w/Slarti, Lottakatz and Blouise.
…plus, I remember that O’Bama didn’t start out to be watered down by constant deliberate obstruction. This has been a Country tearing itself apart but before Obama was Bush enthusiastically feeding chunks of it to Corporations and other Countries. Remember when Bush tried to get Americans to look at the stock market as a valid retirement account?! [like stocking a fish pond for the citified elite to come have a shoot!]
….just give me better choices and fair play…Kucinich
Slarti: Nice straw man you threw at Tony C, but I’ll bet it bounced right off of him! Right On, Tony C!!
HenMan,
It would make me feel pretty shitty, but not nearly as bad as having the Republicans take control of Congress. I suggest that this is a ‘close your eyes and think of England’ moment – it sucks that our choice is between having our face rubbed in shit and being shot in the head, but would you really rather be shot in the head?
Woosty = ^..^ (still),
You for got to mention the evisceration of our nation’s regulatory agencies… The gift that will keep giving us presents like the financial collapse, the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion and the BP oil spill for years to come…
HenMan,
Please explain how you think my comments to Tony C constituted a straw man.
HenMan or Tony C,
Also please explain how any progressive goal is helped by a Republican takeover of the House and the Senate in November, because I just don’t see it…
While the dems leave a lot to be desired, we really, really should “be afraid” of the Republicans. We are slowly becoming a third world country and that will continue full throttle if Republicans gain the majority again. Not voting is NOT the solution. And, voting Republican is NOT the solution either. I am not sure what it is; but, on election day I will go out and vote for Democrats because I believe it is the only way to keep the country safe for a little while longer. I am 65, I have two very bad knees, a chronic disease called Fibromyalgia; but, I will still go out on election day and do what I can to keep this country from sliding into the abyss. You don’t like the Democrats . . . but, look at the alternatives . . . look at the alternatives . . .
Apathy will kill us just as fast as the Republicans.
The sign at the fork in the road say has two arrows – “Hell the Fast Way” and “Hell the Slow Way”. Unless Congress decides to look out for the common good instead of leaching off the corporate largess, the destination is the same. People are losing faith in the parties because of Congressional failures to address the needs of society despite repeated promises to do so. Given their track record in both parties on willingness to break promises but especially when they can profit personally from it? Nothing is likely to change without getting worse first.
Slartibartfast….I dinna forget…but I’ve been really really really trying to break down the horrific collapse of our Government into believable bits….and the pieces just don’t fit.
Obama is making really unsavory music right now do you think he knows something we don’t? Like who really bought the Country?
Buddha,
I’m just arguing that we pick ‘Hell the Slow Way’ in order to give ourselves more time to find a third path… Do you see any reason to pick ‘Hell the Fast Way’?
Slarti: You said “Thanks for pointing out that Tony C is implicitly supporting requiring 60 votes for the Senate to pass any legislation and forcing women to carry their rapist’s babies to term.” Where did Tony C say anything about “rapist’s babies”? If that isn’t a Straw Man, then I never saw one.
Buddha,
“Nothing is likely to change without getting worse first.”
I doubt our country would have started a pre-emptive war in Iraq if Al Gore had been elected president. I guess I’d prefer the lesser of two evils…once again I’m not ready for hell just yet. I’ll stick with the Democrats for the time being. IMO, voting for Republicans in November would be akin to cutting off my nose to spite my face.
Slarti,
I’m not arguing against the Slow Way. Just pointing out the destination is still the same until the rampant corporatism problem gets addressed. Dress appropriately.
and I still think there are worse places and worse ways to be…
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-23-2010/international-house-of-handshakes
Slarti Some of the people on here would not even vote for a democrat to be elected to the Texas State Board of Education. Let the creationists prevail. Things must get worse. We must allow the republicans to curtail scientific research in the name of christianity. Things must get worse.
Elaine M: I haven’t seen anyone here advocate voting FOR Republicans, only NOT voting for Democrats who take our votes and our money and do nothing to support the things we stand for. As long as we continue to do that, nothing will ever change.
HenMan,
IMO, not voting for Democrats will probably give Repubilicans a majority in the House and/or the Senate. I would hate to see that. I’m a realist…not an idealist. I plan to go to the polls in November and vote Democratic.
If you’re thinking things will change if Democrats don’t vote, I think you’re dreaming. Maybe I’m too old and have seen too much to
be an optimist. I’d prefer the status quo to things getting much worse…as they most likely would if Republicans gained control in the House or Senate.
HenMan I still think Obama is an improvement over Bush.
Woosty = ^..^ (still),
I don’t tend to think that President Obama (or any president) knows some deep dark secret that the rest of us aren’t privy to. Obviously he has much more information than we have, but I tend to shy away from ‘conspiracy theory’ type explanations absent extraordinary evidence – I think a better explanation of behavior is the way that hierarchies subjectively filter information (in some ways, the president has a more distorted view than anyone else in the world…).
HenMan,
Swarthmore mom pointed out that several high profile Republicans have openly stated that they oppose abortion in cases of rape or incest and I don’t think that it’s a leap to suggest that they will attempt to implement these policies if elected. Since midterm elections are all about voter turnout, not voting is implicitly helping to elect Republicans and teabaggers – thus implicitly supporting the policies that they espouse. I don’t think that Tony C explicitly supports this policy, I think that his (and your) suggested course of action will allow these extremists the opportunity to make progress towards their stated goals.
As for your comment to Elaine, you act like the Democrats didn’t do anything – not true (in fact, you’re making your own straw man). Health insurance reform, consumer financial protection agency, stimulus, saving the auto industry, ending combat operations in Iraq, setting a date to begin withdrawal in Afghanistan, working towards ending DADT, etc. are all examples of Democratic accomplishments in what seems to me to be the most partisan environment since the Civil War. You can say there’s no difference between bad and worse all you want, but as Elaine pointed out things would probably have been much better if Al Gore had become president instead of George Bush (and, in my opinion, things would have been much worse if John McCain had been elected). Not voting is a choice that could have results every bit as dire as voting for the Republicans. I submit that the ‘punishment’ that you and Tony C advocate giving to the Democrats wont accomplish anything that any of us want and will likely lead to consequences that we would all consider horrific.
Swarthmore mom,
Maybe I can get a job doing ‘Intelligent Design’ research… Oh wait, there is no ‘Intelligent Design’ research!
Morton’s fork is pointy, Slarti.
We still have the largest economy in the world at $14 trillion (2009 figures). China, at $1.33 trillion just passed Japan this year (2010) to become #2. I point this out to underscore how important it is that our government be forward thinking (progressive) as opposed to backward leaning (conservative). Also to point out how necessary it is to elect men and women who, on principal and character, can withstand the temptations placed before them by the corporate structures Buddha referenced.
We are rich beyond belief and our enemies are scummy little guys who hide in caves. They are not capable of taking us down.
The only thing standing in our way is our own incompetent leadership constantly bombarding us with fearful images that simply do not exist. They do so, so that we will fail to understand how truly strong we are. For it is we who have built this economy and we who have defeated every and all real enemies.
They do so, so that in our distraction we fail to turn to them and demand what we have earned.
Swarthmore mom; Carrot Top would be an improvement over George W. Bush. I think it’s time to stop making excuses for President Obama. If he knows anything about politics, and he does, he knew that he had 23 months to get legislation passed before he would lose Democratic Party seats in Congress. 21 of those months are gone. Whatever hasn’t been done by now are things that weren’t priorities for Obama. Things like closing Guantanamo, ending “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell”, ending warrantless wiretapping, investigating Bush era war crimes, trials for “terrorists” in civilian courts (not by Military Commissions), restoring habeas corpus to it’s rightful place as the foundation of our justice system, charging everyone in Guantanamo with a specific crime or releasing them, etc,etc,etc. Feel free to add anything I overlooked. This rant isn’t directed at you, Sw mom- I know your heart’s in the right place.
habeas corpus is a big deal…..why the big silence from the media and on the hill?
I disagree HenMan. Russ Feingold is losing in many polls in the double digits. He is a true progressive and is losing. He was for doing all the “right” things that you listed above. The reason the democrats are losing is that the economy is turning around too slowly. Most people don’t care about Bush war crimes. They care about the economy. If you think the republicans can solve the economic problems, then vote for them.
HenMan,
Obama let everyone down … hard. There is absolutely nothing wrong in pointing that out for it is the truth. Was he better or worse than Bush is irrelevant for he was not what he claimed to be and that is also the truth.
If he runs again he will be reelected because he will energize the base and the democratic base is huge compared to the republicans. Will he re-energizer the independents? Yes … enough to get the votes he needs. He is very, very good at appearing sincere and likable.
So, what do we who have been so disappointed in his actual governing ability do? We demand … loudly. We push … constantly. We become thorns in his side by refusing to fall under the spell.
Blouise I guess I didn’t have the expectations of Obama that many people here had. I am not as sure as you are that he will be re-elected particularly if the economy does not improve.
SwM,
I think we’ve discussed this before and determined that neither of us did since we were familiar with his record but many, many people did have high expectations.
The economy is turning … it is slow but it is steady … and he is a very talented campaigner. The republicans will have no one to offer except a crazy. Even if they do get control of one of the houses this year, which I doubt, they will have no power to enact anything.
I am looking ahead to 2012 … we must get some principled liberals into primaries to replace the blue-dogs. They will then coattail Obama.
The republicans are in total disarray and only crazies are winning primaries and they won’t be able to build anything out of that for 2012 … there just isn’t enough time. It is a golden opportunity.
SwM,
I’m surrounded by “good” republicans … one could say I’m drowning in them and not be accused of over-dramatization.
They do not like these crazies and they are disgusted at the turn their party has taken. Unlike democrats, they don’t moan about it in public.
They are starting to actually like Obama’s careful style. They vote … no matter what, and if it’s a choice between a crazy and Obama … they’re going to vote Obama … and never admit it.
Blouise I have a republican brother in law who is like that. He could not vote for Palin and ended up voting for Obama in the end.
SwM,
There are a lot of them … they would never donate to the democratic party but they will not vote for a crazy for they do love their country and they know what the crazies are all about.
They will also be pulling the levers for democrats during this election season also … and then refuse to comment.
… two alsos … time to quit the keyboard … good night, SwM. Keep the faith.
Buddha,
Morton’s Fork – had to look that one up… I don’t think that the choices here functionally lead to the same end.
Blouise,
Thanks for giving me some optimistic analysis (that seems valid to me) – I really needed that. I think that you’re right that the current Republican tactics (which will most likely be very successful in the short term) are going to bite the Republicans in the ass down the road. If we can avoid putting whackjobs like Angle and O’Donnell in the Senate then the Democrats should be able to retake the House in 2012 (assuming they lose it in November). I have no objection to Republicans running on what they believe in as long as they acknowledge the facts, but too many of the current crop of Republican candidates are far too willing to distort the truth, lie, and make promises that they know they can’t keep if they think that it will get them elected and the more of them we put in office this fall (especially in the Senate) the worse off our country will be.
Woosty = ^..^,
I think that most of the civil liberties issues were eaten by the economy. I think that very few people give much thought to habeas corpus (or torture, etc.) when they don’t know how they’re going to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads for another month…
Blouise Thanks. We have to keep the faith for our children.
Slarti,
I admire your optimism.
Elaine M., Swarthmore mom, Blouise, Slarti, Buddah, Woosty, et al: Before I get excommunicated for Democratic Party heresy, I would like to point out that my politcally correct Liberal Honda Fit sports a Russ Feingold ’10 bumper sticker and several checks that formerly resided in my checkbook are now in the hands of the Feingold Senate Committee. I enthusiastically voted for Dennis Kucinich for President in the ’08 Wisconsin Primary. I voted for Obama in the Presidential election with no great joy. I considered Hillary the #1 establishment candidate and Obama #2. I think maybe Hillary would have made a better President, at least in the “more guts” category. President Obama has two more years to show me a lot more than I have seen so far. If not, I will cast my first vote for the Socialist candidate.
Swarthmore mom: “No one has mentioned the fact that because of the filibuster you need sixty votes in the Senate to pass anything. Even if all the democrats voted for a bill, there are only 59 votes.”
_______
I did. That’s the game changer. That the Democratic party is looking for more right-leaning Democratic candidates and, when there are progressive candidates challenging conservative Democratic incumbents, work to maintain the conservative in office, tells me that the status quo is to their liking. Or to the liking of the puppet-masters.
The Democratic party worked against Joe Lieberman being unseated by a progressive Democrat. The party backed Lieberman as an independent over a progressive Democrat that had taken the nomination from him. Neither party respects the will or desires of the citizenry. It’s why deals are cut and proposals taken off the table even before the parties get to the table. It’s why just enough of something gets done to stanch the bleeding but not enough to make the country well. It’s al about pacifying the enemy and we are the enemy.
The fact that people still roll their eyes and chalk up the fact that the Democrats just can’t get their shit together after so many years means to me that people are clueless about what is going on with the Democratic party. No politician is that politically stupid. There are ways to bring obstructionist Republican and Democrats to heel; that it isn’t done is telling.
HenMan,
I never thought that your goals were substantially different from mine, just that your tactics are counterproductive towards achieving them…
Lottakatz,
What I want to know is why don’t the Democrats (and Harry Reid in particular) force the Republicans to actually stand up and talk every time they want to filibuster – a simple way within the rules to make unprecedented Republican obstructionism apparent…
Lottakatz: You make Lottasense. The Democratic Party also brought the worthless Blanche Lincoln back from the dead with a last minute infusion of cash to defeat a progressive candidate in the Arkansas Primary. At least he would have gotten the Democratic vote in the general election. I can’t imagine anyone in either party voting for Lincoln, but I guess this year insanity is the norm. Get crazy, get noticed, get elected- or at least get rich.
Couldn’t sleep
HenMan,
You are honestly and truly a person after my own heart … I also wanted Hillary and I know she would have been a better president if for no other reason than that she possess a much stronger work ethic. Ditto on almost everything else you said especially Dennis.
Lottakatz, from now on your name is Lottasense in my book and I will only address you as such.
Keep on pushin’ people … he’s a politician and he wants to be loved … use it!
HenMan,
As I said before, I highly doubt that any Democrat could have held Blanche Lincoln’s seat in this environment. That being the case, I thought that the progressive push to primary her was a good idea (even though I don’t think her opponent had a prayer in the general either). Also, I don’t see a problem with the Democratic establishment supporting her over her primary challenger – it seems likely that such support would have been part of a deal for her vote on health care reform (or other bills). In general, I’d rather have a moderate candidate with a chance of winning than a true progressive that will go down in noble defeat.
All.
Professor Turley’s analysis is 100% correct, but it is necessary to go beyond it.
People who are mystified by the failures of the Democratic party elite to enact the policies they promised and to reverse those they promised to reverse are confused by their own inability to recognize and distinguish among the different concepts of “can’t” “won’t” and “don’t want to”. When people say that they can’t do something it often really means we won’t do it because we don’t want to do it, and that is the case with the poor weak, powerless Democrats who need so many unobtainable things such as bipartisanship from Republicans and consent from powerful businesses for their power of those businesses to be wound back.
The Democrats are Light republicans or RIABN for Republican In All But Name. They agree with real Republicans that rich people are inherently better and more deserving than the other 99% of the population and that it right and proper and just that the terms of trade between the gazillionare class and the rest should be tilted still further in favour the former. What distinguishes Democrats from Real Republicans is that Dems do not try to appeal to the kind of people who oppose abortion but support the death penalty so that unwanted fetuses can be born into poverty and squalor and grow up to be psychopathic serial killers sitting on death row awaiting lethal injection.
Professor Turley.
Sometimes I wait for an article from you on some issues, but such an article never comes. I really think your ideas on the affairs of Aafia Siddiqui just sentenced to 86 years for shooting at US soldiers would be interesting, also your views on Guantanamo Bay and the failure of Habeas Corpus petitions for so many of its inmates. Andy Worthington’s blog, The Talking Dog and The Guantanamo Blog are the go to sites for a quick primer on these things.
