The Bush Administration and Republican Congressional leaders have plenty of reason to be worried. Large majorities of Americans believe the country is going in the wrong direction, that Bush doesn’t share their priorities, that the war in Iraq wasn’t worth it, and that the President can’t be trusted. Most people can’t think of anything Congress has done except for intruding in… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (68)Page 1 of 1 pagesJan Schakowsky:
“. . . Democrats in Congress, while still not earning high ratings, are ahead of the Republicans by the largest margin in recent times. And I haven’t heard anyone raving about what a genius Karl Rove is lately.
The turf is favorable, but we’ve been there before—in 2000 and 2004. What should progressives do as we approach the 2006 elections to capitalize on Americans’ sense of unease and discontent? . . .”
Jan, the reason the majority of Americans agree with liberal policies, and still the GOP gained in 2000 and 2004 is because private corporations like Diebold, who openly support the GOP and Bush, have been contracted to take and count the votes, and helped the GOP to cheat. Until the vote is taken away from corporate crooks, like Diebold, the democrats can’t win.
” . . . The Republicans are providing us with a wealth of opportunities—unlimited examples of abuse of power, multiple examples of plain old corruption and greed, predatory economic policies, the quagmire in Iraq, threats to our Constitutional rights and devastating environmental policies. . . .”
But, liberals can’t take full advantage, Jan, because the MSM has been taken over by giant corporations that support the GOP and Bush. Until a majority of Americans read www.mediamatters.org, GOP crimes just don’t matter.
” . . . Actually, the campaign to save Social Security is a perfect example of progressives “just doing it,” as well as standing up straight, and saying the same thing again and again. . . .”
And it didn’t hurt that many GOPers also opposed the Bush plan to dismantle social security. As a result, the Turd Blossom couldn’t make a political fight out of it.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 23, 2005 at 12:11 AM While I agree politically with Rep. Schakowsky, I do not believe the democratic leadership in Congress is as progressive as her. Joe Biden is still a firm believer in the Iraq War. As long as the Dems have Senators like Mary Landreiu, Ben Nelson, Herb Kohl, Joe Leiberman, Dianne Feinstein, and Evan Bayh, the party will always capitulate to the GOP like it has so many other times on issues like privacy and national security.
Contrary to the representative’s opinion, the Dems do need an ideological makeover. The party has essentially forsaken its commitment to universal healthcare and middle class protections. Look at all the senators who voted for the bankruptcy and tort reform bills. Quite frankly, the Democratic Party has a bunch of corporate sellouts in its rank and file.
True, the GOP is as vulnerable as its ever been, but as long as the media is complacent and unquestioning of conservative spin, the Democratic party will never gain political leverage out of it.
God Bless You Jan Schakowsky, you are a good American and I hope your determination and grit rubs off on your peers in Washington.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 23, 2005 at 1:03 AM Jan, I agree with your advocacy of the social programs that used to be at the soul of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the Democratic Leadership Council and Democratic establishment long ago abandoned working families. Real change will come when the core progressive constituencies have the courage to abandon the Democratic Party. The Nader campaign was a voice for reason in opposition to the Iraq war, in defiance of a corporate America, and to ensure equal rights for all. The Democratic establishment does not share progressive values. What is needed today is a new Progressive Party that will realize the “dream” of America’s promise to its citizens. Real change will come when progressives, like yourself, work to build that new Progressive movement. The Democratic Party will be forced either to reclaim their heritage or cease to exist.
Posted by Jim Paprocki on Jul 23, 2005 at 3:40 AM The article seems to imply that the democratic party in general is progressive.
That’s a stretch for sure as the progressives within the party are few and far between. On the other hand so many in the so called republican party make Barry Goldwater a progressive.
Posted by merrill on Jul 23, 2005 at 4:15 PM Like I’ve said before, until we Democrats craft a well-explained set of our goals and how they are to be achieved, something not unlike Gingrich’s “Contract with America”, people are left floundering for a leader.
Lots of people are obviously disenchanted with Bush Co., just look at his numbers. But where is the new Captain? I know Harry Reid is saying that they are floundering so badly that it’s to our advantage to let them sink their own ship, but I think we really must be more proactive than that.
If people could see a clear plan for a better way, they would sign on. And the family and financial security, including the universal healthcare that the GOP so deftly torpedoes during Clinton, must be the centerpieces. Look at all the layoffs in the news, Hewlett Packard, Ford, Kimberly Clark, etc. The reason they are giving for the layoffs is the cost of healthcare. Had the GOP worked on this back in the 90’s, we wouldn’t be here. But, oh no, anything to nuke Bill and Hillary, the American people be damned. And now we see the results of their “godly” perspective. They all worship at the alter of corporate power and the almighty dollar.
Posted by Susie Q on Jul 23, 2005 at 4:43 PM A. The democrats could bring back the Sherman Anti Trust Act back to life. This might save a few good paying american jobs.
B. The democrats are playing politics with President Bush instead of telling him no on way too many issues. If the party wants to say NO get with the press and explain very loudly why?
C. The democrats are in far more trouble than they realize with their constituents because they do not offer anything significantly different from the immoral majority republican party. We only get another version of a immoral majority republican plan.
Democrats let’s talk about a taxpayer funded medical insurance plan which would be the best solution.
1.Number one it would drive economic growth as it would
provide incentive for new better paying employers especially at the small business level.2. Number two it would reduce the cost of medical care
3. Number three additional savings would be realized due to reducing the paper work which typically adds about 30% to
cost.How would this be achieved? Through an extension of medicare…a single pay system.
Also we must assume that the immoral majority republican party is reading this and might come out offering something of this nature or using the language to pull the wool over our eyes. This new party has a long history of lying…remember this everyday. The lying years came in with Reagan/Bush.
Posted by merrill on Jul 23, 2005 at 4:48 PM Does the democrtaic party bother to read this?
Democrats it’s time to do away with computerized electronic voting. Why…because computers can be programmed to do any damn thing including lie to the voter on election day.
Democrats on voting lets get this into place and be revolutionary:
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) A Fairer Way to Conduct Single-Winner Elections
by the Center for Voting and Democracy
———————————& ——————————— 8212;——————————̵ 12;——Most U.S. elections are held under plurality voting rules in which the candidate with the most votes wins. If three or more candidates run in the race, then the winner can have less than a majority of the vote. But the question always arises: was that winning candidate really preferred by most voters?
