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
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 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
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.
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 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.
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.
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
@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.
I see Kay is here. You all can have her. She is blithering wherever she goes.
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.
@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.
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.
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…
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.