The relationship between the Democratic Party and The Democratic party voter base is analogous to that between an abusive husband and a wife now surplus to requirements that the husband wants to ditch but also wants to do so without initiating the divorce proceedings himself. An escalating campaign of insults fails to get the message through to the wife because she having dependant personality disorder is afraid to face the truth.
Slartibartfast: (Re: BIL the Berzerker)
“Buddha, I’m just arguing that we pick ‘Hell the Slow Way’ in order to give ourselves more time to find a third path… Do you see any reason to pick ‘Hell the Fast Way’?”
———
And here I thought you’d naturally have an affinity for the call to ‘chaos’.
***
The answer to your question, though I’m not BIL and just want to take a shot at it, is that it works. Incremental change provides just enough validation to an existing system to keep people from taking a chance, out of the streets, cities from burning, or fundamental demands from being made by the citizenry. I’ve seen how fast the process can react to deliver on its promise’s and responsibilities during time of strife and challenge. It’s an impressive and horrible thing to see.
I read an article about 6-12 months ago that detailed some experiments done to determine the level of risk-taking among people that had few of something and others that had moderate to many of something. The upshot was that the less of something a subject had the more conservative and anxious that subject was about losing it, even if it was inadequate to sustain the subject throughout the duration of the sequence of events in the experiment. I believe that the experiments were set up as betting events that would require betting often enough to win enough to be able to remain in the experiment to the end.
I forget the exact particulars and haven’t been able t find the paper though I have searched for it several times since I read it. What I do recall clearly though is that people with little tend to be more conservative even when it is not in their best interest and behave in a more docile manner when confronted with choices and the possibility of taking even small actions that could help them.
I also recall reading a book on the Soviet system (written by someone that lived there several years) that marveled for a chapter or two at the docility of citizens in the face of perpetual shortages. This was a good 30-40 years ago. The author went into great detail about the ways citizens coped with shortages including queues that lasted for a day or more for announced deliveries of simple consumables like meat and onions. That people carried around a couple of months wages and upon seeing a queue would get in it first and ask what its purpose was afterward. He detailed a host of labor intensive tactics used by the prols to provide for their own basic welfare.
The author, in response to his own question of why people in Moscow can’t buy onions in summer, postulated that the shortages were not the fault of a bumbling government agency entrusted with the allocation and distribution of said onions and other foodstuffs but a concerted policy of the government. Queuing and scrambling for even modest amounts of basic items simply left people too preoccupied and tired for revolution. It was the only explanation that made sense in a country where the citizens would have as their natural enemy a corrupt and indifferent government that worked to protect the wealth and power of a few over the needs of the many.
It was a sophisticated control mechanism that sapped energy and stifled dissent without having to expend great amounts of time and energy using other means. The oppression of a few high profile people within the intelligence was simply a way to keep them in line as a group since an educated class was needed but, they were not really a threat, with the great bulk of the citizenry being completely demoralized and preoccupied.
I see resonances within our own political system. It’s a short hop for me to see corollary between the Soviets of the 50′s-60′s queueing up for onions and Americans mortgaging their future choices for a line of credit. If you wanted people to think they were well off and resist change to an established political (or class system) then credit is the perfect vehicle. Wages don’t have to rise, the actual wealth held by the prols don’t have to increase, the only thing that needs to increase is the line of credit. It acts as an economic engine, it allows great and real wealth to be created and float upward, and it will take a long time to crash so long as jobs are reasonably plentiful.
When the crash comes, you are left with a population that is rendered docile and exhausted by either attempting to salvage something of their lifestyle or due to their impoverishment. You have a majority of the population with just enough that they can’t afford to lose more. The same political and economic interests that benefited during phase I benefit during phase II. The laws passed and policies developed in phase I make phase II inevitable. I don’t see this as an accident or bumbling or stupidity on the part of out elected’. I do see the road back to fiscal responsibility, for individuals and the country to take decades. And those are decades that build in small, incremental changes that are little more than band-aids that do little more than make it appear that some progress in addressing the country’s needs and desires are being made.
I am of the mind that if the last 25 years and the coming 20-25 years had not been planned it should have been because it works beautifully. 50 years of wealth and power being consolidated while all the while giving every impression that anything you want is at your fingertips, just visit any grocery store or Wal-Mart, no shortages here so everything must be ok.
BIL wants to short-circuit the next 20 years and thinks chaos (my word)in the political system will lead to some healthy measure of chaos in the real world. He needs to elaborate n his thesis.
I too think things will get worse before they get better. I think that means oppression: personal, economic and/or political as I see it. BIL may be thinking that push will come to shove and people will just keep throwing the bums out, as things get worse, until a new political generation of leaders emerge that no longer think of the citizenry as a periodic inconvenience and act in a responsible and responsive manner to the needs of the citizenry and country.
I think it’s a crap-shoot, it could be America during the Great Depression giving rise to a Roosevelt or Germany ala’ 1925-1932.
Throwing the bums (of whatever stripe) out has a great appeal to me also. On principle. If it’s done regularly you don’t end up where the very thought of it is, in and of itself, terrifying. That only show that we haven’t done it enough.
Slartibartfast: “Lottakatz,
What I want to know is why don’t the Democrats (and Harry Reid in particular) force the Republicans to actually stand up and talk every time they want to filibuster – a simple way within the rules to make unprecedented Republican obstructionism apparent…”
Carlyle Moulton: “When people say that they can’t do something it often really means we won’t do it because we don’t want to do it,…”
——-
Slarti, I actually started answering your question but it morphed and got weird the longer I explored the thought.
Thankfully Carlyle Moulton has a gift for ‘short and sweet’ I lack. I agree with his assessment.
Swarthmore mom: “Blouise I have a republican brother in law who is like that. He could not vote for Palin and ended up voting for Obama in the end.”
Blouise: “SwM, There are a lot of them … they would never donate to the democratic party but they will not vote for a crazy for they do love their country and they know what the crazies are all about.”
———
I think you ladies have hit on something that is greatly under rated in the equation: the “I’m crazy but I’m not THAT crazy’ aspect of voters. I know racist bigots that voted for Obama. The Bush Administration was simply killing them economically. They had to hold on to their bigotry and vote for McCain or vote for Obama and a chance at some relief.
Give people, even people that have political views (and vote those views)we would label as extremist enough of a taste of real extremism and what it can do to them and they start making better choices simply because they need the relief.
Buddah is correct.
Much of the argument on this thread is from people who think choosing “hell the fast way” is crazy when there is the option of “hell the slow way”. I in Australia and presumably safe from the chaos that will result when the US reaches destination Hell, the riots, the death camps, the mass abuse of human rights no longer confined to just poor people and blacks, so it is probably impertinent of me to suggest to you poor Americans of an evil liberal inclination that you should choose “Hell the fast way”, nevertheless I enjoy being impertinent.
The fact is that the American political system as it is now is incapable of dealing with America’s problems and only a crisis sufficiently severe as to banish the illusions that there exist relatively small and costless solutions will change that. In other words you need to reach Hell before you can escape from Hell. Disaster is inevitable, you can choose actions that will delay the disaster at the cost of making it worse or hasten it with the possibility that it may be of less impact, but you cannot prevent it, therefore I recommend taking actions that would speed up the inevitable. Yes the Republican Party and the Tea Baggers are beyond insanity and if given power are only capable of doing things that hasten the disaster, whereas Democrats will just sufficiently better managers as to delay disaster at the cost of making it worse.
The catastrophe may be of the same order of magnitude as that that occurred with Europe under Hitler. The US is now in a pre-facist phase, it may need the lesson of a period of from 10 to 40 years under full blown fascism complete with torture squads and death camps and exiled dissidents before a sufficient number lose the blinding illusions that prevent them throwing out the Republican/democratic duopoly power elite.
I suggest not just failing to vote Democrat, choose and support the most looney and incompetent tea party candidates that you can find. Advocate to let Israel nuke Iran and force the US to extend its war into as many Muslim countries as it can. Let the wars bleed your country insolvent and kill the US pretensions to being an Empire. The illusion of empire is the problem, no reform can occur until their is a consensus that the US empire is dead.
Elaine and Swathmore Mom, I hope this
Elaine and Swathmore Mum.
I hope my previous post is better at getting across what I have been trying to say to you in posts on other threads.
Lottakatz.
I agree with you 120%.
By the way, being able to say things in few words is not a gift, it is a skill learned through much practice in writing to newspapers and more recently posting on blogs.
My English writing used to be appalling, the worst aspect being my inability to hold arguments to a decent length. Whenever I wrote an essay meant not to exceed 800 words, I would submit 10,000 and generating these 10,000 used to be a painful process, but practice improves things and writing is now pretty effortless. I did not really start to write until I had access to a text editor on an IBM compatible mainframe computer in the eighties to write computer documentation. This allowed me to get beyond the barrier of rewriting over and over and filling waste baskets full of mistyped or blotchy misspelled handwriting. The text editor allowed me to change things without having to retype everything, and now reediting is not normally needed.
So practice trying to say the same things over again when an appropriate blog thread presents itself. Over time one’s brain condenses the arguments and one builds up pithy phrases for reuse in the same argument.
Elaine, Blouise and Swathmore Mum.
In my previous post to Elaine and Swathmore Mum I meant to address Blouise as well but forgot, my previous comments were intended for all three of you.
In the US representative government does not work, because interposed between voters and the government is the political representative class and public discourse is limited to an acceptable range by the bloviating classes. Neither of these classes has interests aligned with the majority of US citizens, rather their interests align with those of the kleptoplutocratic overclass of billionaires. The political representatives and bloviators see themselves as at the least respectable high status servants of the elite and many consider themselves full members.
After all the passion that has been displayed I still can not get this out of my mind,it may explain some things:
Speaking of passion:
Fight Breaks Out After Harry Reid-Sharron Angle Candidate Forum
AP/The Huffington Post First Posted: 09-24-10 01:07 PM | Updated: 09-24-10 01:22 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/24/reid-angle-forum-fight_n_737869.html
Or passionless:
Christine O’Donnell Will Stop America From Sexing Each Other (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/24/christine-odonnell-will-s_n_738276.html
Carlyle Moulton,
Your argument reminds me of an old joke:
A man comes home from work early and finds his wife in bed with another man. The husband of the unfaithful wife pulls out his gun and points it at his own head. The man in bed with his wife chuckles. The husband looks at the other man and says, “Don’t laugh–the next bullet’s for you!”
The Dallas Morning News is reporting that when the republicans take over in the fall, the Texas republicans will be taking over the powerful committees again. Some are the same people that held them prior to 2006. So how does throwing the bums out (the democrats) and putting Barton back in charge of energy change anything. That is what we need in charge of energy policy – a denier of global warming. Get rid of Nancy Pelosi and put the Texans back in charge. Maybe we don’t have twenty years with regards to the environment. My congressman Pete Sessions will be a powerful man in Washington along with Jeb Hensarling, the congressman who was sponsored by the Wylie brothers. The list of Texas republicans moving back into power is long. Most are worse than Bush. I went to an SDS meeting when I was young. Their ideas did not work then and I don’t think they they will work now.
Swarthmoremom,
You talkin’ ’bout Joe “I apologize to BP” Barton? You mean you wouldn’t want him in charge of the Energy & Commerce Committee?
Elaine He will be the energy committee chair when the republicans win. He is in a safe district. DeLay made sure the powerful republicans have very save districts in Texas.
safe not save.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/23/we-d-be-worse-off-if-obama-had-not-acted.html Howard Fineman is leaving Newsweek to write for the Huffington Post.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/jon-stewarts-takedown-of-gops-pledge-to-america-same-sht-we-heard-before-video.php?ref=fpb
I come not to praise Obama and the Democrats, but to explain them.
Money runs the system. Money controls the media. Every bit of news we get is distorted through corporate lenses that are guaranteed to disperse confusion and misinformation. The military/industrial complex is so intertwined that we really can’t tell who is running this show, the Constitution or the gun. Given all this which almost every poster on the thread understands as well as I do, what di you expect the Dems to do?
One could make the argument that they have performed over reasonable expectation, given the above, but I won’t bother with that faced with the even dimmer prospect of this Country’s future. BIL is correct the choice of lesser evils does mean either the long, or short road to hell. However, the long road gives us the opportunity of developing strategies that might ultimate allow us (those truly interested in freedom despite political predilection) to find a way to prevail.
Revolutions are ultimately doomed to failure despite the rhetoric of the leaders. This is because the real issue of humanity has always been that sociopathic types gain leadership roles. Alpha Males preach whatever philosophy they fancy will get them power, but the philosophy is only a means to power and never really the point for them.
Given all this I’ll choose the “slow road to hell” and hope that some of us are smart enough to find a way out of this conundrum.
In my mind and in my emotions I can’t look at individual human suffering as a microcosm, to be pushed aside by macro-cosmic necessity. If the Republicans gain legislative power in this vote, many more of the forgotten “little people” will be harmed or destroyed. I’ve seen and experienced far too much pain in my life knowing others, or personally.
To change the game and results one you have to bring your already comprehensive understanding of its’ nature (true of most posters on this thread)an with that understanding know the limits of what can really be accomplished quickly.
Is Jim DeMint’s rising star helping or hurting Republicans?
By James Rosen | McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/19/100772/with-primary-victories-demint.html
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — A tea party upstart’s shocking election win in Delaware accelerated Sen. Jim DeMint’s ascent, left him as the nation’s most powerful hard-line conservative politician outside of Sarah Palin — but exposed the South Carolina Republican to attacks that he’d helped destroy his party’s chances of regaining Senate control.
Charles Krauthammer, an influential syndicated conservative commentator, spared no punches in criticizing DeMint and Palin for having helped political neophyte Christine O’Donnell defeat nine-term Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware’s Senate GOP primary Tuesday.
Krauthammer branded as “reckless and irresponsible” the endorsement of O’Donnell by Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee, and DeMint, and its galvanizing effect on tea party stalwarts.
“The very people who have most alerted the country to the perils of President Obama’s social democratic agency may have just made it impossible for Republicans to retake the Senate and definitively stop that agenda,” Krauthammer wrote.
Castle, endorsed by South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, was the handpicked choice of Texas Sen. John Cornyn, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, to win the prize Delaware seat that had been long held by Vice President Joe Biden.
“Senate Republicans are now even more embroiled in an intraparty civil war in which DeMint has been the lead rebel,” reported Politico, a widely read Capital Hill newspaper and blog.
**********
Here’s a verse I wrote in March of 2009–so it’s a bit dated. Maybe I should consider rewriting it with some new names–including Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Carl Paladino, and Jim DeMint–for 2010.
And Who Will Lead the GOP?
Little Boy Blue,
Come blow your horn.
Mitt’s in the Meadow.
Mike Steele’s in the corn.
Rush is out riding
His hippo this morn.
Boehner’s in Congress—
He’s bitchin’ and moanin’.
And Newt’s out of town—
So, I guess, he’ll just phone in.
Governor Jindal’s
Gone into seclusion.
He’s getting a needed
Rhetorical transfusion.
Mitch M. is refining
His partisan skills.
McCain is out hunting
For earmarks in bills.
And where’s Sarah Palin,
The gal with the glasses?
Did she fall into
One of Alaska’s crevasses?
Oh dear! My oh my!
What’s the party to do?
Hey, are you busy now,
Mister Magoo?
Dear Mike
I have been a Registered Democrat since 1980, I financially supported Obama, and I blogged for Obama but I am really having problems with the party now. The Republicans imprisoned me for 5 months without a criminal charge in order to force me to withdraw a third party civil lawsuit. The Democrats affirmed that and said it is informal government policy. The imprisonments ruined me financially and damaged my reputation. Therefore my life is no better under the Democrats than under the Republicans. If I am going to be miserable because of what Democrats do, then I want the Democrats who did it to suffer too. If President Obama’s men are unwilling to help me, why should I help them?