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is a sensible reform for elections where one person wins. Examples include elections for governors, mayors, legislatures using single-seat districts, and US president (for allocation of Electoral College electors). Instant Runoff Voting is better than plurality elections because:
*it ensures the election of the candidate preferred by most voters
*it eliminates the problem of spoiler candidates knocking off major candidates
*it frees communities of voters from splitting their vote among their own candidates
*it promotes coalition-building and more positive campaigningIRV is also better than “two-round” runoff or primary elections, which often result in a change in voter turnout between the two rounds. IRV finishes the job with one election, which means that
*election officials and taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for a second election
*candidates don’t have to raise money for two races, providing some campaign finance reform
*the decisive election occurs when voter turnout is highestHow IRV Works: Each voter has one vote, and ranks candidates in order of choice (1, 2, 3, etc.). The counting of ballots simulates a series of run-off elections. All first choices are counted, and if no candidate wins a majority of first choices, then the last place candidate (candidate with the least first-choices) is eliminated. Ballots of voters who ranked the eliminated candidate first then are redistributed to their next-choice candidates, as indicated on each voter’s ballot. Last place candidates are successively eliminated and ballots are redistributed to next choices until one candidate remains or a candidate gains over 50% of votes.
Voters have the option to rank as many or as few candidates as they wish—their favorite candidate first, their next favorite second and so on. Voters have every incentive to vote for their favorite candidate rather than the “lesser of two evils” because their ballot can still count toward a winner if their first choice loses. There also is every reason for a voter to rank as many candidates as they want, since a voter’s lower choice will never help defeat one of their higher choices.
IRV is used to elect the parliament in Australia and the presidents of the Republic of Ireland and the American Political Science Association. A related method is used in Cambridge (MA) for city council.
Example: In both 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton was elected president with less than 50% of the popular vote. IRV could have been used to elect a majority-winner. Here’s how it could have worked.
The 1992 Presidential Election—a Simulation
CandidateFirst Choice ºllots redistributed
to 2nd choicesFinal Tally
George Bush 38%+10% = 48%
Bill Clinton43%+9%= 52%
Ross Perot 19%- 19%XAssume that, of the 19 percent of voters who ranked Ross Perot first, slightly more than half (e.g. 10% of all voters) ranked George Bush second on their ballots, and slightly less than half (e.g. 9% of all voters) ranked Bill Clinton second. When Ross Perot is eliminated, those votes are redistributed. Bill Clinton ends up with 52 percent of the overall vote, a clear majority, and is declared the winner.
Posted by merrill on Jul 23, 2005 at 5:01 PM Why do I refer to the former republican party as the immoral majority republican party? Simply because Jerry Falwell stated a number of weeks back that it took 25 years for the Christian Coalition to get control of the republican party.
Posted by merrill on Jul 23, 2005 at 5:04 PM Here we go again.
A writer makes salient points as to what to do and not do in order to win the reelection in regards to Democratic political strategy, and what kind of response does he get from “progressive types?”
We get the typical, worthless, pointless chatter about whether the Democratic party is “progressive.” Blather stating the way Democrats can win is to become extremist.
The Democratic party IS NOT PROGRESSIVE. It does NOT claim to carry the Progressive (far left) banner. HOWEVER it is the best, most realistic chance “progressives” have for getting any of their agenda enacted. Democrats are willing to listen and work with Progressives on issues they share. This contrast sharply with Repugnicans treatment of Progressives. Repugnican FRight Wingers treat all Progressives as anti-patriotic, USA Hating pacifist idealists. Who are only good as sources of material to attack Democrats.
What the smart choice is, is clear. They should grudgingly support Democrats and fight for incremental change. In a country controlled as effectively as the USA by extremist conservatives, the revolutionary make overs favored by many progressives is simply impossible.
If the past is any guide, Progs will most likely continue their whiney, divisive ways. They’ll attack Democrats, forcing Democrats to defend themselves against an “ally.” The attacks will come in the form of demands for ideological purity. This ongoing fight with Democrats costs critical resources, that Democrats could better spend fighting Repugnicans. It costs far more than the support of progressives are worth. , because it has cost the Democrats many elections.
Even after the fight, many “all or nothing” perfectionist Progs. will sit out an election, because they are blind to the difference between Bush/Kerry or Bush/Gore, or worse throw their support to a 1 or 2 shot independent candidate. Who feeds their foolish dreams of building a base for a 3rd party.
I personally feel Democrats have sacrificed way too much for Progressives. They do NOT have the numbers,and Progressives are lazy, elitist whiners. Who aren’t principled at all. Instead they use the excuse “all or nothing” to escape any real participation. Democrats do not need this at all.
Democrats would be smart to just cut off all contact with the more extreme, uncompromising, faith-bashing, excessively cynical Progressive organizations.
It probably would make little difference. Since the places where Progressives are strong. They are strong because Democrats are strong, and provide them cover. Places like San Francisco or LA, New York City and all over the Blue States. One would be hard pressed to find a place of Progressive strength that isn’t underpinned by Democratic power.
It’s time to lay down the law to the extremist uncompromising ideologues. Who seems to enjoy fighting with family like others enjoy a sport, and who enjoys it more than it does fighting the enemy.
Politics is politics. To win you have to play the game. Progressives weasel out of it, by claiming being political would betray their values. Such catch22 rationalizations make Progressives poison for anyone working with them. They want to lecture and judge, but will only participate if you give in to their demands 100%.
In my book Progressives are the flip side of the Repugnican extremists. The exception being the Repugnican FRight wingers finally realized their extremism would get nowhere without playing by the rules. If Progressives would only be so smart! They’d be a great ally, but as it is. They’re #s are too small. They’re demands are too extreme, and they insist on putting their issues first to the detriment of any other issue.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 23, 2005 at 5:21 PM The Progressive movement had its origins in the Republican Party. A generation ago there were some Republicans who worked with Democrats on programs to assist the poor, the elderly, children and families. Senator Jim Jeffords would be considered a former Republican whose political beliefs were shaped from this tradition. John Anderson also would be considered another Republican from this tradition. The transformation of the Republican Party occurred because conservatives chose not to compromise but took the offense in challenging moderate members of their party. Conservatives preferred a Democrat win rather than elect a moderate Republican.
Herein lies the reason for our present political climate. I agree that political change generally is incremental in nature. The difficulty is that Democrats have had numerous opportunities to distinguish themselves from Republicans. The Democrats have not taken the offensive in providing an alternate path for America. Jan Schakowsky, Dennis Kucinich and a few others are to be commended for being the exception.
It was, after all, the Clinton administration who gave us NAFTA and the WTO. The Democratic establishment has articulated no position in opposition to corporate dominance and the abuses of corporations in this country. John Kerry supported NAFTA, the WTO, the Patriot Act, and the invasion of Iraq. He proposed we “manage” the Iraq war better. John Kerry proposed more troops for Iraq in the same way that Lyndon Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam. He took this position even though there were strong allegations and new evidence the Iraq war was based on President Bush’s deception. John Kerry apparently now believes you can ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake.