I liked a speech I found by John B. Anderson. Maybe the Republicans will find a candidate similar to him. I see that John B. Anderson endorsed Obama in the last election but I don’t see any recent endorsements from him even though he is still working as a law professor.
http://nsulaw.nova.edu/faculty/profiles/index.cfm?ID=3
“This is because the real issue of humanity has always been that sociopathic types gain leadership roles. Alpha Males preach whatever philosophy they fancy will get them power, but the philosophy is only a means to power and never really the point for them.” (Mike S.)
I find the first sentence in the above quote to be most intriguing. (I kept the other sentences in for context)
Are elected leadership positions a natural draw for sociopathic types? Having a lot of experience with “local” politicians, those who rub elbows with their neighbors/constituents on a daily basis, I can state with confidence that the majority are not sociopathic types. However, the higher I go up the food chain, where daily contact with constituents lessen as the bubble of protective aides, advisors, and managers increases, the ratio of “normal” to sociopathic types changes and the sociopathic behaviors increase.
Is this a built in downside of a democratic system in general … a point going to human nature that can not be avoided … or is it just our particular system? In other words, if this observation is true, are there ways, means, or methods to keep the number of sociopathic types to a minimum or is it simply a bane that will always be with us due to the nature of our system, our culture, or our … human nature?
Blouise,
This one’s for you. Please check out Bill Maher’s hat. I doubt it’s made of tinfoil.
Public design of court computer systems should ensure a transparent court procedure consistent with written law and that would help a lot. For instance, before DOJ imprisons people it should use computer system matching to make sure that there was a bail hearing with a finding of danger to the public or an actual trial of a criminal charge and a sentence.
The Justice for All Act of 2004 is supposed to allow for court hearings for complaints based on criminal acts by government employees.
Since most government crooks are lawyers, if attorney regulators were elected and therefore there was a public discussion about complaints that attorney regulators choose not to process, that would help too I think.
Elaine,
Thank you … Maher paid his dues big time … after a minute or so one got used to the hat!
However, I could still see him … my younger grandchildren’s hats make one invisible!
“If I am going to be miserable because of what Democrats do, then I want the Democrats who did it to suffer too. If President Obama’s men are unwilling to help me, why should I help them?”
Kay,
In a system run by money and corporations there is little suffering meted out to incumbents who lose. They get positions that reward them more financially. The suffering comes from people, like yourself, who are bludgeoned by the system. My contention is not that Democrasts are appreciably better than Republicans, but their “bludgeoning” of those not part of the plutocracy is to a lesser degree. The corporate/monied classes want to turn most of us into serfs and that is apparent in the positions taken by most Republican candidates. In short I urge the support of what I deem is the lesser of two evils.
“Are elected leadership positions a natural draw for sociopathic types? Having a lot of experience with “local” politicians, those who rub elbows with their neighbors/constituents on a daily basis,”
I agree Blouise, but as your further expounded in your post, as one sees farther up the food chains sociopathy appears more common. My contention is that most “leaders” are sociopaths, which is what gets them to be leaders.
“if this observation is true, are there ways, means, or methods to keep the number of sociopathic types to a minimum or is it simply a bane that will always be with us due to the nature of our system, our culture, or our … human nature?”
The only way I see is human evolution which would get us beyond the need to organize hierarchically and include the general recognition that we’re all connected. I agree this is not a likely process, but homo sapiens has evolved in the past
successfully and it can in the future. Our hierarchical view of reality is an illusion and a genetic compulsion that I hope we can get past at some future date. Until then, and we’ll all be long gone, the most viable position for us to take in my opinion is to minimize the harm done by the powerful to the rest of us. This is of course a highly optimistic view, but it helps keeps despair away.
You know, one would think that all the money behind powerful liberal thinkers and all these bloody rock bands singing to change the world and the people would suffice to change something, somewhere… let alone get a third party started.
How many Bono’s could we need for how much longer ffs?
Dear Mike
I am telling you that I never ever voted Republican before but I am thinking about it now. If people who are moral always support the Democrats even when they are immoral, then there is no motivation for the Democrats to be moral. The Democrats know what happened to me but just refused to help at all in any way. And it wasn’t the system which bludgeoned me. It was a criminal conspiracy knowingly directed at me in particular and I think their goal was to make me so miserable that I would commit suicide. The person who started it all, Kevin Bennett, former president of the City Council of Steamboat Springs CO, was a registered democrat. I know that because I lived next door to him and I was such a good Democrat that I held a Democratic precinct meeting in my home. Bennett claimed to be anti developers at the same time that he was a developer, was a real estate speculator, reportedly (according to rumors that I can’t prove) accepted ownership shares in developments that he did not invest in while he was in public office, and he built extra buildings reportedly for a planned bring your horse bed and breakfast tourist facility, that still 10 years later aren’t even on the Routt County property tax rolls. Routt County Democrats including Diane Mitsch Bush and Douglas B. Monger have protected him.
As far as Republicans, they’ll come around to respecting the needs of all people if starving people start breaking into their mansions. In Brazil apparently it is impractical to even have a single family home unless you have enough money to keep an armed guard there at all times. I don’t believe that the rich Republicans in the U.S. want to give up their option to live in single family homes but that is what will happen if they don’t provide a safety net.
Kay,
The Repubublicans won’t lift a finger to help people in need until the “barbarians” have already broken down their gates.
Don’t all these parties and party coalitions change over time? Wasn’t it the Republicans who originally championed the end of slavery?
What about the old saying that the Republicans are the party of business and the Democrats are the party of big business? In my case, the Obama administration knows that Underwriters at Lloyds London sold insurance to a prosecutor in Colorado without the State Division of Insurance approving them for sale of insurance to lawyers in Colorado. The administration knows that Lloyds paid a bill for discussion of case assignment issues and that after that my lawsuit was reassigned directly to former judge Nottingham (a Republican appointed by Bush) without a random reassignment procedure and that Lloyds paid for calls between their attorney David Brougham and the court for “confer with court regarding status of pending motions and timing of ruling”. They know that Nottingham was already hanging out in strip clubs and having weekly or more frequent appointments for prostitution services when my federal civil lawsuit was reassigned to him. They know that Lloyds paid to “research vexatious litigant cases” and came up with the idea of calling me a vexatious litigant without even finding even a sentence in which I lied or made illegal threats and of imprisoning me without a criminal charge as part of an extortionist scheme. Furthermore it has already been two years since DOJ served a search warrant on Microsoft for the emails and credit card transactions of the Denver Players brothel which was patronized by former judge Nottingham and many lawyers and DOJ has done nothing at all. Why should I cover that up? I think that Lloyds has a national system in which it pays off judges, court clerks, and attorney regulators. I’ve given DOJ at least enough information to get a search warrant on Lloyds but DOJ just wants to hurt me and the only plausible explanation I know is that Lloyds or their insured are paying off U.S. government officials.
This all happened in Colorado under Governor Bill Ritter, a Democrat, and with Democrats John Suthers and Ken Salazar as Colorado Attorney Generals. Furthermore, my case was later reassigned to Christine M. Arguello, a judge that President Obama reportedly considered for Supreme Court. Judge Arguello ordered:
09/28/2009 1119 ORDER striking 1118 Plaintiffs Motion for Order to Take Judicial Notice. Upon future receipt of any, pleading, motion or any other filing presented by Ms. Sieverding, pro se, the Clerk of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado is instructed to immediately return the document to Ms. Sieverding. This includes any such documents containing Ms. Sieverdings signature, whether submitted by Ms. Sieverding, herself, or by Plaintiff David Sieverding. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 09/28/2009.(sah, ) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
How can that be legal and how can such a judge even be considered for the Supreme Court?
Everyone arguing for the fast road to hell,
Due to lack of time (and the comments of Mike S. which, as usual, are intelligent, thoughtful, and I agree with completely), I’m going to keep this short. For the reason that I and others have stated here, I believe that failing to fight against the Republicans and teabaggers in this election is tantamount to shooting yourselves in the head – only if we elect to take the slow road will we give ourselves enough time to try to find a path that leads out of the darkness. As to how to find that path, I think that the one truly necessary part of it is campaign finance reform. As long as the billionaires like the Koch brothers can make fantastic profits on the millions of dollars they spend on politicians there will never be enough politicians that can win without kowtowing to corporate (and other monied) interests to institute real change for the better. Conversely, if millions of dollars in contributions were irrelevant for re-election then most pols (R or D or other) would tend to vote with their conscience rather than their sugar daddies. I think that a possible way to work towards this would be the creation of a single-issue meta-party. A party that would support candidates of any ideology provided they pledged to work for CFR and not take special interest money (and backed up their promises with action once elected). It is axiomatic that as long as large amounts of money are necessary for politicians to be elected they will continue to do what is required to obtain that money. In the wake of the Citizens United decision and the (disappointing but unsurprising) failure of Congress to even attempt to limit the damage of that ruling, it seems clear that the only path to fixing this problem is for the people to collectively do it themselves.
It’s not just campaign contributions. Politicians and judges get personal expenses paid for including hookers. Look at Minerals Management in Colorado. How much money flowed from those leases?
http://doi.bluewatermedia.com/pdf/2003i0023.pdf
lottakatz,
Regarding chaos – we study chaos from a scientific standpoint in order to understand the chaotic processes that are abundant in nature, but from an engineering standpoint (whether we’re trying to build an airplane or a society) we try to avoid, control, or eliminate chaos. Since one of the fundamental properties of chaotic behavior is sensitive dependence on initial conditions, it follows that the results of a chaotic situation (like revolution) are unpredictable – essentially a high-stakes gamble with vanishingly small odds of achieving our desired ends. Deliberately trying to bring about chaos is sowing the wind and hoping that when you reap the whirlwind that it will turn a pile of building supplies into a house.
That would be true if the alternative is justice under the Democrats. But when the Democrats are advocating the imprisonment of U.S. citizens without a criminal prosecution, and even advocating the murder of U.S. citizens, I would rather take my chances with chaos. For me personally things can’t get worse than they already are. There will be another election in two years and maybe by then the Democrat politicians will be more accountable.
You take the fast road and I’ll take the slow road and I’ll get to sanity afore ye.
I’m encouraged by Ms. Murkowski and now, possibly, Mr. Castle bypassing the kidnapped Republican party and going the write-in road.
The two party system will work only as long as there are viable candidates on both sides. When either gets highjacked by too many radical ideas, or too many candidates spouting those ideas, the public will reject them and the other party will gain the power to become even more overbearing.
I think we all agree that money is the root of this problem. Especially money directed at changing the basic structure of our political system. In my judgement, every effort should be directed at solving the money problem and all else can be achieved with some intelligent effort.
My favorite method to start ridding the system of the need for money, or at least so much of it, would be to ban TV advertising, as other countries do. My next favorite method would be to insure only public funding of campaigns and limits on both the time and the amount of funding, again, as other countries do.
Neither of these methods will be popular, but either or both combined might garner us better candidates and, maybe, viable third or even fourth parties.
I agree w Buckeye that campaign funding changes could help. Now that there is the Internet, campaigning should be exclusively on the Internet and through public debates. This should include judicial campaigning and judicial elections should be timed to coincide with major elections. Also, state attorney regulation counsels should be an elected office.
I don’t think we are talking about either the Republicans or the Democrats having too many radical ideas. I think we are talking about pure corruption — taking payoffs and misprision of felony.
Kay,
If you bet on chaos making things better for you, then you are a fool – I don’t know the details of your life, but I would guess that things could be worse (things can always get worse until you’re dead). Your statement:
“That would be true if the alternative is justice under the Democrats.”
is a false choice. My argument is predicated on doing the least harm possible in order to buy time with which to work towards a just solution (and I suggested a method that I think could be effective towards that end). Neither you or anyone else has presented a convincing argument of how Democratic losses in this election will make Democratic politicians more accountable in two years. To me this smacks of insanity – doing the same thing and expecting different results. I also note that you refer to ‘Democrat politicians’ which is a pejorative term used nearly universally by Republicans, so I have doubts as to the veracity of your professed previous political orientation.
Buckeye,
I think that there are many viable methods of achieving CFR and most (if not all) of them will solve or at least lessen the most serious problems with our political system. And I would agree with you that one desirable result of any type of CFR would be the likely emergence of additional political parties. I think that the goal should be the elimination of ALL private funding of political campaigns and that any potential methods should be judged on their efficacy towards achieving that goal.
Kay,
The problem with the corruption, in my opinion, is that it is legal corruption. While there is certainly illegal money corrupting the process, that can be dealt with under the legal system – it’s the perfectly legal contributions that corrupt the system and will prevent substantive change until we stop that flood of money into our political system.
Aren’t voter registrations public info? I swear under penalty of perjury that I was a registered Democrat in Colorado, California and Wisconsin and I think also in Massachusetts. I have a masters degree in city planning from MIT and most people who study city planning are Democrats.
How can politicians of a party that advocates imprisonments without a criminal charge be “Democratic” politicians? Here is a link to city council minutes discussing my imprisonment for the purpose of extortion to benefit Kevin Bennett city council president.
http://steamboatsprings.net/sites/default/files/2005/09/06/ccmn0906.pdf
If politicians who are currently in office are removed then they will probably be replaced with new politicians, not the same ones. The new politicians will be “new brooms” who can’t be blackmailed because of bribes they already accepted.
Kay,
In what way does the Democratic party advocate imprisonment without criminal charges? (and why would you believe that Republicans, in general, would be any better on this issue?)
Honestly, I don’t think that your personal experiences are relevant to the question of what course would be best for our country or its people with respect to the upcoming elections. Not voting (or voting Republican) in Senate or House elections wouldn’t seem to affect Mr. Bennett and the corruption you allege at all.
You said:
“If politicians who are currently in office are removed then they will probably be replaced with new politicians, not the same ones. The new politicians will be “new brooms” who can’t be blackmailed because of bribes they already accepted.”
First off, I would note that your assumption of the replacements being ‘new’ politicians is unfounded. For example, Christine O’Donnell is many things, but new to politics is not one of them. Secondly, as I pointed out before, until we’ve gotten rid of the legal bribery that is corrupting our system, eliminating illegal blackmail and graft will do very little to solve our problems. And finally, replacing the current pols with different ones that show every indication of being worse isn’t exactly a prescription for positive change in my book…
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206904692
The government is not prosecuting bribery and the provision of federal judges with credit cards at brothels. It “can be dealt with under the legal system” but it is not being dealt with under the legal system. Anyone can prove that there are buildings with heating and plumbing at 701 Princeton Ave in Steamboat Springs CO that are not on the property tax rolls. Anyone can prove that Underwriters at Lloyds London assigned a claim number for a case in Colorado against P. Elizabeth Wittemyer and paid bills without records at the Colorado Division of Insurance. Anyone can prove that the bills discussed case assignment and calls to and from the court to discuss future events. There is no memory needed. Even if I was dead anyone can look up the property tax rolls in Routt County, anyone can see the buildings from the street and read the court proceedings about them, or pull the building department permits, and anyone can pull the attorney bills from the District of Colorado 02-cv-1950 document 465 or from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Anyone can search records on the State of Colorado Division of Insurance and find that there is no record of Lloyds being authorized to sell insurance in Colorado. The State of Illinois Division of Insurance records show that there are many firms selling insurance to lawyers and that Lloyds is the biggest vendor. Again, there is no interpretation, memory or eye witness identification involved.
You might have heard of perjury per se. There was a case involving a barn with a sceptic field underneath it in which the owner signed a document under penalty of perjury in which he stated that the sceptic tank wasn’t under the barn. That was perjury per se. My facts are the same, verifiable without interpretation or witnesses based on government documents and buildings that can be seen from Princeton Ave. The attorney bills were verified under penalty of perjury by the lawyer that Lloyds paid. There are matching bills sent by Steamboat City attorney Anthony Lettunich that itemize a three way long distance call to Magistrate Schlatter with the Lloyds attorney David Brougham. And anyone can search and find that Anthony Lettunich was at the same time the city attorney for Steamboat Springs and Chairman of the CBA real estate section. Look at the exhibits I filed in the District of Columbia 10-5149 on 9/09/10. There is also a court transcript in there in which Wendy Schulenburg Rooney claims to be a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and an email from the AICP in which they say she was never an AICP member (which requires references, testing and a written ethics commitment). And there is an advertisement from Routt County real estate developer Chris Wittemyer referring to his wife Elizabeth whom he met in law school, Lloyds bills discussing Elizabeth Wittemyer, a statement from Colorado’s 14th judicial district that there is no written statement of probable cause for prosecuting me, a registry of actions showing that I was prosecuted for six months without a written statement of probable cause and without an arraignment (which was scheduled and then cancelled) etc.
It is a huge big deal that Lloyds sells insurance to lawyers without state or federal regulation.
@Slarti: I shall explain, one more time:
Say that to help the economy I believe we should tax the rich at 60% of their income over $1M each year. I can justify that logically and economically, and even historically: That rate was 70% under Nixon (it was over 90% under Eisenhower).
Now, will I ever get that by voting for Democrats? Not in my lifetime, because Democrats are afraid of taxes, because they think taxing the rich will lose elections. They have fallen for Reagan’s “trickle down” economics, because they are truly stupid people that cannot think for themselves, or they are corrupt and know the OPPOSITE is the actual economic truth, or perhaps they are just idiots that think the public is too dumb to understand why that is true.
Now, my premise is that it is the fear of electoral losses that make Democrats act MORE conservative than Republicans under Nixon. So, what is the answer? Make the fear of electoral loss GREATER if they act this way. Vote them out for this behavior.
I never said I’d vote for a Republican, I don’t care to vomit any more than most people do. By withholding our votes we send the message that acting like Republican-Lite isn’t a winning strategy.
Your thinking is too short term. Would you avoid the pain and risk of surgery that would save your life? I would not, and I do not pretend that my refusal to vote will produce a happy result for 2011 and 2012. I do not expect it to. I expect it to produce a result for 2013 and 2014, at best, perhaps I will withhold my money and vote then, too, if nothing has changed.
As for abortion or filibusters: Oh bull. Of course I think that stuff is idiotic. If I helped Obama get elected and he SIGNS that dreck, my mistake was being fooled by Obama and that is mistake is already made.
If anybody out there really thinks fundamental liberal principles are at stake, they must either think the Republicans are about to get veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate, OR they think that Obama is so weak, and unprincipled, and so far to the right that he can be “forced” to sign utter crap into law. Either way, if you fall into that camp of liberals, let me say this: Look at where this “lesser of two evils” strategy has brung us to, brothers and sisters, stare into the abyss before you and tell me you want to march yet further into this oblivion.
The liberals are gone. The Kennedy brothers are all dead. The only way to bring back liberalism, or progressivism, or whatever you want to call it when government levels the playing field and delivers real education and economic opportunity for ALL citizens with a real and dependable safety net — The ONLY way to do that is to punish the politicians that promise it to us year after year and decade after decade and NEVER DELIVER.
They must be punished at the polls, and the only way I can stomach punishing them is to withhold my money and my vote. Anybody with a brain should do the same, or your vote is just a permission slip for them to lie AGAIN in their next election.
Sorry Slartibartfast I didn’t see your last comment before posting a reply to your previous comment. Here is the opinion obtained by DOJ employees in 2010
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv0562-58
Here is the Privacy Act see subsection J
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/usc_sec_05_00000552—a000-.html
The head of any agency may promulgate rules, in accordance with the requirements (including general notice) of sections 553 (b)(1), (2), and (3), (c), and (e) of this title, to exempt any system of records within the agency from any part of this section except subsections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and (i) if the system of records is—
(1) maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency; or
(2) maintained by an agency or component thereof which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, including police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend criminals, and the activities of prosecutors, courts, correctional, probation, pardon, or parole authorities, and which consists of
(A) information compiled for the purpose of identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders and consisting only of identifying data and notations of arrests, the nature and disposition of criminal charges, sentencing, confinement, release, and parole and probation status;
(B) information compiled for the purpose of a criminal investigation, including reports of informants and investigators, and associated with an identifiable individual; or
(C) reports identifiable to an individual compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement of the criminal laws from arrest or indictment through release from supervision.
My personal experiences show that citizens can be imprisoned by DOJ without a criminal charge and the opinion issued in response to a DOJ motion shows that DOJ is not sorry at all that that happened. If it can happen to me it can happen to you or to anyone. The DOJ office of inspector general audited the USMS Prisoner Tracking System in 2004 and found that it doesn’t verify the accuracy and completeness of input records or keep audit records of who creates prisoner records. DOJ’s own website shows that those weaknesses in DOJ’s computer systems are still open and unresolved. All one has to do is pay enough to the right parties and USMS will send someone to get you and throw you in a dungeon. You can easily be killed in this process.
I see Kay is here. You all can have her. She is blithering wherever she goes.
@Slarti: The money for campaigns is only part of the issue. Politicians favor the rich because the rich are their retirement plan. It is that simple.
The rich pay retired politicians outrageous salaries and fees for lobbying and speeches because that is the payoff that shows sitting politicians the rich will pay their debts. Want to publish a book? No problem. Start a movement? No problem. Teach as a Harvard professor? No problem. Run a fake company into the ground? No problem.
THAT is the real corruption, where money meets the road. The politician retires and is set for life, because (collectively speaking) the rich can afford hundreds of millions of dollars to save hundreds of billions of dollars. And that is what they save. Look at the taxes paid by Exxon on their billions in profit: Zero. Zip. Look at the rent and fees we charge for trillions in oil that BELONG to us as a country, that we let BP and others drill and sell: Zero. Zip. Sure, we charge them a royalty, and then give twice that back in tax breaks and subsidies. Wink wink, nudge nudge, don’t forget my job comes with a private jet when I get out, buddy.
This is legal. Bill Clinton or George Bush getting $1M for a 30 minute speech? No sweat, dude, in fact come back next year.
What does this man have to do next for his devout ‘followers’ to see him for what he really is?
Obama Invokes ‘State Secrets’ Claim To Dismiss Lawsuit Against Targeting Of U.S. Citizen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/25/obama-state-secrets_n_739114.html
Dear Not So Smart
If you think I am “blithering” then prove it. Tony I agree but the problem also is that the Courts offer empty justice because lawyers buy insurance from unregistered insurance companies that operate off shore and don’t file reports on what services they provide. They sell crime insurance to criminals in advance of prosecution and in advance of crimes so that criminals feel more secure in committing crimes. Lloyds sells director’s insurance too.
Dear Mr. or Ms.
Please do not offend the regular poster on this site. Some poster are smart and some are not so smart. If you see Kay, please tell her the date is not on for tonight. I had a small job to do and handled it myself. I did have to keep changing partners between shifts, but the job got done. It was messy at the end, but it was cleaned off well, by the experienced service personnel.
FFLEO,
What do I have to do to make you understand that I am not an Obama ‘follower’ and that even with everything that President Obama has done (or not done) that disappoints me, I only have to look at the behavior of Senator McCain since the election (as well as his choice of running mate) to confirm that I made the correct choice in 2008.
Dear Ima
Court records are public documents. Look at D of Colorado 02-1950 for 9/02/005, 1/4/06, 2/14/06, 9/22/06 and 6/1/07 and you will see evidence (transcripts and minute orders) that I was imprisoned without a criminal charge. Or spend $2.40 and download the deferred joint exhibits or the deferred joint appendix attached to the final brief filed on 9/09/10 in the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and you will see that DOJ imprisoned me for 5 months without a criminal charge. You won’t be able to find a criminal charge before my imprisonment. Clearly I wouldn’t have complained about invisible buildings that violated the zoning if I knew that I would be imprisoned and lose all my rights and all my property for doing so. Clearly my home was not worth that. But the point is that anyone can be imprisoned by DOJ without a criminal charge and DOJ knows this and advocates it in public records as public policy in 2010 under the Obama administration It could just as easily have been an election lawsuit or a lawsuit against a drug company. Now, unless I win my appeal, this is caselaw that affects all U.S. citizens. They cannot rely on the NonDetention Act.
Dear Mrs. Kay Sieverding,
Is this really the site that you belong at. I think that other people can address and meet your immediate needs. Please contact Mr. John R. DeQuardo, MD, Superintendent, Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo, 1600 West 24th St., Pueblo, CO 81003 Tel: 719.546.4000 Fax: 719.546.4484
I am almost assured that they maybe be able to address all of your immediate needs. Remember, this is also the city that puts together all of the pamphlets that you can call and get for free.
Thank You,
Miss Smartass
Tony C.,
I understand your arguments, I just think that they are irrational. If Democrats are defeated by Republicans in this election, the most likely conclusion that they will draw is that they need to move to the right to get elected. A quick example: do you think that the election of Scott Brown has caused the Senate (or the Democratic senators) to become more progressive? I don’t. I don’t believe that you can come up with any evidence which supports your argument for the benefits of letting the Democrats lose and while you are right that a loss of Congress by the Democrats in this election wont magically overturn Roe v. Wade, it is also clear that the election of people committed to banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest will accelerate the erosion of a woman’s right to choose.
As for your argument about the corrupting influence of money now vs. money later, that also fails to pass the smell test. A necessary part of CFR would be to eliminate money poured into lobbying which is corrupting the system, so lucrative lobbying jobs for retired congressmen wouldn’t be available and if you think that the offer of a job sometime in the future is more corrupting than the offer of a pile of money now, then you are seriously confused…
Kay,
Nothing you said changes my opinion that campaign finance reform is the key to fixing our political system. Additionally, I don’t think that it is likely that the problems you bring up can be effectively fixed without first addressing CFR.
Dear Slartibartfast
So are you claiming that we have extra judicial incarceration because we don’t have campaign finance reform?
Tony C
I have a hard time understanding how not voting for Dems this year will keep Reps from getting a veto-proof majority down the road. Please explain.
A veto-proof Republican majority would be almost impossible to reach this year, but to not vote would increase the likelihood of that occuring in later elections if your ploy fails to impress the Democrats.
It might also mean that the Tea Party backed candidates actually will win this year which will threaten not only abortion rights reversals and DADT setbacks, but will ensure that any new Supreme Court justices will be even more right wing than the four now dismantling any insulation between corporations and individuals as far as campaign donations.
Ms. Pelosi is still talking about voting on the tax cuts even if the Senate waffles. If those tax cuts extensions, for the middle class only, don’t happen by election time, then your case is strengthened.
Kay,
No. Try reading what I said instead of posting lengthy diatribes about your personal experiences – I think that the ability to legally influence politicians via unlimited amounts of money is a far more significant problem and that campaign finance reform will in turn make it much easier to fix other problems.
Slartibartfast
I have been reading what you wrote. The only reason I supplied details about my experiences with extra judicial incarceration was to prove it. I don’t see how campaign finance reform can be implemented if the judges take payoffs from insurance companies and incarcerate people who complain about judicial corruption — such as Richard Fine as well as myself. There are lots of good laws that are simply ignored. Such as the reports to OMB required by the Privacy Act which DOJ simply doesn’t file. Who can make DOJ conform with the law if the administration chooses not to?
Dear Ima ass and stupid from abusing my personal vices, (while a paraphrase it’s accurate and probably the same person) Turley blawg has a rule: “no personal attacks” so take it elsewhere troll.
Buckeye,
I don’t see how a failure to extend the Bush tax cuts for only the middle class before the election strengthens Tony C’s case in any way – he has failed to provide any valid argument as to how allowing the election of more Republicans will in any way make the Congress more progressive. Tony C’s argument seems to imply that somehow Democratic losses in November should make it more likely that the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire for millionaires and for other progressive legislative goals to be achieved.
Kay,
So you’re saying that no laws passed by Congress can be effective without addressing judicial corruption? You haven’t made any argument as to why there is a linkage between the problem you’ve detailed and CFR. In any case, CFR could be implemented via Constitutional amendment (I’m not saying that this is or isn’t the best way) totally bypassing the judiciary. How would you address the issue that you have detailed? How would this solution solve the problem exacerbated by the Citizen’s United ruling? Everything is not about your personal pet issue – I understand that it is important to you (and important in general) but I think that the principles of triage tell us that campaign finance reform is far more important to address at this point.
Slarti, in your response to TonyC you said: “As for your argument about the corrupting influence of money now vs. money later, that also fails to pass the smell test. A necessary part of CFR would be to eliminate money poured into lobbying which is corrupting the system, so lucrative lobbying jobs for retired congressmen wouldn’t be available and if you think that the offer of a job sometime in the future is more corrupting than the offer of a pile of money now, then you are seriously confused…”
——–
While I agree with you that a total overhaul of the campaign finance system is needed. I always supported the total public finance model. Ain’t gonna’ happen.
Regarding TnyC’s point though, he is correct about the money later. It’s not just being hired as lobbyists’. It’s joining law firms as window dressing for them, vague consultant positions and sitting on boards of companies- a few meetings a year, signing off on a report or two and doing that for 4,5,6 different companies each paying you a couple hundred K. It’s what the House and Senate members that aren’t independently wealthy do.
I recall when the prescription drug reform was passed a few years ago reading about people in the House (primarily) that were senior staffers that were leaving immediately to take jobs with big pharma and a couple of Representatives that were not going to run for reelection because they had jobs with big pharma waiting and as I recall it, one Representative resigned to work in the private sector immediately. It was amazing. The big money is later. Campaign contributions or other legal gifts add up but are controlled, the private sector money from employment later is not and it’s huge.
Yes I believe that laws passed by Congress are not effective when there is judicial corruption. Even if CFR was passed by constitutional amendment implementation and control would depend on the courts.
Are you an Obama supporter? (I was totally wearing an Obama button etc.) If so, do you think that DOJ’s position that a criminal prosecution is not required for DOJ incarceration was Obama’s policy or that Obama didn’t know what his men were doing? Do you think that CFR would produce Democrats who are better than those we already have?
What do you think about the old positions of John B. Anderson?
I would like to say also to Buckeye that I think abortion is a dead issue. The coalition supporting abortion rights is dead. The poor feel that they are pressured to have abortions. The middle and upper class and everyone who works for the feds puts their daughters on birth control pills advertised to control acne and PMS and they don’t even know anyone who ever had problems getting an abortion.
Slarti,
“If Democrats are defeated by Republicans in this election, the most likely conclusion that they will draw is that they need to move to the right to get elected. A quick example: do you think that the election of Scott Brown has caused the Senate (or the Democratic senators) to become more progressive? I don’t.”
Excellent point! I’m with you on this one. Now a lot of Republicans think they need to “make nice” to the Tea Party in hopes of getting elected.
**********
To those who’d like to take the fast train to Hades:
Hello!!!!! Do you really think that Democrats in New York should vote for Carl Paladino…Democrats in Delaware should vote for Christine O’Donnell…Democrats in Nevada should vote for Sharron Angle??????????
Perish the thought!
If you were a Democratic delegate, what do you think should be the Democratic plank?
Mike S and Blouise re: sociopathic types rising to power.
I see crazies in the House but sociopaths in the Senate. The House has a greater turnover than the Senate (not by much) and I see the job security of the Senate as a big problem. Also they are co-equals among themselves due to their allocation so they don’t have to form alliances based on reason or compromise, party politics is enough. They are as a group, much more able to just game the entire system than the House is due to the (disproportionate IMO) power they have as a group. (41 people can totally shut down the legislative system. Can, and are. They are also able to hide from their constituents better and for longer. One can see their Representative more easily than their Senator has been my experience. Even if you elect a bad Representative there’s is the possibility that you can get rid of them more quickly than a Senator.
Getting rid of our own House of Lords would be the best step we cold take to move to a more responsive government.