So, we are now asked to accept the conventional wisdom that our only choice is between Democrats and Republicans. In this context, Democrats always are a better choice than Republicans, regardless of their platform. Some progressives are “whiners” because we value the opportunity to vote. We believe our leaders should inspire us and pursue objectives consistent with the aspirations of the American people. We simply should not choose to vote for a candidate who is marginally better or against a candidate who is awful.
It is not the role of Democrats or Republicans to determine who is worthy to run for public office. Terry McAuliffe initiated a program of harassment and intimidation of Nader ballot petitioners. Ralph Nader asked John Kerry to cease and desist this practice to no avail. In my opinion, the Democratic Party compromised its integrity with this deplorable behavior. Moreover, Democrats have not apologized to Nader or his supporters. So, how can I vote for a Democratic Party that casts principle aside for the sake of political expediency? I know what you are thinking. It’s politics as usual.
Posted by Jim Paprocki on Jul 23, 2005 at 7:20 PM If you agree that political change is Incremental. I am not talking about you or Progressives like you. I see at least two types of Progressives. They differ is terms of in technique.
It’s the anarchistic, uncompromising types I am referring too. Who are just as rigid and unforgiving as Repugnican Extreme Rightists. The damage they’ve caused the Democratic party is terrible. I just think it’s time for Democrats to say “enough.”
Pointing out where Democrats fail does NOT justify the type of inflexible, ideological Progressive I am talking about.
Progressives always remember where Democrats let you down.
You see to forget the many times Democrats have delivered far more of the progressive agenda.
Unions, Civil Rights, Safety, Environmental issues, child issues, preserving the right to choose the list is quite long. The list is far longer than any list you could draw up showing Repugnican support for Progressive issues.
Clinton had to deal with the most extreme right wing congress ever. Your response to his barriers is telling.It’s “my way or I hit the highway”Clinton NEVER PROMISED to push the entire Progressive agenda. He never said he was a Progressive. HE IS 100x closer to the Progressive side, than Newt’s or Bush Repugnicans are.
To paint it as there is NO real difference is absurd.
To not support Democrats, because of one or two issues is SELF-DEFEATIST. It says obey us or we will not support you.
Progressives have proven to be terrible allies for this reason.
To slam Clinton for diverging from the Progressive agenda a few times is also wrong.
He was elected by ALL Americans. He was NOT the Progressive President. He worked hard for the parts of the progressive agenda he agreed with he worked hard for.
Of course, Progressives lost in self-righteous bliss think that THEIR AGENDA is the AMERICAN AGENDA. In Reality the Progressive agenda is hardly close.
Progs forget about his attempts to give us all universal healthcare. He paid dearly for trying. Repugnicans turned it against him and won the house as a result.
I’m not foolish enough to think Progressives will accept conventional wisdom.
AND SORRY YOU ARE WRONG. Yet another example of the Progressive idealistic rationalizing that makes them so deadly an ally.
Our political system is set up to be a TWO Party system. By DEFAULT, the two major parties DO INDEED BE DETERMINE WHO IS WORTY TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.
There is a DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WORTHY AND ABLE. Anyone is allowed to run. That is far different than being able to win.
You may think it sucks. You may think it a horrible, immoral wrong, but it is our system.
It’s all about politics. Progressive ideologues never seem to get this. More likely it’s willful ignorance. They are too selfish and self-centered.
As I said for those types of Progressives. It’s always the ultimatum, my way or the highway.It’s time the Democratic Party say goodbye. The Democrats can only win by working with groups who understand politics is politics.
Groups who want to step outside of the process, and destroy opportunities to win are never worth the effort required to get their support.
Finally, I did NOT say or infer the reason, Progressives are whiners, because they value the opportunity vote. Yet another example of extremists on either side. When you can’t knock a person down through logic and reason. You make up an absurd statement, and try to force it down their throat, and make them defend it. I didn’t say any such thing..
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 23, 2005 at 9:08 PM History of progressive politics in the US has shown that when it came to the forefront it was because it was demanded by the people regardless of party affiliation.
The progressive era was an amalgamation of political stripes, from the Populist Party to the Progressive Party to the Socialist Party (Eugene Debs) to the Democratic Party (mild progressive Woodrow Wilson) to a wing of the Republican Party and Bullmoose Party (Teddy Roosevelt). Progressiveness was demanded by the people in whatever party they thought might bring it about.
Those third parties had much influence on the two major parties. The two parties could not ignore those third parties winning local elections and began to co-opt their themes and issues.
Having said all that, in todays political climate I wonder if Americans are truly interested in a progressive revolution yet. I think Americans in general have become too lazy or busy or disinterested or confused (call it what you will) to rise up and DEMAND changes.
Certainly there is a certain segment of the population that is demanding change but it is polarized with demands coming from various parts of the political spectrum. Abortion foes are exhibiting the anger that “demand” needs as much as anti-Iraq War protesters do.
Events that affect the masses in large numbers are what cause Americans to demand change in something called a mass movement. I think it is quite possible to see that near future events may cause this to occur.
Certainly the Iraq War is turning away from the Bush side. Oil prices and peak oil will have an affect on all of us poor slobs that are just getting by (by the way johnnyincentx progressives are NOT elites, by the very nature of the word “elite” you have to rule and contrary to that progressives rule nothing). Our economy is on shaky enough grounds that there are plenty of worries ahead that could easily crumble it all for the masses (and not of course for the elites).
If and when that happens you’ll see the demand of the people coalesce as a “progressive movement” and it will occur in both parties as well as third parties. Personally, I fully believe that the conditions for change are near (within a decade), the question is will Americans DEMAND change or will we be as a collective just accepting sheep to the elites?
Posted by Jon B on Jul 24, 2005 at 12:01 AM Jan Shakowsky sums up with “I am optimistic; history is on our side. Rather than the beginning of a right-wing shift, I believe we are enduring its last gasp. This is a moment of opportunity for progressives; change is in the air.”
The optimist inside me would agree.
It’s no secret that the Bushies looked nostalgically at the era of McKinnley as their basis for their ideology. What followed McKinnley was a progressive era. So hopefully history will indeed be on our side.
Political corruption and corporate domination were bedfellows of the McKinnley era just as we see today. But at the same time there was great disillusionment within the populace to that situation. It wasn’t long after that we saw changes occur, like workers rights and giving the people the vote for senators.
The progressive movement was not downhill easy, it was a knockdown dragout fight. Elites of those days alowed only enough changes as they had to, given the pressure by the polulace. There were ups and downs for progressives until FDR.
The pessimist in me doesn’t agree with Shakowsky.
I wonder if the political parties are essentially too corrupt to ever give into pressure from a progressive movement. The rise of the lobbyist role in politics complicates elections like nothing before. Today we also are so much more involved in foreign affairs that we are distracted from the political corruption and corporate domination that staunchly resides in our society.
As I stated in an above post, I do believe near future events will lead to the conditions that are needed for a mass progressive movement to demand changes. I just wonder if people power will be powerful enough and do we have the guts to stand up to government and corporate power. People died in those days striking against business and government. Will we be willing to give our lives in an upcoming fight against our current unbalanced system?
Bush loves to taunt progressives for talking about “taxcuts for the rich” as nothing but class warfare. And we are suppose to slink away and not say, “Yes, it is class warfare and we are losing!” Just in days past, it is a class war that we face and elite America as usual refuse to acknowledge we have class problems, much less deal with it.
But if peak oil becomes the economic problem of the century that many predict, you can bet that class war is what will happen.
It’s too bad it takes bad times for progressives to emerge as the answer. It’s what makes progressives so mad in the not so bad times, no one is heeding our warnings and solutions.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 24, 2005 at 12:44 AM Often you can learn from history, but there are rare times when one can’t.
When it comes to what the PROGRESSIVES OF TODAY are like, it is pointless to look at the Progressive movement before 1970 or so. Yet for some reason that is where those historically minded Progressives like to start when listing the achievements of Progressivism.
This is about as intellectually dishonest as Extreme FRight Wing Republicans of Today, taking credit for the abolitionist Republicans of Lincoln.
A Progressive of yesterday looking at today’s world would probably say “I won” on most of the issues he fought for.
The Progressive of today has little to do in terms of spirit or reason for being.
Yesterday’s progressive fought for bread and butter issues.
Today’s Progressive fights for extremist ideals in an uncompromising manner. That often hurts their allies more than it does their foes. They make orthodoxy mandatory. If their allies refuse to bow before them, they are likely to stab their ally in the back and declare her as evil as their true enemy.
Yesterday’s Progressive wanted to improve the world he lived in, and be part of it as it was.
Today’s Progressive rather condemn the world of Today, and preach why it must be destroyed, starting with all the creature comforts of the everyday working man. Typical of elitists, they stand ready to tell others what they have to do to be better than they are. They see no contradiction or hypocrisy in these actions. For they attribute all their beliefs to a higher, indisputable ideology. They are blinded by their own righteousness.
The Progressive of yesterday was not part of the elite. He was often the union man.
Today’s Progressive is almost exclusively of the elite.
Today’s Progressive is rarely the working man. Today’s Progressives come almost entirely from the college educated. Which only make up a shade more than 24% of this nation.
Merely going to college is a good indicator one is better well off than average. It can cost over $100 grand. Still there is a good share that are not well off. For those who start out behind, graduation is joining of the elite. She will be better equipped than most Americans to compete in the workforce. She won’t work as a cashier at Wal-Mart.
Thus to say today’s Progressive is “elitist” is based on REALITY OF TODAY.
I respect the history of Progressivism.
HOWEVER because today’s Progressive is SO COMPLETELY different from the Progressive of yore, no real lessons can be learned from what happened then.
Just like we cannot extrapolate the good things of Lincoln’s Republican party to today’s Repugnican Party. Only in name are they the same.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 24, 2005 at 12:54 AM I may or may not be a progressive. Myself and many others
in this area are very politically active and vote. The democratic party should be able to accept constructive criticism then take postitve steps from there. Obviously the numbers of disgruntled democrats are huge as the number of voters who stayed home indicate. The same could be said for real republicans as well.Did I vote in the last election ...of course. Did I vote for GW…of course not. Did I vote for John and John…you bet. Do I whine about GW…absolutely.
A list:
* give our first term front line soldiers a raise in order to keep their families off welfare programs
*restore veterans benefits
*restore EPA regulations
*Dump No Child Left Behind…say no to tax dollar funded school vouchers
*Support Public Education
*Bring back Sherman Anti Trust Act
*Get out of Iraq
*Stop controlling the media
*Provide Taxpayer Medical Care…tax dollars pick up the tab for government officials why not our own?
*Yes to Instant Run Off Voting
* Develope new sources of energy(new good paying jobs) - an oil pipeline designer who has returned from Africa states this is a matter
of urgency as there are no more deep pockets of oil. We’ve peaked.The democrats have plenty to work with as the immoral majority republican party have established a pattern on many of the above issues. Patterns that began with the Iran
-Contra gang aka as Reagan/Bush.There is a need to clean up campaigns as to how long they can run and how much money can be spent. Taxpayer funded campaigns should be the order of the day. Politicians spend too much time raising money…that’s not why we elected them. Another issue for democrats to bring up in congress,
Posted by merrill on Jul 24, 2005 at 3:53 AM The Big Lie About Valerie Plame
By Larry Johnson
The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans’ talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie.
For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak’s column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove.
Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover—in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport—i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O’Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.
The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that “no laws were broken”. I don’t know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate.
They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson “lied”. Although Joe did not lie let’s follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let’s use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush’s lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world.
But don’t take my word for it, read the biased Senate intelligence committee report. Even though it was slanted to try to portray Joe in the worst possible light this fact emerges on page 52 of the report:
According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe’s visit in February 2002), “Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on.” Joe’s findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.
The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not. She was not a division director, instead she was the equivalent of an Army major. Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses.
At the end of the day, Joe Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the Bush Administration that pushed that lie and because of that lie Americans are dying. Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That’s the true outrage.
Posted by merrill on Jul 24, 2005 at 9:58 AM The following was written by an aquaintenance which also reveals the feelings of my mother and father in law who have been conservative republicans prior to the 25 years that I have known them. Yes they voted for GW once but not twice. Today they cannot stomach the man. While vacationing in Maryland together we were cheering for John Kerry and watching the democratic convention. Nothing even close to that has ever taken place in the 25 years I’ve been married to their daughter. Putting Newt,Tom DeLay or anyone that has been politically tied to the Bush family name will only give us what they have always delivered…nothing but corruption as history can prove.
From a friend:
As a life-long Republican and Conservative, I am more ashamed of the liars and traitors who have taken over my Party than ever before.Valerie Plame’s dedicated career was destroyed by Karl Rove and others in my Party. Until being outed, she had claimed to be an energy analyst for the private company, Brewster Jennings & Associates, which unfortunately has now been acknowledged by the CIA as a front company that Ms. Plame used to maintain contacts which provided the CIA valuable information on weapons of mass destruction.
A decades of work and hundreds of contacts that she and others had established overseas are now exposed. These contacts had been essential in helping the CIA to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to prevent these weapons from ending up in the hands of terrorists.