Swarthmore mom: “The Dallas Morning News is reporting that when the republicans take over in the fall, the Texas republicans will be taking over the powerful committees again. Some are the same people that held them prior to 2006. So how does throwing the bums out (the democrats) and putting Barton back in charge of energy change anything. That is what we need in charge of energy policy – a denier of global warming. Get rid of Nancy Pelosi and put the Texans back in charge. Maybe we don’t have twenty years with regards to the environment.”
———
I don’t think the environment has 20 years before it’s pushed over an edge that’s gong to have dire consequences for everything on earth so fast or slow regarding the US (and China) is moot IMO. Europe has take the lead on the global environment/CO2 and I hope they can do some good.
Barton! Man, we have had some moral and intellectual degenerates in Missouri but they had the courtesy not to wear it like a merit badge. Barton… if only there was a face-palm smiley…
I can only quote from my own first posting on this thread: “…a Democratic Senator is not necessarily a liberal Senator. We don’t need more Republicans in office and we don’t need more Blue Dogs in office. We need more Liberals in office and they need to be voting to craft and pass liberal Democratic legislation.”
(If I were writing that fresh I’d correct some syntax and also leave out the last “Democratic”)
Kay,
If you’d payed attention to what I said, I was advocating a single-issue non-ideological meta-party as the only way I can think of to push for CFR. To be successful in the two-party system you need to have a big tent that the moderates can feel comfortable in. The Republicans are sowing the seeds of their own long-term destruction in their quest for ideological purity – unfortunately their short term success will likely prove to be to the detriment of all of us. In answer to your question, I was too young (I was 11 in 1980) and oblivious to have any intelligent opinion on John Anderson’s positions and after I ‘got to know’ Sarah Palin, I volunteered for President Obama (the first time I’ve ever been active politically beyond voting). Everything that I have seen and everything I know makes me believe that for all of President Obama’s faults we are much better off for having elected him over John McCain. Finally, I think that trying to view politics in general black and white terms is short-sighted and inane – we are all shades of grey, congressmen and women run the gamut from mostly corrupt to mostly virtuous and President Obama has done a great deal of good as well as harm. The more progressives that think like you do, the greater chance that we are all screwed – it is said that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Do you really want to advocate doing nothing?
p.s. Your views on abortion are a microcosm of the arguments you’ve been making here. If the majority of pro-choice people think like you it wont be long before the state is forcing women to bear their rapist’s children…
lottakatz,
I agree money later is a problem, but I think that money now is the bigger problem and also the problem which should be addressed first. Also, I see no way to prevent companies from hiring whoever they want. As an aside, I would note that the Obama administration instituted unprecedented rules about people moving from the administration to lobbying positions and vice versa – credit where credit is due.
re your most recent comment:
There will never be liberal majorities – without the blue dogs the Democrats would be the minority party and no progressive legislation would ever pass. Progressive change requires moving the blue dogs slowly leftward fighting for every inch.
Elaine,
Thanks for the support.
All,
I’m tired and have other things that need my attention for awhile so I’m taking a break from blogging for at least a week or so – see you on the other side…
LK,
Answer your question, I will say why I think either choice leads to the same bad result relates to Citizens United. The Roberts Court pulled the trigger on what semblance government for the people by the people with that case. The Fascism Fix is in. Citizens United is the receipt. Congress could remedy this, but they won’t. Allowing corporations to control the campaign process violates the covenant between the government and the people to be a government to represent the people, not legal fictions. But the career politicians don’t care.
They see poll numbers that tell them both parties are fairly reviled. Do they seem concerned? Nope. Because Company X is going to fund the campaign next cycle.
The DNC has done deliberate damage to our rights by endorsing torture, doing nothing to restore habeas corpus and – most revolting – has in fact expanded upon the GOP power grab by saying “not only can we detain you without due process, we can execute you without due process”. Both parties have blood on their hands.
All the bad lessons of fascism are coming. The Citizens United Waltz has begun. Only the tempo to be set.
Thanks for all your posts, Slarti. All I know is when I watch “Madmen”, I see how bad things were for women in the past not the future. That is if we can keep the tea party out of office.
Swarthmoremom,
I REMEMBER how bad things were for women. Back in the mid-sixties, female teachers who were pregnant–and married–were expected to leave the classroom once they began “to show.” At least that’s how it was where I live. I know. It happened to my sister…who left her teaching position when it became obvious that she was pregnant.
All but especially Buddah and Kay.
See this Glen Greenwald article, President Obama wants to use state secrets privilege to dismiss suite by the father of Anwar Awliki against the president’s intention to have his son assassinated with no court overview.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy/index.html
this far surpasses in humor the court room stories by Franz Kafka and Lewis Carrol.
The Obama administration made a very bad decision here, but there is an election in about 6 weeks. The tea party take over of Congress is the most urgent problem. I thought the tea party would take us back to the 1950′s but Maureen Dowd says in today’s NYT that we must be careful or they will take us back to the 1750′s.
Swarthmoremom,
“I thought the tea party would take us back to the 1950′s but Maureen Dowd says in today’s NYT that we must be careful or they will take us back to the 1750′s.”
I’m sure there are men out there who’d be deliriously happy to return to times when women like us “knew our place.”
Obama has 6 weeks to make a strong statement about human rights and due process. If he doesn’t then our first black president has made a statement that the liberals don’t value human rights and due process and aren’t committed to common law rights.
Are you familiar with the book Slave Nation? It explains that slavery was made illegal in the UK thru Habeas Corpus. The U.S. agreed to preserve slavery to get the union. To do so, the underpinnings of our laws were written to deny universal access to courts so as to keep the slaves from getting to court to get Habeas Corpus. Same way they kept me in jail. I applied for habeas corpus sighting Jones v. Cunningham.I asked them to point to the law. They dismissed it on the basis that I should have to be in jail to apply. Which is not what the law says the law says it applies when you might be called to testify. Then they put me in jail and simply ignored my habeas petition. That oppressive technique can continue because now they don’t have enough judges and our Democratic Congress simply refused to approve the judges nominated. Why is that?
In 20 years what they will probably do is require that aging baby boomers go to state run nursing homes where we will be killed so they don’t go over budget. If we apply for habeas corpus they will say that they won’t hear us because we aren’t lawyers or they will wait to rule until after we are dead. See Sieverding v. DOJ, DDC, 2010, an administrative reason is enough to create prisoner tracking records without liability no criminal charge is required.
CM,
Yes. I saw that. Every time one of the cats meow this morning, it sounds like they’re saying “Franz!” Although that could be something I ate.
Kerry is singing the same song as Biden, can not see that Democratic leaning voters are being turned off by the behaviour of their elected Democratic party representatives.
represeehttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/kerry-blames-out-touch-voters-democrats-troubles/
Accidentally scrambled the link in my previous post.
Here it is again.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/kerry-blames-out-touch-voters-democrats-troubles/
@Slarti: As opposed to your solution, which is to let them be as corrupt as they wanna be, because you will NEVER withhold your vote. The Republicans became more socially conservative because of the threat of the TEA party. Do you deny that? They did not want to lose elections, so John McCain reversed field on every moderate position he has ever held, and is VOTING that way too.
I refuse to just accept that politicians are going to lie their ass off without any consequences. The consequence is suppposed to be that liars and thieves are replaced by better candidates, but if you remove the threat of replacement, what are we left with?
The simple thing you fail to understand is that I am WILLING to move Congress to the right (especially with a Democrat in the White House) to try and get actual liberals into Congress. You aren’t willing to do anything that might hurt for even one second, you are a tribalist and you offer no plausible way of EVER getting a real liberal into office (meaning one that consistently VOTES for the liberal agenda and doesn’t just talk it).
Your prescription is “live with it,” well, I am tired of voting to put war criminals into office, and I won’t do that anymore. If that turns the country over to some religious nut job that will govern by adhering to a ludicrous set of beliefs, GOOD. That will lead to a great depression and a voter rebellion. What we have now is unacceptable, and if letting it self-destruct in a whirlwind of stunning ignorance about EVERYTHING is the only way to get rid of it, so be it. I will no longer prop up a system I find repellent. If we have to get worse to get better, I say make it MUCH worse and lets get MUCH better.
No money, no vote for Democrats. Make them suffer and they will change. Let them change to the right, and STILL no money, no vote. They will figure it out sooner or later.
Carlyle,
If anybody is “out of touch,” it’s Senator Kerry from my state of Massachusetts. As comedian Lewis Black said of him–and I paraphrase: How could the Democrats nominate a presidential candidate in 2004 who couldn’t beat Bush?
Tony C.
“No money, no vote for Democrats.”
I say no support for Blue Dog Democrats–but what about money for Democrats and Independents who are progressives–people like Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Russ Feingold, and Dennis Kucinich? Shouldn’t liberals/progressives be working hard to support Feingold in his campaign for re-election? Feingold–the only Senator who had the courage to vote against the Patriot Act?
Well I am from Wisconsin and Feingold in my senator. He has done nothing for me and my problems with DOJ extortion and incarceration without a criminal charge. His advertisements are truly forgettable too. He claims support because in addition to his digs in Washington he lives alone in a house in Middleton suitable for a family.
Based on this blog I predict that incumbents will be routed. No one here has said that they support anything except campaign finance reform or that they are anti Republican. No one has posted saying that they admire this or that Democrat because of their position on such and such. Now that the Democrats have taken a position against the rights supposedly won in the Civil War, I just don’t see a reason for blind loyalty. The Democrats need to take a position that they support instead of positioning themselves against the Republicans of the past.
Kay,
I did provide you with a reason why I respect Russ Feingold.
Speaking for myself: I’m not a blind loyalist. That’s your opinion. I happen to believe–at this point in time–that the Democratic party represents me and other middle class people like me better than the Republicans who are insistent on extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires. Many Republicans talk about privatizing Social Security. Most Republicans have little sympathy for folks who have exhausted their employment benefits. I could go on. I’m not blind–nor am I ignorant of what goes on in politics.
BTW, there is nothing that could tempt me to vote for the Republican who is running for a seat in the House to represent my district. He’s a birther.
@Elaine: No. Did Feingold vote for health care reform without a public option, after vociferously advocating for it for a year, and after pointedly accusing Obama and Emanuel to surreptitiously have it killed (after Obama promised on tape he would not sign a bill without a public option)?
Yes, he did all of that. And then he praised the President for doing “the hardest thing he has seen a President do.” Despite the pass given to the pharmaceuticals and the behind-doors acquiescence to their profit-driven insistence that importation must be prohibited.
Feingold is a good guy, but he could have single-handedly have preserved the public option in the health care bill by voting to filibuster it. Period.
The current Senate, on both sides, plays the edge and hands out strategic NO votes to senators when NO won’t make any difference. For all I know, Feingold’s NO vote on the Patriot Act was just more liberal posturing because it made no real difference, the White House got what it wanted. When Feingold had REAL power to save the public option, he refused to exercise it. Why? Because like Obama his principles are just a facade.
The only FAIR way to judge a politician is by how they act when they have REAL power to decide an issue, not what they do when their vote will make no difference in the outcome. Who cares what they do then, or what calculus drives them to vote the way they do, when it will make no difference?
Feingold’s vote on the Patriot bill was probably principled, but I don’t care. Having principles when it makes no difference, and abandoning principles when it DOES make a difference, is not exactly what I am looking for in a Senator.
What I think will happen is that everyone will be forced to buy insurance but a lot of the insurance will be worthless. I think state attorney regulators take bribes. Look at Colorado. There is a statement under penalty of perjury that Hall & Evans billed Underwriters at Lloyds London for insuring a state employee, a lawyer prosecutor P. Elizabeth Wittemyer, at the same time that the state insurance commission says that Lloyds is not authorized to sell insurance in Colorado. Under the Democrats, Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency doesn’t file, and has never filed, the claims handling reports required by CRS 24-10-10.5. The last time I looked a TIG Insurance was listed in Colorado as being active in Colorado and selling health insurance but when I called they said they were not active and were located in a residence in Texas. What was to stop them from running my credit card?
So what makes anyone think that any health insurance that can be purchased at an affordable price to most people will not be a total waste of money?
Tony C.
Nobody’s perfect!
I do think that Feingold is better than most of our politicians serving in Washington. He voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002–when it was not that popular a position to take. You may perceive that vote as political posturing too.
*****
From The Nation
Russ Feingold, the Senate’s True Maverick
John Nichols
September 23, 2010
http://www.thenation.com/article/154989/russ-feingold-senates-true-maverick?page=full,0,0,1
Excerpt:
Everything about Feingold’s Senate career has been a fight against a future where Crest Democrats do battle with Colgate Republicans. More than his sometime ally John McCain, the man from Wisconsin is the Senate’s true maverick. And unlike McCain, whose “independence” always had about it an air of self-absorption and attentiveness to the media, Feingold has never been a maverick for the sake of being a maverick. His eighteen years in the Senate have been defined by a steadiness of commitment that pays little regard to presidents or parties.
Feingold opposed Bill Clinton’s North American Free Trade Agreement and normalization of trade with China; he opposed George W. Bush’s Central American Free Trade Agreement; now he is challenging attempts by the Obama administration to advance trade policies that do too much for multinational corporations and too little for workers and farmers here and abroad. Feingold was the leading Senate critic of Clinton’s failure to abide by the War Powers Act; he opposed Bush’s rush to war in Iraq and was the first senator to call for a timeline to bring the troops home; now he complains that the Obama administration is not moving fast enough to wind that war down. Feingold noisily challenged constitutional abuses during the Clinton and Obama years, and as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution subcommittee, he is pressing the Obama administration to get serious about civil liberties. Feingold opposed Clinton’s proposal to loosen bank rules, arguing that doing so could threaten financial stability; he opposed Bush’s bank bailout; and he was the sole Democrat to object that the reforms Obama backed did not go far enough because they did not do away with “too big to fail” banks and did not adequately protect consumers or taxpayers.
Much has been made this election season of Democrats distancing themselves from Obama; but Feingold and the president parted company years ago. The Illinoisan said during his 2004 Senate campaign that he saw Feingold as a role model. But once in the Senate, Obama kept clear of Feingold’s effort to censure Bush over abuses of privacy rights and the Wisconsinite’s lonely defense of arms control treaties. Feingold cast his Wisconsin primary vote in 2008 for Obama over Hillary Clinton, and he backed Obama’s economic stimulus and healthcare reform. But he opposed Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary, objected to Obama’s plan to surge more troops into Afghanistan and has complained loudly about the administration’s uneven response to soaring unemployment.
“Based on this blog I predict that incumbents will be routed. No one here has said that they support anything except campaign finance reform or that they are anti Republican. No one has posted saying that they admire this or that Democrat because of their position on such and such.” (kay sieverding)
Every once in a while I decide to try and read one of your posts, and the one concerning Feingold being your senator appeared to be relatively free of your legal problem complaints … so I read. The quote above is taken from that post. It is beyond ridiculous. I never learn …
Dear Elaine
You write “Feingold noisily challenged constitutional abuses during the Clinton and Obama years, and as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution subcommittee, he is pressing the Obama administration to get serious about civil liberties.” OK let’s hear more about that.
Kay,
I didn’t write that. If you go back to the comment that I made at 2:05 pm, you’ll see that that quote is taken from an article written by John Nichols titled “Russ Feingold, the Senate’s True Maverick.” I provided the link to the entire article–which you will find at The Nation’s website.
Elaine M to Tony C
Nobody’s perfect!
————————————————–
Why shouldn’t our representatives be perfect? We voters certainly are!
This is why our heads explode when every single thing we want done is not done on time and with great efficiency (and with the help of the loyal opposition).
By 6PM on January 20, 2001, everything should have been initiated. Investigations on Bush and Cheney should have begun. Guantanamo prisoners flown to NYC and trials started. Troops should have started leaving Iraq. A National Health Care Bill should have been sent to congress.
The fact that we were losing more than half a million jobs a month shouldn’t have interfered. Obama could have worked on that in his spare time – if only he’d been perfect, also.
Of course we have no way of knowing how many of those things actually were initiated by 6 PM – or by midnight, at least – they did have to attend a couple of balls. Guess we’ll have to wait for the book.