Her outing and the outing of Brewster Jennings & Associates has seriously compromised our national security. Many lives are now in jeopardy because our enemies can now put the pieces together. Not only was Ms. Plame’s identity and the CIA front company exposed to our enemies, many of the other people involved are now in danger. Any future information that they could have collected is no longer possible.
Even worse, the American people are now in greater danger of terrorist attacks because the CIA can no longer monitor the WMD that Ms. Plame and others had been following.
My Republican Party has become a haven for anti-American liars and traitors, who have become so dishonest and immoral that they are unable to comprehend that their making light of Ms. Plame’s dedicated service makes them no better than the terrorists that Ms. Plame was trying to stop.
I am still a Republican and still a Conservative, and still hold out hope that the liars and terrorists who claim to be Conservative Republicans will be thrown out of our Party for being the repressive-socialists traitors that they are. Larry Johnson, who wrote the piece below, is also a Republican.
It makes me sick that many of those who call themselves Republicans and Conservatives are now essentially supporting Osama bin Laden and apparently want America to be attacked with the weapons of mass destruction that Ms. Plame had been tracking.
Posted by merrill on Jul 24, 2005 at 10:13 AM Dear Jan Schakowsky,
Thanks for your pep talk. I’m more concerned about the lack of an opposition party at this dreadful point in our history than I am about anything else. We presently have two war parties in the United States of America.
Where do you stand? Will yoh vote to fund the war the next time you’re asked to? If your answer is yes… you have to go.
Democrats like Bayh, Clinton, Feinstein, Kerry, Lieberman and others came out for increasing the numbers of American troops in Iraq the other day! They are pro-war, regardless what words come out of their mouths their actions speak louder. The vote in the Senate funding the war was 100 to 0!
The only thing to do is to make sure these people are challanged and unseated in their primaries so that we can get some people who are opposed to the policies of the present regime into the House and the Senate.
As the police in London murder wholly innocent people in the tubes in London, as Al Qaeda murders innocents in Egypt, as Americans murder Iraqis and Iraqis murder Americans, as the Israelis murder Palestinians while the present American regime prepares pre-emptive nuclear strikes at Iran, as the whole thing gyres wildly out of control we need first and foremost to put the brakes to this mad greed, to stop funding Bush’s, Blair’s, and Sharon’s wars in the Middle East, to bring American troops home now!
That’s what we need. Not Republicans or Democrats. Certainly not DLC members who want to expand the Bush/Blair/Sharon war in the Middle East.
Pro-War/Anti-War. That’s the divide. The Pro-War people must be replaced if we are not to plunge over the edge of the abyss.
Posted by John Francis Lee on Jul 24, 2005 at 12:51 PM johnnyincentx writes, “Today’s Progressive is almost exclusively of the elite.”
You have got to be kidding. Do you not understand that elite has to do with control and power? Name some progressive elites that you think are running things? And I will be able to vastly outweigh your list with non-progressives who dominate our society.
I wouldn’t argue that progressives who are formulating an ideology that would bring masses together aren’t college educated. Progressives thinking ahead are worried about our society and worried that changes might not be forthcoming. They absolutely don’t want to destroy the world, they want to save it. I see no progressives demanding we bomb more countries, start more wars, starve more people, etc. Pardon me but that is this current administration and even the centrist Democrats.
Most everyday people don’t spend much time trying to label themselves or fit themselves into some specific ideology. They go with their feelings and how society affects them and their friends, family, co-workers, etc.
My co-workers (non-office work) are struggling economically, paycheck-to-paycheck, praying for good health, worried that their house-of-cards economic status quo doesn’t fall down. At least 80% would probably be called progressive if you questioned them on what they would like to see changed in America. But they don’t label themselves progressive because they aren’t ideological minded trying to be leaders of a mass movement, but they would probably welcome one.
They don’t trust our current government and politicians overall, they don’t trust the corporate hierarchy at our company and corporations in general and they don’t trust the media. That’s the basis of progressive change, disgruntlement of our major institutions.
They know in their hearts and minds that the corporate elites at the top of our company have no interests in their viewpoints and on the one hand feel fortunate to have a job but on the other hand don’t trust that their job is long term secure. They don’t believe voting has much affect on their lives because they don’t believe politicians are concerned about them. And they don’t believe the media tells their story (or the story of people like them), so they see a media that fails.
My co-workers are generally not going to be found protesting and shouting for change, at least not at this point in time. But they have that potential because they intuitively deduce systemic problems in America today. They consider themselves as part of the masses, the subjegated working class, but they wouldn’t use those words. They would follow a leader if they trusted that leader and if they felt they had little choice to create change. Or they would band together if given a vehicle where they are part of a whole and don’t stand out individually.
As I stated in an above post it will take events that affect masses of peoples lives to cause a progressive movement irregardless of so-called political party affiliation. Watch what happens when gas prices top $3.00 and continue higher. Our economy will show the many holes in it and the effects will be felt most severly at the working class level. There will be anger in the town as corporate America cuts jobs, cuts benefits, cuts pay and even cuts and runs.
We’ve already been going through the downsizing era, how much downsizing will the average American take before masses of those average Americans demand change from the government which is the traditional first demand? And will we have a government being run by politicians willing to address those demands at that time?
Will we be Hoovered or FDRed? It depends on many factors, but the tipping point will be events that devastate enough people that the response is essentially “We’re not going to take this anymore!”
Posted by Jon B on Jul 24, 2005 at 2:42 PM John Francis Lee writes, “Pro-War/Anti-War. That’s the divide. The Pro-War people must be replaced if we are not to plunge over the edge of the abyss.”
We can certainly see that Americans are more and more becoming disenchanted with the Iraq War. That is becoming a divide. More Americans are finally accepting that we were lied into war. That probably does not bode well for the Republican Party or pro-war war Democrats.
Once the idea of being lied to becomes accepted fact by a large majority of Americans that fact will never change. It is easier for people to give the benefit of doubt to our leaders than to believe that they are liars. But once convinced they’ve been lied too, people get upset and feel used.
But where’s the outrage? Sure there is some protesting, but it is minor when compared to Viet Nam. I wonder if that tipping point is soon to come or not.
Viet Nam had a much higher scale of dead and injured returning home thus a much higher back home population that felt intimately the effects of the war by family and friends of those that suffered that war. The draft back then caused a sort of fear from families worried about their draft-age members even from many families that may have supported the war.
The Bushies know that America will not accept a draft so they are trying other avenues to keep this war going. Just recently the Army announced they have upped the age for volunteers to 35 and sign-up bonuses are increasing. It seems the chicken-hawk Bushites are having trouble recruiting even their own followers. I can’t begin to count the number of conservative military of-age males I’ve run into that refuse to run down to the recruiting office and sign up.
The tipping point may indeed be approaching about the Iraq War, at least I can hope.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 24, 2005 at 3:04 PM Economics 101 anyone? China is increasing it’s wealth and it’s military with our blessing thanks to outsourcing. This article goes a bit deeper.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0723-21.htm
Posted by merrill on Jul 24, 2005 at 4:40 PM Johnnyincentx cannot comprehend that wealthy, educated people just might have a concern for the welfare of others less fortunate. Being an “elite” in his eyes is more of a social attitude than it is an economic one. I am angered that johnnyincentx automatically believes that if one is wealthy, then they only care about their personal fortunes. Tell that to Siddhartha, or Gandhi, or the Kennedys or the Rockefellers. Not all rich people are like the Bushes, bud.
I am also astounded that you think Clinton did not run on a progressive platform. He did! Maybe you should watch his address to the 1992 Democratic Convention. He sounded an awful lot like John Edwards. He did not govern as president along the same ideological lines as a candidate.
In case you didn’t know, this past election had to deal a whole lot with “values”, because Kerry did not take a stand against Bush’s fascist military state government, his imperial ambitions, and his redistribution of wealth to the economic elites at the expense of the populace. What the heck else were people going to vote on? So many members of the media and the GOP say the Democrats are the party of “no ideas.” Well, I can tell you johnnyincentx that the progressive community has PLENTY of ideas that when discussed with the American people, will find broad support. Poll after poll shows that the public wants action taken to address global warming, the high cost of healthcare, and the degradation of the environment. These are all causes progressives have been advocating for years! You, sir, just do not understand the progressive movement.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 24, 2005 at 7:42 PM Liberal:
If you had “read” not SKIMMED what I wrote, you’d realize the things you say, I don’t say. I don’t infer, and in fact I do not believe.
You say, I “CANNOT comprehend that wealthy educated people might care…” Oh yes I do comprehend, and I probably give that group more credit than you would dream of giving them. Many things in history that have happened for the betterment of mankind happened because a wealthy/educated person was aware enough and able to make things better by virtue of their wealth and position. Two examples I can think of are the Magna Carta and The US Constitution. Both are products of the wealth owning educated classes coming together to change an oppressive system.
You are assuming there is only one definition of elite - yours. Context makes a big difference. IN CONTEXT, I was using “elite” to describe a typical trait of the left wing progressives who are worthless allies for the Democratic party.
NOT EVERY PROGRESSIVE is like this, however this uncompromising type is the most visible, and those unfamiliar with Progressives, like 90% of Americans, will assume that type of uncompromising, rigid ideological type IS a Progressive.
I DO NOT INCLUDE Pragmatic Progressive types who understand politics is politics. You have to play the game to win.
GEE YOU MUST KNOW ANOTHER CLINTON!!! Perhaps you are completely unaware of Clinton’s founding participation in a group of Centrist Democrats, whose main goal was to take back the Democratic party from the fringe elements and extremists. This group is the BANE of the type of Progressive I am talking about. They demonize Clinton for his participation.
Clinton is a Liberal, but he is NOT a Progressive. He supports a variety of issues, including some progressive ones. HOWEVER HE IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE POLITICIAN. He is a CENTRIST DEMOCRAT. He displays almost NONE of the characteristic rigidity and requirments for ideological purity that are characteristic of many Progressives.
IF you think Clinton is great, and you agree with him for the most part, perhaps you should examine your political label. OH but I did. You call yourself Liberal. So why do you feel I am abusing your positions?
I do NOT equate Liberal with Progressive. I am a Liberal. I am very liberal, but as liberal as I am. I share little in common with the Progressives I am ranting against. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself more with “Progressives. LOL I lived in SF bay area for 17yrs, the heartland of Progressive politics. That time taught me the big differences between the two groups. In fact the distance between Liberal and Progressive is often as great as the distance between Conservative and Liberal.
You ‘“understand” how some Progressives CANNOT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIM AND BUSH???
Kerry was THE MOST LEFT WING Presidential candidate EVER (based on his ratings). Yet he was NOT Progressive enough for them. That says a lot about how extreme they are.
Whether Kerry said it or not, his top priority was to end the war ASAP. He hoped that those progressives would understand it would be suicide to come out as extremely as they demanded on the Iraq War.
Unfortunately yet another Liberal Democrat, Kerry, paid for his dependence on the Left Wing Progressive extremist types.
When Kerry needed that support, those types turn on him and start ripping into him for NOT SAYING what they wanted him to say exactly the way they wanted him to say it. The price of their support was too high to pay.
Considering all that is known about Kerry’s VERY LIBERAL voting record, one would have to be blind, as in blinded by their own righteousness to NOT be able to see any difference between Kerry and Bush.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 25, 2005 at 12:16 AM You assume I did not read what you wrote: a false conclusion. Once again, Clinton gave the clear impression that he was a beacon of middle class values and even voiced opposition to the nascent NAFTA accord. He reneged on his stance once he became president.
We see things very differently. The Democratic party has no ideas because the DLC adopted as a matter of policy to embrace unregulated globalisation and other conservative economic policies. Is it just me or has the Democratic Party had the lowest number of Senators in over 50 years? Does this not coincide with the rise of the DLC and its corporate politicians? Can you honestly say that Tom Daschle was that different than John Thune? Daschle was a spineless capitulator who embraced Bush’s Iraq policy and opposed gay marriage. He still lost!!!
Clearly you have not heard any of Kerry’s stump speeches. He endorsed the idea of pre-emptive war, and he would not repeal all of Bush’s tax cuts despite the fact they destoyed the federal surplus. Kerry supported nearly every one of Bush’s major policies: NCLB, Iraq War, Patriot Act, shall I continue? Kerry was ripped to shreds by the GOP and the mainstream media because he offered no alternative to Bush’s Iraq policy. I’ll send in more troops, train the Iraqis faster, and kill the insurgents more efficiently rang quite hollow in many ears, including mine. I still voted for the guy, but with a pinched nose. Kerry’s stance on health care: not universal coverage, but tax credits for businesses that provide health insurance to their employees. It does nothing to keep costs down or improve quality of care. How is that liberal??!! Edwards was even further to the right when it came to Bush’s Iraq policy. He fully embraced it and even wrote that criticism of such a policy was not useful to resolve the situation.
Kerry was not the most left-wing president ever if you go by the National Journal ratings: he wasn’t even close. What was the criteria to define “liberal” in the first place according to the source from which you purportedly received your information? It was common knowledge that the delegates to the Democratic Convention were far more liberal than their candidate. Dean was the man until the media ripped him to shreds over his post Iowa pep speech.