The argument that “The perfect is the enemy of the good” is ludicrous. If they are “enemies” then logically we should choose sides: Which would you rather WIN, “good” or “perfect”?
But FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY, this argument contains an implicit strawman: A public option is not “perfect,” in fact a single-payer system funded by taxation on the rich is much closer to perfect than a public option. So I am not comparing some unachievable perfection to some filthy compromise that nevertheless can do some people good. I am comparing something eminently achievable (since it has already been done by Medicare) to a corrupt bargain full of holes and giveaways.
I say the same about Biden’s argument, “Don’t compare us to the Almighty, compare us to the alternative.” What crap. I am not comparing them to the Almighty in the first place, I am comparing them to what they promised and what I know they COULD have done, and refused to do, for their own craven and corrupt political interests.
These arguments all amount to “Just be happy with whatever we give you, and shut up.”
As far as Feingold’s current “fights”, let me repeat: When he can actually make a difference Feingold abandons his principles for Party. What he does when his actions can be ignored or dismissed means NOTHING. It is a staged show, perhaps an egotistical romp, perhaps a principled statement, but it is NOT a principled man standing his ground, because that means defending something at the risk of (figurative) injury or death, and that is not something I have seen Feingold actually do.
It is not that the perfect is the enemy of the good, it is that “very good” is the enemy of “close enough,” and conversely that means “close enough” is the enemy of the “very good.” And there we have the current situation, in which we vote for Thief A or Thief B, and try to figure out which is going to steal less from us.
I would not ask Feingold to be perfect, but even an imperfect man can stand his ground. Soldiers do it when they are in physical danger, and if you think they are “perfect” men they are not. But they have sworn to protect their fellows with their lives, and they follow through.
Feingold didn’t have the guts to do it even when he was perfectly safe, in one of the safest chambers in the country. For politics.
@Buckeye: Bullshit. My head explodes when somebody promises to do something very specific and then works behind the scenes to make sure that exact thing NEVER happens. THAT is what happened with the public option, Obama said, on TV and on tape, “Any health care bill I sign will have to have a public option.”
He worked behind the scenes (confirmed by several sources) with Rahm to make sure it wouldn’t be included, because they were worried about the effect on campaign funding for Democratic House members.
Restore civil rights? The exact opposite, he has embraced and extended the Bush Cheney legacy of unbridled presidential power. Hold bankers accountable? Laughably opposite. Transparency in government? No, more opaqueness and back room deals.
THAT is what makes my head explode, and THAT is why we must stop giving money to these criminals, and stop voting for them.
Tony C
With the possible exception of our firstborn child, nothing is perfect. The meaning of “The perfect is the enemy of the good” is losing a good option while striving a perfect option. But you know that.
Maybe you also know all that has gone on in the political halls and backrooms which informs your opinion. I wish I knew more, but there it is. Always a day late and a dollar short.
I’m still willing to be convinced that not voting for any Democrat now will keep us from a Republican veto-proof congress or an even more flawed president (if that’s possible) later.
Seems to me that we may have some conservatives pretending to be progressives on this site. You can hardly tell the difference by reading the complaints about Mr. Obama. I’ve discovered that on other sites. Clever, these righties. And often effective.
Just sayin’
Tony C
Looks like I’m always one post behind. Sorry.
You certainly have the option of not voting. It’s not against the law yet. Not voting also has consequences and you seem willing to accept them. Go for it – just don’t complain later.
And remember the “Just say no” Republicans Mr. Obama had as the “loyal opposition”.
Well as Elaine suggested I went to the Nation article on Feingold. It didn’t give any detail as to how Feingold “pressed the Obama administration to get serious about civil liberties”. And I looked at the website of the Senate Committee on the Constitution and I didn’t see it there either but perhaps I missed something.
To me “civil liberties” are the main political issue. Even healthcare will be better if we can actually sue insurance companies and their directors to enforce insurance contracts.
While Obama is still president, why can’t the U.S. make a stance that it will only imprison its citizens thru a proper criminal procedure? Why can’t the U.S. actually use its expensive ECF (Electronic Court Filing) systems to ensure procedural due process? Westlaw’s Nutshell book on civil procedure discussed misuse of motions to dismiss. It seems that any B.S. can be put in a motion to dismiss. That can be stopped by the computer system designers. For instance, if there is a claim of res judicata then the computer system could require a link to court documents showing that there actually was an evidentiary hearing and that the findings that were claimed to have been made were actually made.
To me “civil liberties” are also the key to world peace. People around the world are oppressed by small town despots like Kevin Bennett (In Steamboat they called him King Bennett). On the other hand, if neighbors of city council members can actually enforce the zoning or people can safely pursue whistle blower lawsuits or file for damages against government employees who rape them or cut off their hands, then won’t there be world peace? People around the world will be grateful to the U.S. if it takes the lead in making it possible and safe for citizens to sue their governments.
Obama should also require DOJ and other federal agencies to file the reports required by The Privacy Act. These required reports include reports of allegations of violations of computer matching systems. For instance, I was held in jails that had contracts with the feds which defined federal prisoners as people held pursuant to a federal criminal proceeding yet DOJ asked and paid them to keep me behind bars without a criminal charge. I complained but DOJ ignored my complaints and covered up their illegal detentions.
OMB is claiming on its website that the agencies should be prepared to file these reports which have been required but weren’t filed since Thornburg was AG. Why doesn’t Eric Holder require DOJ to comply with 5 USC section 552a reporting requirements?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a130_a130appendix_i
Tony C.,
“They must be punished at the polls, and the only way I can stomach punishing them is to withhold my money and my vote. Anybody with a brain should do the same…”
Let me get this right: You think that those of us commenting on this thread who disagree with your method for solving the problem with our Democratic politicians must be brainless. I may be just as upset as you are about the situation in Washington–but I’m not ready to hand over the keys of government “to some religious nut job that will govern by adhering to a ludicrous set of beliefs.” Don’t we have more than enough of those nut jobs in Washington already? (And don’t forget “the family” and C Street.)
P.S. Please don’t imply that I’m stupid because I disagree with your method for solving the problem…just post your arguments and positions.
Just because people are religious doesn’t mean they are “nut jobs”. Our constitution was based on the Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts. It was written in 1652 by a minister and based on the Old Testament.
As explained in “Slave Nation”, slavery was abolished in the U.K. after a slave challenged slavery thru habeas corpus. What happened is that the slave lived in the U.K. with his owner. While there he attended church and U.K. citizens became his “godparents”. Then his “owner” decided to return to the New World so he had the slave held in a ship pending his departure. The godparents he met at church applied for his habeas corpus petition on his behalf.
The Church in the past has allowed people to advocate for freedoms and rights with at least some support and protection. The Old Testament records most or all of the due process rights that we theoretically have today. The Old Testament is a respected document that we have in common with the Muslim World.
During the 2 days we have been jousting here, President Obama has instructed his Attorney General to (1) file a brief opposing the ruling of the California judge that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is unconstitutional, and (2) file a brief opposing the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki’s father asking a court to enjoin the President from murdering his son, an American citizen, without due process of law. To quote Glenn Greenwald, “But what’s most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is ‘state secrets’: in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are ‘state secrets’, and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.” In addition to these two outrages, and unreported by the press, Obama has ordered his Attorney General to fight every habeus corpus hearing attempted at the Guantanamo concentration camp. I will not vote for this man again. I give him an “F” on civil liberties issues, and it’s clear to me that he will do nothing to change that grade. It’s time to stop making excuses for this man- we have seen enough to know who he is and what he stands for.
Kay,
You wrote: Just because people are religious doesn’t mean they are “nut jobs”.
**********
Did someone commenting on this thread claim or imply that all people who are religious are “nut jobs?”
HenMan,
Just so you know: I’m not making any excuses for Obama. I hope you didn’t read that into some of the comments I’ve made on this thread.
@Buckeye: You cannot tell if anybody is a conservative in disguise. Just look at Obama, who woulda thunk this candidate would become this President?
In my view, this is a good thing. Judge things on their merit, not on the person’s claimed credentials or claimed affiliations or claimed education. This is how my academic publications have been peer reviewed, I don’t put ANY of my credentials on there, and in double-blind reviews my name doesn’t even appear, so nobody can look me up. They judge my work and my logic ONLY, and “proof by assertion” or “proof by intimidation” won’t work.
There is no chance the Republicans will get a veto-proof Congress, it is physically NOT POSSIBLE in this election. Chances are (according to Nate Silver’s blog, the best statistical political blog on the net) they won’t even get the Senate. But VETO PROOF the Senate? Impossible in 2010. They will probably win the House, but it is a one in a million shot to veto proof that, too.
So it doesn’t make a difference what you are “willing to believe,” facts are facts whether you believe them or not.
Hen Man
Sarah Palin couldn’t have said it better!
@Elaine: I mentioned turning the country over to a “religious nut job.”
@Kay: In my view, religious people are entitled to believe whatever fantasy they want. A “religious nut job” is one that wants to impose their fantasy on me by law. People that believe in completely unverifiable things (which is the definition of religious faith) like the “ensoulment” of a just-fertilized egg are entitled to that belief, that belief may give them comfort and calm, but just as they feel it is wrong for a government to impose atheism upon them and OUTLAW religion, they are not entitled to use the power of government to make me respect something I find both unprovable (their vociferous assertion is not proof) and anti-scientific and just plain idiotic. A cell is not a person.
Same thing with homosexuality and gender equality, they don’t get to impose their two thousand year old teachings of homophobia and misogyny and xenophobia and racism on ME. Those that are so distressed at the rejection of their religious tenets that they are willing to resort to violence and have them imposed by law are “nut jobs,” whether they be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or Satanists, I don’t care. They are all nut jobs.
But to be clear, I don’t object to them taking personal comfort in their fantasies, I object to them trying to coerce me into acting in accordance with their fantasies.
Buckeye: Sarah Palin couldn’t have said it at all. She doesn’t know what civil liberties are, and if she did, she would denounce them as a commie plot- ya know, like flouride in da water dere, hey?
I liked Deuteronomy
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Bible/Deuteronomy.html
Am I missing something? I don’t see prohibitions against homosexuality there. It says clearly
Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife; because he uncovereth his father’s skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that lieth with his mother in law. And all the people shall say, Amen.
It says
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
In many districts this year the choice will be between the blue dog democrat and the tea party republican. If you want some of the liberal democrats to keep their committees, you vote for the bluedog. If you want Joe Barton, Pete Sessions, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Michele Bachman to run the House, vote for the tea party or don’t vote at all. It’s not complicated.
I was thinking about this some more. I want to make it clear that I am not an expert on anything.
As the Supreme Court has explained:
[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there. Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 112 S.Ct.1146, 1149(1992)
Now in Deuteronomy there are very specific taboos about incest but unless I am just missing it, I just don’t see anything about same sex sex. And, since these sections are so specific and frank about sex and since they use the rules of parallel construction, wouldn’t or couldn’t you think that if they meant no woman – woman or man – man sex that they would just come out and say that. Why would Deuteronomy be so frank about incest and then expect you to deduce other sex taboos from parables about gardening?
In other words, you can read the Bible expansively if you have an agenda. But, if you were reading it as a modern day statute and they were writing about wasting seed by throwing it on the rocks, you could just interpret that totally literally as referring to gardening. Especially in the context that in other discussions of sex, at least in Deuteronomy they aren’t mincing any words.
HenMan
Ya, you betcha!
Jeff Sessions of Alabama is the ranking republican member on the Senate judiciary committee. Take the committee from Leahy and give it to him. We’ll get some really good choices for the courts. Forget a woman’s right to choose. I read the same things on right wing blogs too, Buckeye.
Tony C
Good grief! Now I’m to believe Obama was a conservative in disguise? They are more clever than even I gave them credit for.
I believe I was the first to say that a veto proof congress was nearly impossible this year. However this year’s votes (and non-votes) will affect the elections to come, which has always been my point. We may all be gone by 2012 or 2013, but if not we have to consider our votes (and non votes) now as affecting future elections also. Look at how well 2000 turned out.
Howard Dean had a fifty state strategy and it worked. Some states are conservative especially in the rural areas. I know of a bluedog that won a district in Southern Minnesota. He is better than the republican he replaced and certainly better than the republican Michele Bachman in the next district. He was former military so he was a bit more conservative. He represents the people of his district not more progressive people in the city of Minneapolis. I don’t care to be in a party that is pure and monolithic.
Redistricting will happen before the 2012 elections. Republicans are cleaning up in the governor’s races. Why not stay home and help them redistrict the few progressives we have out of existence?
@Kay: Oh, Kay. Let me help.
Leviticus 18:22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: It is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13: If a man has sex with another man, kill them both.
Deuteronomy 23:17-18: God says do not bring any whore, sodomite or dog into the house of the Lord, for these things are an abomination to the Lord. (A sodomite in the Bible is a homosexual, hence the word Sodomy for anal sex. Sodomites are called dogs in the bible.)
1 Kings: 14:24, There were also sodomites in the land, and they did according to all the abominations…
1 Kings 22:43, 46: Jehoshaphat did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and exterminated the sodomites from the land.
Romans 1:26-32: Paul condemns homosexuals and lesbians, and declares them “worthy of death”.
1 Corinthians, 6:9-10: Paul lists among the things that will keep you out of heaven being homosexual, or just “effeminate.”
1 Timothy: Homosexuals are declared lawless, disobedient, unholy and profane.
In Revelations (22:15), all the politicians are condemned to hell: “Dogs (meaning homosexuals), sorcerers, whoremongers, idolators and anyone who ever told a lie will not enter the heavenly city.”
You can’t cherry pick the bible when we have access to the Internet, Kay honey.
Swarthmore mom
1, September 26, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Howard Dean had a fifty state strategy and it worked.
It certainly did. I admire him as an individual who knew what he was doing and how to do it well.
Swathmore Mom
I read the same things on right wing blogs too, Buckeye.
—————————————————-
Which things?
Across the river in West Virginia the Republican running for governor, John Raese, is running a contest and offering $25 to the winner in each county that writes the most letters to the editor that mention himself or his wife Liz!!!???!!!
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/squawkbox/2010/09/21/state-dems-hit-raese-on-rally-flyer/
Buckeye Some of the same things that people on here say.
Tony C.,
I mentioned turning the country over to a “religious nut job.”
*****
And you think that’s a good idea?
@Elaine: Of course I don’t think it is a good idea, but it is preferable to leaving the country in the hands of crooks that sell us to the highest bidder.
A religious nut job can be kept in check by the courts, and if they cannot, at least the majority of people will rebel in the next election when the religious nut job starts to have a serious impact on their lives.
So in that sense, I DO want things to get worse so that they can get better. Every election we let the crooks get away with being crooks, they will steal more and become more craven and open about it. It is a cancer that only punishment can stop. That punishment must occur at the polls. Do not vote for Democrats do not give them money. No matter what pain that causes for the next two years, it won’t be fatal to progressive causes, and it WILL HELP progressive causes in 2012 by moving Democrats BACK TO THE LEFT.
Swarthmore mom: Let me see if I understand this. A shoplifter is better than a bank robber. A bank robber is better than a child molester. A child molester is better than a Nazi death camp commander. Therefore, if the Republicans run a Nazi death camp commander and the Democrats run a child molester, it’s perfectly alright to vote for the child molester because he’s the Democrat. I think I understand now. But I’m still not going to vote for Obama. And yes, I hate Nazi analogies, too.
Tony Why do you think religious nuts are not crooks also? Those Palins are not exactly known to be honest people. They are probably some of the more blatantly unscrupulous folks to come along in a awhile. Fundamentalists believe that you are “blessed” if you acquire money.
And, by the way, I also understand that if I refuse to vote for the child molester, I will be solely responsible for the election of the Nazi death camp commander. This is a terrible responsibility you have given me.
well getting back to the subject of Democrats, this was in my email
Dear Kay,
MoveOn members in Wisconsin have voted to endorse Russ Feingold for Senate. It’s up to all of us to stop the corporate takeover of Congress—you can volunteer with the campaign here:
http://www.russfeingold.org/
Below is a special message for you from Russ Feingold.
Thanks for all you do.
–Steven, Anna, Duncan, Adam, Carrie, and the rest of the team
Election Day is less than two months away and our race is a toss-up. Ron Johnson wants it bad. The extremists and the special interests in Washington want it bad. What I need to know is this: How bad do you want it?
Join the Feingold Campaign Team – Volunteer Today!
Ron Johnson wants his checkbook to decide this election. He’s outspending us three to one on television ads, but I know that if you support this campaign with a one-to-one effort, we will win.
We need new volunteers to join our grassroots campaign. With field offices across the state, there are endless opportunities to get involved. Please sign up to volunteer today!
Join the Feingold Campaign Team – Volunteer Today!
This election is in your hands. Don’t let Ron Johnson and the corporate special interests in Washington take it away. With your help, I will continue to move Wisconsin, and our country, forward.
Sincerely,
Russ Feingold
United States Senator
Now, if you look at Feingold as a good or service, where does the message above state what the benefits of having him are? Saw his t.v. commercial again, the same one with his garage doors, and it is also very vague. Probably a total waste of money.
I am looking for concrete commitments on civil rights from the head of the constitution subcommittee. If Feingold would make a concrete commitment on pro se rights I would campaign for him. What I want too is a legal peace corps to help people in other countries sue their governments.
Tony C.,
You’re assuming that religious nut jobs can’t be bought…that they wouldn’t sell us to the highest bidder. Why is that?
I think we’d be better off with a lot less religion in government and a lot fewer Bible-quoting folks in Congress. I don’t want another president like George Bush who thought God was giving him advice.
Henman Obama is not up for election this year. It is only 2010. The presidential primaries are in 2012 and the election for president is in November, 2012. I am quitting this for the night as the discussion is becoming increasing irrational. If we could only get a catholic priest to run as democrat then you could really go crazy. There was a very good priest named Father Drinan who was a congressman from Massachusetts. No one ever said he was a child molester.
Swarthmoremom,
Please promise me that you won’t ever vote for a child molester.
ElaineI I am not staying home so the neo-Nazi tea party can take over either.
@Elaine: I don’t assume that religious nut jobs cannot be bought; why do you think that? I just don’t care, I won’t vote for one lying corrupt crook to keep another lying corrupt crook out of office. And if that means the country gets worse, so be it. I won’t vote for a known crook!
Let some new face run, If I investigate them and do not find corruption in their past, I will grant them the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and vote for them. If they screw me, I won’t vote for them again, if they keep a liberal promise I WILL vote for them again, and I will donate to their campaigns, until they break that promise at least.
In the meantime I do not care how bad it gets or how bad the crooks are, let the idiots funding those campaigns and voting for those crooks get what they deserve, the pain of supporting the people they know are lying to them.
This relativism is going to destroy the country. I will not aid or abet the sociopathic murdering criminals that run this country with money or votes. Show me a liberal progressive challenger that can withstand evem a modest amount of scrutiny and I am in, because I have a few hundred to spare. However, I suspect it will just be earning interest and in reserve for a long time.
Swarthmore mom: What?! Obama’s not running this year?! I could have sworn… I guess I had him confused with Harold Stassen. Well then, I won’t vote for him this year, next year, OR the year after that!! That’ll teach the blighter!
(Every so carefully she sticks her toe in …) My husband, a life-long, good democrat has stopped donating any money to the DNC and any political candidate and feels exactly as Tony C and HenMan. Although I have stopped donating to the DNC, I have donated to 1 candidate and feel more as SwM and Elaine do
My husband and I will both be voting in Nov., he on issues and me on issues and candidates … no matter which side of this argument is correct, one of us is brainless. Thus when we walk into the poll on election day we will possess, as a couple, only half a brain each.
Tony C.,
“I don’t assume that religious nut jobs cannot be bought; why do you think that?”
I read what you wrote in an earlier comment in which you seemed to imply that.
When I asked if you thought turning the country over to a religious “nut job” was a good idea, you responded: “Of course I don’t think it is a good idea, but it is preferable to leaving the country in the hands of crooks that sell us to the highest bidder.”
@Elaine: Alright, I see how that can be misinterpreted. Had I reviewed it before sending it, I would have expanded upon the thought.
Even if the religious nut job is just as corrupt, I believe letting the incumbent crook lose and therefore be punished for their lies is preferable to rewarding the incumbent crook with another vote and another term, which they will use to bilk us even more expertly and thoroughly than their last term.
To be specific, I would rather see the completely addled and corrupt as hell Sharron Angle win than leave Harry Reid in office. At least Angle is TRANSPARENTLY nuts, while Reid is expert enough to fool most of the people most of the time. My resolution is to no longer vote for crooks, so I wouldn’t VOTE for Angle, but I would be rooting for her to throw the bum out. Her winning would have two salutory effects: The next Democrat to run would NOT be Harry Reid, and in the next election Democrats would be motivated to make some changes, hopefully including finding a real liberal without a history of corruption.
By comparision, I feel the opposite about Christine O’Donnell. I think she is a transparent thief, liar and fraud. Her opponent, Chris Coons, does not seem to be corrupt. I am not a constituent there, but were I, I would vote for Coons.
I will no longer help by vote or donation or volunteer work to keep in office a corrupt politician. The Tea party has at least that tactic right, by throwing out moderate Republican incumbents that deviate from their ideology, they have scared the Republicans into publicly moving further to the right.
Liberals can do the same and win this fight, in every poll more Americans agree with liberal policy descriptions than do conservative policy descriptions. If they want to polarize the country into hard left and hard right, the hard left wins every important battle, on abortion, on civil rights, on the social safety net, on homosexual marriage, adoption, and military service, on progressive taxation, on foreign policy and on foreign trade. We win.
Or we WOULD win, if liberals punished our liars by throwing them out of office. But we don’t, so we end up with a government careening to the right on ALL those issues with a vengeance. Why don’t we? Because of people like you, tricked into thinking that somehow the Democrat is lying less than the Republican.
The current and previous administration should prove it to you. Under Bush, WITHOUT sixty votes in the Senate, Republicans steamrolled Democrats into one policy after another that benefitted the rich, the military, the security state and themselves.
Under Obama, Democrats with sixty votes and with all three houses let themselves be steamrolled by Republicans into one policy after another that benefitted the rich, the military, the security state and themselves.
If anything, the Dems have to lie harder than the Republicans, they have so much less excuse to fail. The only difference between the two sides is the platitudes they have learned to use so handily. The Democrats have our number, they know what to promise and how to promise it. The Republicans have learned to crack a different safe full of platitudes that speaks to the insecurities that define an American conservative. In my view, for at least 95% of candidates, it is all an act, the goal is to get into office and do whatever you want.
A few weeks after Bush and Cheney first got into the White House, a staffer asked Cheney (with Bush present) how they were going to fund some campaign promise they had made. Cheney responded, “We’re not. Leave it alone. That was just something we had to say for the campaign.” Which Bush accepted without comment.
That is what you are dealing with on BOTH sides when you re-elect incumbents that break their campaign promises. They do it on purpose.
Tony C.,
I don’t want to leave you with the impression that I’d vote for or support ANY Democratic candidate. I wouldn’t.
People like me? What do you know about me? Do you think you know how my mind works? Please don’t accuse me of being duped. I haven’t been tricked by Democrats. I’m not some witless ingenue. You don’t need to school me about what’s been going on in Washington. I keep myself current. I have a right to my opinions about Democrats and Republicans–just as you have a right to yours.
**********
“The next Democrat to run would NOT be Harry Reid, and in the next election Democrats would be motivated to make some changes, hopefully including finding a real liberal without a history of corruption.”
The Democrats could possibly look for a MORE conservative candidate than Reid.
**********
P.S. Telling people that they have been fooled into their beliefs/opnions or implying that they don’t have a brain if they disagree with you is not the best way to win an argument.
Tony C Do you really think if Russ Feingold loses a more liberal democrat will run in Wisconsin the next time?
I don’t even know what liberal means anymore. It certainly is not defined by abortion policy. What I want is an anti corruption party and a commitment that the U.S. will abide by its own laws.
@Elaine: Yeah, you are right. I apologize. I do believe most people are tricked into voting for the people they vote for; and I won’t lie to win an argument, so if telling the truth is not the best way to win an argument I’d rather lose it.
@Swarthmore: If professing a false liberalism wins elections (as it did for Obama) I think professing a true liberalism would win elections even better.
Russ Feingold professes a false liberalism; when his vote really mattered he surrendered it. So apparently Feingold has won in the past in his purple state using his very liberal arguments, and apparently those that voted for him before have lost enthusiasm because he, and the supposed liberals he parties with, do not do what they promise to do. He has been caught out as a liar making false promises.
So it makes no difference. I want an **authentically** liberal politician just as liberal as can be elected, I want one that votes as they promise to vote, **especially** when their vote really matters. I want one that uses their position and power to actually force substantial outcomes.
If that turns out to be less liberal than Feingold **professes** to be, then the reality of the best approximation of liberalism I can **actually** get will beat the fantasy of how liberal Feingold pretends to be when his votes, speeches, hearings and righteous outrage do not really matter at all to what becomes law.
@Kay: For my own definition, liberalism or progressivism starts with a strict separation of church and state when it comes to social policy and religiously motivated policy, and a commitment to racial and gender equality.
Opposition to gays being married or serving in the military are religiously motivated. Opposition to abortion, at least in the first six weeks, is entirely religion based, in my opinion. Opposition to a mosque is based in religious bigotry.
Liberalism rejects separate treatment in the courts of celebrities, politicians, and the rich (which they all get).
Of secondary importance to the fundamental civil rights and equality fundamentals is tax policy. But I do expect liberals to demand a social safety net, and to tax the rich much more heavily than the middle class. I am a member of the group I advocate taxing more heavily, although not in the top brackets of it. Nevertheless, I do not expect to gain any financial benefit from this position. It is what I think is the closest we can get to equal sacrifice and that is what I think is fair, because I do not measure sacrifice in equal dollars or equal percentages.
Tony C.,
I wrote you: “Telling people that they have been fooled into their beliefs/opnions or implying that they don’t have a brain if they disagree with you is not the best way to win an argument.”
You responded: “Elaine: Yeah, you are right. I apologize. I do believe most people are tricked into voting for the people they vote for; and I won’t lie to win an argument, so if telling the truth is not the best way to win an argument I’d rather lose it.”
I take it you’re telling me that you think I don’t have a brain and that I have been fooled into the opinions I hold.
I was just trying to make a suggestion that you might try another approach. I have found some statements/claims you’ve included in your comments off-putting. It seems you like to denigrate those who disagree with you. You also lecture those of us who hold differing opinions. IMO, that’s not the best way to get people like me to listen to your arguments. For one who claims to be a liberal–you seem pretty judgmental and close-minded.
Regarding “people like me”: I don’t assume that those who disagree with me are lacking in gray matter or have been fooled into their political opinions.
@Elaine: I assume people that cannot seem to logically justify their arguments, and cannot answer criticisms about their arguments, but continue to assert those arguments, are repeating received wisdom on faith. By ‘faith’ I mean they do not actually understand the derivation of those positions, or why they are supposed to be good positions, they just believe the person that gave them this position.
Those people either DO lack the training to think for themselves, or they HAVE been tricked into their political opinions. Or maybe thinking for themselves is just not on calendar today, I don’t know. But if the truth hurts, perhaps the pain will motivate them to change.
In my opinion what you see as denigration is usually just accurate characterization, or deliberate sarcasm intended to force people to think. In my field people disagree with me all the time, I do not think they are stupid because of that. I do not think they are stupid until they disagree with me for no reason, or despite reason, or for ideological or tribalistic reasons. What is stupid is denying reality or refusing to see what is staring one in the face.
Tony C Your punishment will be felt by poor women and children who will have their benefits reduced or eliminated when the republicans shut down government as they have promised to do. There is a reason there is a gender gap.
Tony
What do you think of this?:
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html
The anger with Obama on the right is business as usual for them … almost “ho-hum” in its predictability … typical feigned self-righteousness.
But the anger on the left is genuine and based on broken promises over issues that liberals hold dear. And the anger is not just with him but also with the Democratic Party. We should not underestimate the depth of that anger nor the numbers involved. Feingold can attest to the reality that many liberals feel Obama and the Democratic Party betrayed them and they are madder than hell!
@Swarthmore: Why, exactly, do you believe the Republicans are telling the truth about this, and are not just lying to try and scare you? As they have done? If the Republicans shut down government they will stop the minute their base gets angry about lost benefits, which won’t be long. So I do NOT think my punishment will really be felt by anybody; whatever the Republicans do will be a show for effect only. The poor women and children are MORE harmed by voting in crooks of either party that limit their benefits, deny them healthcare, and agree to tax cuts and military budget increases that ultimately defund the programs intended to HELP the poor women and children.
@Kay: I am not a lawyer and I do not have time to try and interpret that document. In fact I presume it is a fake, I don’t know how to authenticate it, but it looks “fakeable” to me. If it is real, I would suggest you start using an obviously real UN link. And if it is real I assume, like most U.N. papers and positions and resolutions, it has no teeth whatsoever and therefore it makes no difference what it says. So it would be a waste of time to read.
@Blouise: Precisely.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/los-angeles-times-poll-boxer-leads-fiorina-by-8-points.php?ref=fpblg Looks like things are starting to turn for the democrats in California. They woke up to the fact that Fiorini and Whitman were trying to buy the election. Too bad for you Tony C. Barbara Boxer and that old “crook” Jerry Brown might not get punished.
Tony C.,
I wasn’t aware I had to justify my beliefs to you. Now you are the arbiter on this particular thread of what is an opinion derived from a thoughtful process as opposed to one taken on faith? You are the anointed one who determines those of us who are the “thinkers” and those who are merely “believers?” You, in your infinite wisdom, have determined that I don’t know the derivation of my own opinions.
FYO, I DO read–books, periodicals, newspapers, political blogs–and I DO know how to think. Oh wait…I haven’t provided any proof that I DO know how to think. There I go again! I guess the institution of higher learning that I attended didn’t “train” me how to think.
*****
A number of us commenting on this thread got into a discussion about what to do come November in regard to the elections. I disagreed with your method for “handling” the Democrats in hopes of getting the party to move farther to the left. I doubted your approach would have the effect you expect. I based that opinion on my own common sense. I couldn’t go back in the history books and read about a similar situation. It doesn’t mean that I think Democrats aren’t corrupt or that many can’t be bought. Can you prove–by using logic–that not going to the polls to vote for Democrats in November will definitely cause a shift to the left instead of the right…that things will definitely get better eventually if we all do as you suggest?
The other thing I don’t understand about your approach, Tony C. is the blanket approach – the throw them all out good or bad. Your approach would throw Dennis Kucinich out. He is the incumbent democrat.
@Swarthmore: Speaking about Boxer more than Brown, I presume that sooner or later people will get tired and frustrated with broken promises that lead directly to their own economic hardship. I hope that happens soon enough to save the country. If not: Well, we get what we vote for, and as long as we keep voting for thieves to rob us blind and line their pockets, I am sure they will be happy to oblige us. Greed knows no bounds.
@Swarthmore: Kucinich caves whenever the party threatens him, including during the Obama administration. Every time. He hasn’t passed any significant bill of his own his entire career. What is the point of re-electing him? Do you like his singing voice when he is at the podium? Of what use is a liberal that threatens a filibuster on the public option then lets his arm be twisted into voting for the damn bill anyway? Kucinich is beholden to the DNC and fears losing his seat if he bucks the party when it really matters. So yes. Throw him out. If his brand of liberalism gets HIM elected, the same brand of liberalism, used by somebody with GUTS, will get them elected.
Kucinich is blocking the seat from somebody that would actually use their Constitutionally granted power to make something happen.