Your definition of elite is quite abnormal and rare becuase elite in my book connotes a sense of power and influence which progressives do not have and have not had for over thirty years. The Constitution was an example of rich men helping the masses?? BS! I guess if you think equating a slave with 3/5 of a person and not increasing the size of the voter bloc to include more than white, landholding men is liberal then you need help. Was it not Washington who helped suppress Shay’s Rebellion violently?
Posted by Liberal on Jul 25, 2005 at 12:42 AM Kerry did not have the most liberal voting record ever in the Senate according to the National Journal. He never became president. My error. Why was the presidency decided so much by values? When economics and foreign policy are not left on the table what else do people have to differentiate? See my point johnnyeccentrix?
Posted by Liberal on Jul 25, 2005 at 12:47 AM From a dear friend:
Palast gives the kind of lesson in Economics 101 that the American people
need to hear day after day. Right now, there are still too many who believe
“free markets” consist of destroying the American manufacturing sector,
destroying the middle class, and kowtowing to the non-free-market Chinese
dictatorship.
Anything short of that equals, we’re told, “protectionism.”One point I never hear anyone make, even supposed “experts,” is that a lot of
this is about that all important market share. If China can subsidize its
industries to the point that they cause American manufacturing to shut down
(which it’s succeeding at admirably), they can capture and control “market
share”
on a wide variety of products. Once American manufacturing is gone, it’s not
coming back. By closing their factories here and setting up shop in China,
US manufacturers are handing the Chinese, gratis, their advanced technology.
That means within just a couple of years, Chinese firms can manufacture the
technologically based items some of our most advanced industries depended upon.And they may control much of the world’s market share for those products.
What will Chinese-based US manufacturers do then? The US corporate owners
won’t be needed, and their firms will gradually find their sales drying up,
their market share vanishing, and their stock tanking. That is, unless they
work
a deal to benefit the Chinese government as long as they get a huge cut of the
profits. The Chinese would be amenable to that kind of bribe-based deal, as
would our corporate chieftans.If there were anything resembling a free market in the world, once the US
middle class is destroyed, US manufacturers would find themselves out of
business
because all that lovely refinancing-derived cash will disappear and they’ll
find third world customers can’t afford their products. I can’t predict what
will happen, but my gut feeling is that somehow the very wealthiest and most
powerful in the world will come out smelling like a rose while 95% of the
world’s population suffers increasing poverty and desperation. Including those
lock-stepping GOP voters and DLC Democrats.
Posted by merrill on Jul 25, 2005 at 1:11 AM I DID NOT Say Kerry had the Most liberal Voting Record in the Senate. I ONLY SAID CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. (McGovern Might have beat him out, but if he did not by much)
They are NOT the same thing. Saying one DOES NOT imply the other.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 25, 2005 at 1:40 AM Social Security Vs. Wall Street
In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush is lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud.
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/0505orr.html
For those who wish to play Wall Street the opportunity is there at least 5 days a week. Leave social security alone.
Posted by merrill on Jul 25, 2005 at 2:15 AM Liberal:
Amazing how you use the Middle Class as a stand in when you describe Clinton betraying Progressives.
Progressive IS NOT a synonym for Middle Class.
The TYPICAL Middle class person sees the typical Progressive as a loud mouthed, judgmental, pretentious, God-hating, cynical, extreme environmentalist, vegetarian. Who makes it their cause to make the Middle Class pay $10/gallon gas in order to make sure Americans pay for the true costs of using oil.
There are few Middle Class people who would accept a Progressive speaking for them, save for the very rare (in terms of total #s) actual Middle Class Progressive. LOL
If you are truly a Left Progressive, I am not surprised you choose one or two issues and decide a man with impeccable LEFT credentials like Kerry is NOT worthy of your support. Disagreeing with Kerry over the war is NOT enough to justify completely disregarding his otherwise VERY LIBERAL voting record. He has a record you can look at. Instead you ONLY WANT TO BELIEVE HIS STUMP SPEECHES? Give me a break.
YES I CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN John Thune and Thom Daschle.
If you can’t, it only indicates the extent to which your views are way out of the mainstream of American politics. The Mainstream is defined as Strict Conservative to Liberal. The rest make up only a few percentage points of the American police body. They by definition are NOT mainstream.
IF you do come from the EXTREME LEFT WING PROGRESSIVE movement, I do understand why you are blind to the difference. Left Wing Progressive politics are rigid and extreme. Left Progressive politics is MORE WIDELY separated from typical Liberal Politics (like Clinton and Kerry) than it is from the typical conservative.
For the overwhelming majority of Americans the differences between the two are enough. For many it’s too much
So to you, I can see why you see no difference between a liberal like Clinton or Kerry and a conservative like Bush. If you are like that, then I know you are honest when you say you cannot see any difference between the religious conservative Thune and the Moderate/liberal Democrat Daschle.
If that is typical of your views, we would not have anything to discuss. We will not agree. I AM VERY LIBERAL. I support many Progressive issues, BUT I FALL WELL short of being a doctrinaire Left Progressive. I’d rather spend my time with moderates and conservatives. Who live in the same neighborhood, than I would work with someone living on a different planet. LOL
I learned a long time ago. THERE IS NO SUCH THING as working with Doctrinaire Leftist Progressive. One only WORKS FOR, not with Left Progressives. I have no desire to work for an ideology just as bankrupt as the evil FRight Wing Repugnicans.
That is my whole point. It’s time the Democratic Party, a party of Liberals and Moderate put their foot down, and tell the uncompromising, rigidly doctrinaire Left Progressives to take a hike. The damage they do with their backstabbing ways is far greater than the measly #s they NEVER produce at election time. They never produce those numbers, because come election time they vote for Nader or sit out the election totally disproving the notion that they are the key to the balance.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 25, 2005 at 2:23 AM Johnny Eccentrix- so what if Kerry did? How many of the recent Democratic presidential nominees have been a U.S. Senator at the time? Not since McGovern over 30 years ago. You cannot compare the record of Kerry with that of Gore or Clinton becasue they held vastly different politcal offices at the time of their campaigns. Who knows how they would have voted. Plus the statement about Kerry being the most liberal senator WAS the accusation made against him by the GOP in the campaign. There never was an issue made of whether he was more liberal than Gore or Clinton.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 25, 2005 at 2:29 AM A liberal vision embraces the free market but understands that it functions best and in the interests of ALL Americans when properly regulated by local, state, and federal governments. You prove my point about Daschle vs. Thune, you only show the differences between the two in terms of social issues. THAT WAS ALL THERE WAS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THEM!! THAT WAS WHY DASCHLE LOST!!