That being said … I am a liberal but I am not madder than hell.
I hoped Obama would be something more than just a pretty face but I knew his record and, quite frankly, would have been surprised if he actually turned out to be a true beauty. He’s about as black as Limbaugh is white … by that I mean he’s nothing more than a malleable mouthpiece and a very good one. That’s why he was chosen over Hillary and Kucinich.
Biden, in my opinion, wasn’t chosen to make Obama more folksy but to cover Obama when he goes off script and says something dumb … Biden trots out with something dumber. The beer fest is the best example of Obama being the real Obama … lot of scrambling to fix that huge faux pas.
Look guys, the Democratic Party is busy trying to woo all the corporations away from the republicans … they talk a liberal game but they actually run the conservatives’ plays. They are after funding and they are going to spend the first four years of Obama’s administration locking down that funding. Corporations aren’t going to back the crazies like Palin and her raging teabaggers. Those people are off the wall and corporations don’t like unpredictable. Enter the Democrats who, unlike the Republicans, know how to keep their crazies in line.
What’s in it for Obama, the malleable mouthpiece? Come on … the guy gets to be President, Hail to the Chief and all that stuff … his wife gets to dress up and fly all over the world vacationing … his kids get top-notch private schools, secret service chauffeurs, and White House rock concerts … hell, he even got a totally unearned and undeserved Noble Peace Prize … what lowly, first term senator would say no to all that?
Do you have a right to be mad? Certainly. Is it going to make any difference? Not really. Liberals aren’t a demographic that counts this time around. I accepted that as I watched him bask in the glory of his nomination night. It was a real show, baby … a totally false feel-good moment.
So, for the time being I stick with the Democrats because at least they pretend to listen and they do more for the poor. Republicans only want me for my gun and hate my liberalism. Without a party I’m out there shaking my fist at the sky … totally impotent.
Make no mistake … I understand fully why you are gone. But I’m a cynic … I’ll stay. I’ll fight from inside … you fight from outside … as long as we keep up the fight, we will win
Blouise,
We’ve been taking on water for a long time. At this point, I’m not sure that anything can right our ship of state. I think we’re all going down with the USS Titanic.
@Elaine: Of course I am not the arbiter, I have no power to delete your posts. Why exaggerate? I am an equal participant with the right to criticize, as I see fit, the arguments of others. Just as you do, and just as you have done. I claim no superior position, I claim superior logic that I have backed up.
I believe you are confused by my position; my claim is the ONLY WAY to move the Democrat party to the left is to get rid of the incumbents that refuse to vote for the liberal agenda, out of fear of losing the election. I don’t guarantee that throwing them out will produce a more left party. What I do think is that the empirical evidence of the last 25 years indicates that if we don’t throw them out, the party becomes more and more like the far right with every election.
So no, I cannot guarantee it. Can you guarantee that rewarding them with money and votes for throwing every liberal ideal under the bus will somehow make them suddenly embrace those same ideals? That doesn’t even SOUND plausible.
Tony C.
I think you’re just as confused about my position.
I wasn’t trying to guarantee anything–just stating my opinion about your proposal. What logic would I provide to prove your method won’t work as expected? You said you can’t guarantee the results yourself.
You decided to extend the discussion about what to do come the November elections to achieve our desired results. You then provided examples of the terrible/deceitful things Democrats have done. I wasn’t arguing that you were wrong about that. I agree. But all those examples you provided don’t prove that your approach to sending the Democrats a message will shift the country to the left. I think you’re mixing apples with oranges. THAT logic escapes me.
You’re also reading more into my words than I ever wrote. I never mentioned anything about donating money. FYI: When the Democratic Committee called me for a donation some time last year–I gave the individvual on the other end of the telephone line an earful. I told that person that the Democratic party wasn’t getting another penny from me until the administration changed its position on torture, brought Bush Administration war criminals to justice–and some other things that I can’t recall at the moment.
Elaine,
They heard that from me as well when they called plus repeal of DADT
… and they got no pledge … for the first time in 30 years
Blouise,
I don’t think DADT was on my list of “grievances” then because it was some time in the first half of 2009 when I got the call. I guess I still had hopes the administration was working to repeal it.
The arguments for not voting for Democrats this year bring to mind a small piece of history in which I played a minor role, back in the late 60′s.
Piven and Cloward, two Professors of liberal celebrity wrote a book called “Regulating the Poor” which detailed how the welfare system was actually used to keep people poor and not as a source to assist them. Their solution was to have Welfare Clients militantly demand all of the benefits to which they were entitled and which in truth they weren’t being given. This would supposedly destroy the system and lead to a better method for helping the poor.
This led to the formation of the National Welfare Rights Organization under a man named Wiley, with the ample support of wealthy liberal backing. Their methods were typically to enter Welfare Centers,”en masse,” take them over and force officials and politicians to supply further benefits to prevent riots. I was a Union Shop Steward at one of the first of these Centers in Brooklyn and two months before the clients stormed the Center had met with Wiley and a Union vice President to plan how the Union could cooperate with the client/protestors. Being radical and 24 years old naiave, I was enthusiastic and cooperative.
Ah, but then the Law of Unintended Consequences struck and the protestors were viewed indignantly by the general public and the fawning politicians. Welfare rules became tightened, more entrenched and less beneficial. The public in general which had felt empathy for the poor, began to feel hatred for those who would demand that which was perceived as charity. Things became worse for the poor. Piven and Cloward, however, gained further celebrity and they became icons in their field. I came to regret my small role in moving this forward.
This rather long lead-in leads me to the debate at hand, where some, like Tony C. believe that by punishing recalcitrant Democrats, it will lead to the rise of a more progressive party. Further, it is his feeling that the masses will not be hurt by this, since the Republican’s will not dare cut the already shredded benefit network. He is wrong in this and people least able to bear the burden will face harm, with the middle classes also feeling the sharp sting. While I agree with much of what Tony says, I think that he has a blind spot in this case. The Democrats stink, but the Republican spread rot with all their aims.
Mike S.,
“This rather long lead-in leads me to the debate at hand, where some, like Tony C. believe that by punishing recalcitrant Democrats, it will lead to the rise of a more progressive party. Further, it is his feeling that the masses will not be hurt by this, since the Republican’s will not dare cut the already shredded benefit network. He is wrong in this and people least able to bear the burden will face harm, with the middle classes also feeling the sharp sting. While I agree with much of what Tony says, I think that he has a blind spot in this case. The Democrats stink, but the Republican spread rot with all their aims.”
Well said. I also think a message opposite of the intended one would likely be sent to Democrats and and Republicans alike–that the voters want to move the country further to the right.
Elaine and Mike S.,
Agree
Elaine … my telephone lecture was delivered in 2010
Blouise,
Just as mine was.
Blouise, Mike S and Elaine I agree. Another point is that the health of Americans will suffer not only through cutting off benefits but also by denying global warming and ending scientific research on cures for diseases.
Swarthmore mom,
Maybe some scientific research should be curtailed. After all, we don’t want more mice with fully functioning human brains skittering around.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ Looks like Tony C could get his wish. New polls show republicans could very well get the Senate and the House. Independents are voting for republicans because the economy isn’t rebounding quickly enough.
Great Glen Greenwald article on the subject of this thread.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/28/obama/index.html
Elaine M.
With regard to your reply to Mike Spindell’s comment.
Democrats are not capable of receiving any message that tells them to move left since they have their tiny little hearts set on following Republicans to the extreme right. The reason that the Democratic Party elite are going out of the way to insult “their” voter base is to encourage them not not to vote. When they comply this elite will say that they are not sufficiently centrist to attract Republican leaning voters, they will never admit that it is their intentional insults and failure to implement promised policies.
Elaine M.
You are a rational person and so are not going to let pique at the insults from your favored party’s representative class stop you voting for the lesser evil, however a large proportion of Democratic voters are going to react emotionally and stay home and the Democrats are going to lose seats which is what the party elite actually want.
Carlyle,
I think your proposition that the ‘party elite’ want to lose seats is ridiculous. A much more reasonable explanation (suggested by someone – I forget who – on MSNBC) is that the president is preparing an excuse for the party losing seats in the midterms. While such an explanation is not to the administration’s credit, in my opinion it makes much more sense than yours…
Slartibartfast.
Different people may do the same thing from different motives and some people may act from multiple motives, so your hypothesis has merit. However I find it hard to believe that Obama, Biden and Robert Gibbs are so stupid as to fail to see that insulting their base will have a negative effect on votes, or that there are not others around them who can inform them of basic human nature.
Slartibartfast.
Do you mean that Obama et al are deliberately insulting voters so that they can say that the reason we have lost seats is that we insulted the voters and not that we failed to implement what we promised?
Carlyle,
I highly doubt that President Obama sees himself as having failed to implement what he promised – I base this on what he’s said in recent speeches (also, the argument can be made that he’s delivered on many things – the stimulus, financial reform, heath insurance reform, ending combat operations in Iraq, etc.). I was merely suggesting an interpretation of his rationale that seems more reasonable to me (unless you can suggest a reason why he would want to lose seats). As I have said before, I think black and white analyses of things as complicated as our government are naive at best – remember that no one (or at least very few people) are villains in their own minds. The idea that people are wrong or make mistakes is much more persuasive to me than the idea that they are totally corrupt. Another thing that you (and others) seem to ignore is that all politics are local – many Democrats would lose badly if they were as progressive as, say, Anthony Weiner. Does this mean that they should be run out of the party for voting the way a majority of their constituents want? I am of the opinion that the results of electing Democrats will be greatly better (in both the short and long term) that the results of electing Republicans and no one (be they pundits or posters on this blog) has made any kind of compelling argument to the contrary.
The Democratic Party is controlled by the corporate oligarchy although not by the looniest fringe thereof, it wants to move further to the right and wants to lose seats so that it can claim that it needs to move further rightward to attract votes away from the Republicans.
The truth is human nature is complicated, possibly neither of us understand it sufficiently to determine Obama and Biden’s real motives. The truth may be different from either of our hypotheses.
Slarti,
Here’s an excerpt from a post by Glenn Greenwald at salon.com. Is this what you were thinking about?
*****
WH messaging about its base
By Glenn Greenwald (9/28/2010)
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/28/obama/index.html
Excerpt:
What’s going on here seems clear. Each time there is a Democratic loss on the horizon, White House officials find someone to blame other than Obama; that happened with Martha Coakley, Creigh Deeds, and a whole slew of other Democratic defeats. By incessantly complaining now about the “irresponsible” “whiners” who aren’t sufficiently grateful to the Obama White House, they seem to be setting up in advance a nice excuse for Democratic defeat in November: it wasn’t anything we did to cause this; it was the fault of those whiny, unrealistic irresponsible liberals who didn’t cheerlead loudly enough. What seems to matter most is that Obama be exonerated for the Democrats’ electoral woes, even though he clearly bears substantial responsibility for much of it.
**********
BTW,
I live in Massachusetts. Take it from me–Martha Coakley was a TERRIBLE campaigner. I don’t blame her loss on Obama.
Mike S:
poverty is cured by wealth creation and nothing else. Contrary to Marx, Proudhon, Fourier, et. al.
The system does not allow the vast majority of people to create and hold wealth. Reduce or eliminate the restrictions on wealth creation and you can eliminate poverty.
Getting rid of the Federal Reserve and having a small flat tax would be good first steps.
Allow the poor to earn as much as they can without restrictions to monthly benefits and allow them to keep every penny they earn, i.e. no SS, federal, state or local taxes taken out of their earnings. Allow them to invest that money tax free and not in IRA’s or 401k’s but in whatever investment vehicle they choose.
Talk about the worker owning the means of production.
Ron Johnson for Senate has a new television ad in opposition to Fiengold. In it he says and writes: Senate 100 senators, 57 lawyers, 0 from manufacturing and 1 from accounting. He says my background is in manufacturing and accounting. I know how to put people to work and I know haw (was it balance a budget or read a budget….?) No parties are mentioned at all in the new ad.
All Feingold’s television ad does is emphasize his long Senate career. It doesn’t even mention his accomplishments and it says something about being independent of parties.
Johnson’s ad leaves one with a visual print message memory of the breakdown in Congress. Feingold’s ad wastes its print message on photos of the pledges he wrote on his garage 20 years ago.
It’s like the entire senate committee on the judiciary left nothing worth announcing….. Maybe I’ll try to read through their announcements looking for something good.
“The system does not allow the vast majority of people to create and hold wealth.”
Byron,
You and I agree on this it’s just that you’ve got your reasoning for it wrong.
What about the “Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2009″? The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended it.
From Think Progress (9/28/2010)
Ron Johnson Opposed Child Abuse Legislation Because It Would Hold Businesses Accountable
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/28/ron-johnson-child-abuse/
Excerpt:
Wisconsin GOP U.S. Senate candidate Ron Johnson often touts the fact that he comes from outside the political system and has spent his life building businesses in the private sector.
Yet before running for Senate, Johnson did have one prominent act of political participation. In January 2010, Johnson testified before the Wisconsin state legislature in opposition to the bipartisan Wisconsin Child Victims Act. The legislation, if passed, would alter Wisconsin law to eliminate the statute of limitations on civil suits for child abuse and allow a three-year window to bring suit for victims who were victimized before the bill. The legislation also specifies that the entities that can be sued would include not just individuals, but also a “corporation, business trust, limited liability company,” and other formal organizations that could be held accountable for the illegal behavior of their employees. As the bill’s authors write, “We believe that there should be no deadline on justice for child sexual abuse victims.”
But Johnson did not place protecting victims as his highest priority. In his testimony before the Wisconsin legislature, he said it was “extremely important to consider the economic havoc…and the other victims” that the new law would “likely create” — ridiculously comparing child abuse victims to the economic damages faced by employers being sued. Johnson warned that the Child Victims Act would lead to businesses or other organizations that work with children to be “damaged or destroyed” by civil suits and that it would “send a chilling signal” to civic-minded organizations like the Boy Scouts to not work with children in the future. He then opined that if the bill were passed, “I have no doubt trial lawyers would benefit, I’m not so sure that the actual victims would“:
**********
Keith Olbermann did a segment about Ron Johnson last night on Countdown
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#39429643
It is possible to be a child abuse victim and basically have no damages. I remember someone trying to stick his hands down my pants when I was little and I remember deciding to avoid that person and successfully doing so. My dad told me that when he was little he heard about a man to avoid too. Also, on several occasions I saw flashers on the B.U. Bridge or in Back Bay. And one time a totally naked strange man chased me for about three blocks in Cambridge MA. I remember running from this guy along Memorial Drive. I was a college student then. It was about 9 p.m. I ran fast enough to get away.
How much damages do you have to have to sue?
Kay,
What’s your point?
I suggest you watch the segment about Johnson on Countdown. An abuse victim of a pedophile priest who served in a diocese in Wisconsin was interviewed.
Johnson used to serve on the diocese’s financial council and in January testified in Madison against the Child Victims Act. I believe Johnson didn’t disclose the fact that he worked for the diocese when he testified.
Let’s see…democrat or republican? Same party. No difference.
Just the appearance in the front of the audience. They are opposames.
Stand back and look…they take turns playing the game and then they play us for fools and the saddest part of all is that we appear to fall for it every time.
As the one who called himself Shakespeare once said, “All the world’s a stage.” Oh yes, the many blood sucking creatures aka politicians learned this in their politics 101 class.
The reason there are only two parties is because two are much easier to manage than three or more, by, those who lurk in the shadows aka The Puppet Masters.
The USA is forever doomed simply because the same 42% sad & Ideologically Confused fools can be tricked n baffled by GOP/ Blllionare suporters decade after decade while never learning anything new or ever asking whats the huge thing up thier butt is?
You can not blame the GOP/Hard Right or the shameless 1% gazillionares that fund them(scumy as they are !), Because any group of idiotic people as large as exist in the USA will eventually be exploited & finally used as a floor mat by someone or something.
& In the end the whole of all american people got the Govt. they all deserved !