Oh, and the myth about progressives being wacko environmentalists and vegetarians is not true at all. I had pork chops for dinner tonight, johnny eccentrix. You have the right-wing spin machine and echo chamber to thank for that. The GOP addresses voters as consumers, not workers and so warps them against any government regulation of big business. Remember the Lincoln Bedroom scandal with Clinton? He let the Chiquita Brands International CEO sleep in the room at the time the company was spraying pesticides on its workers in Central America. NO American would approve of that behavior if it became common knowledge. Clinton also signed DOMA, an anti-gay statute that makes it easier for red states to nullify marriage licenses given to out-of-state gay couples.
You sound like a “New Republic” Democrat. I bet you think that the Dems would win if they adopted as hard a line against terrorism as they did against Communism 50 years ago. Where did that get us? Two quagmires in East Asia and lost political capitol that could have been used to improve the quality of life here at home.
Since the media only focuses on soundbites from stump speeches as part of their political coverage that is what most Americans have to go by when choosing a candidate. So they are important. Edwards was extremely conservative when it came to dealing with terrorism- introspection need not apply. Kerry/Edwards were so afraid of being called unpatriotic they tried to attack Bush from the right on national security. What was their campaign slogan? A Stronger America. Really liberal isn’t it johnny eccentrix.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 25, 2005 at 2:51 AM You say you support many progressive issues johnnyeccentrix- prove it. We may end up having more in common than you think. Do you:
1) Support a woman’s right to choose? I do.
2) Support increasing the minimum wage? I do.
3) Support the war in Iraq? I do not.
4) Support using public funds to expand health insurance coverage to the underprivileged? I do.
5) Support fully funding agencies such as OSHA, the IRS, and the SEC? I do.
6) Support stronger environmental safeguards against mercury and CO2 which causes global warming? I do.
7) Support expanding Pell Grants to needy students? I do.
8) Support increased funding for public transportation and higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles? I do.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 25, 2005 at 3:01 AM This article http://www.dollarsandsense.org/0505orr.html
clarifies much about Wall Street vs. Social Security in very comprehensive language.
Posted by merrill on Jul 25, 2005 at 3:13 AM johnnyincentx write: That is my whole point. It’s time the Democratic Party, a party of Liberals and Moderate put their foot down, and tell the uncompromising, rigidly doctrinaire Left Progressives to take a hike. The damage they do with their backstabbing ways is far greater than the measly #s they NEVER produce at election time. They never produce those numbers, because come election time they vote for Nader or sit out the election totally disproving the notion that they are the key to the balance.
You are wrong here. Nader had very little votes in 2004 about the same as the rightwing Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates garnered. Most progressives voted ABB (anybody but Bush) and went Kerry.
Personally I’m of the opinion you’re a Republican masquerading as a Liberal to stir up trouble here. You’re idea to dump progressives is just an idea to keep the Democratic Party in disarray. The “success” of the Republican Party is due to doing just the opposite and embrace the far-right parts of their ideology such as the religious fundementalists.
Progressives are not the backstabbers of the Democrats, just the opposite the centrists were the backstabbers. Centrists have voted in opposition to labor on issues such as NAFTA. Centrists took that labor campaign money and flushed it down the toilet, that’s backstabbing.
Kerry on Iraq did not take an oppositional stance on Iraq during his campaign at a time when the country became equally divided about the war. If the opposing party’s leading candidate can’t stand up and oppose the incumbent on an issue (Iraq) that had half the country in opposition then we don’t have an opposition party. What’s the point to having a two-party system if on such an important issue as Iraq both presidential candidates essentially have the same promises?
But progressives went ABB anyway. They in fact supported Kerry way beyond what he deserved. As Liberal stated he held his nose and voted Kerry, as did I. There were plenty of us nose holders sacrificing our principles for a hoped for greater good of defeating Bush.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 25, 2005 at 3:17 AM Liberal writes of johnnyincentx; “You prove my point about Daschle vs. Thune, you only show the differences between the two in terms of social issues.”
Ah, the cultural war. The great American divider.
Stupidly of me, but it took some time to finally realize why we have a cultural war. The simple explaination is that the cultural war is nothing but a way for the elites to get the masses to argue between ourselves while ignoring the common denominator of class economics. The rich get richer and the politicians get more powerful while the rest of us argue about morality and forget that our real incomes continue to erode.
Naturally the Republicans who tend to be more married to corporate leaders drum the morality issues more than Democrats, but enough Dems aren’t upset that they get to use a fight back against Reps stance to win in their deep blue regions.
These moral issues (abortion, gay marriage, stem cells, etc.) should be addressed in conservative rhetoric, get government off our backs. Why should the government be telling us through laws whether gays can marry or a woman what reproduction decisions to make? These are personal decisions and the government should butt out, plain and simple. The left needs to sing out loud and clear, “Government, get out of our personal life. Get off our backs.” And as Rep. Jan Schakowsky says, “repeat, repeat, repeat.”
Posted by Jon B on Jul 25, 2005 at 5:21 AM LIBERAL:
Your list is simple and clean, BUT without context. Let me add a little REAL WORLD context. Yes I’m talking about those annoying silly details Progressives just hate acknowledging.
1) Support a woman’s right to choose? I do.
DEMOCRATS generally support this, but a significant minority do not. The right to choose is not believed to be unlimited. (BASED ON SURVEYS - NOT my opinion) It should be made as early as possible in the pregnancy. Beyond the point of Fetal viability it becomes illegal except in extreme circtumstances.
PROGESSIVES - generally believe in abortion on demand anytime similar to what they have in Russia. A good synopsis of the Progressive view of pregnancy can be read in “Our Body Ourselves.” In this timeless, Progressive Tome a fetus is likened to a parasite, and deserves no more consideration UNTIL after it is born. It’s viability is a non-issue.
2) Support increasing the minimum wage? I do.DEMOCRATS Support an increase of the MINIMUM wage.
PROGRESSIVES Push for a “LIVING WAGE” even for jobs that are not meant to be permanent. Examples are San Francisco, Berkeley and Santa Monica. The salary of a part-time employee is $9-$10/hr with benefits. That’s normal in Europe, and I wish we were more like that, but we ain’t. The people who end up paying for these wages are not the rich but the everyday citizen of those cities.
3) Support the war in Iraq? I do not.Democrats: initially supported the war, but over time have moved in the other direction. Most support a measured, over-time withdrawal based on an exit plan to ensure the least chaos. Now most oppose however few would agree with the methods of Progressives.
Progessives: NEVER thought the war was right. They believe in immediate, complete disengagement. This is usually said in the context of evil USA stop opressing the world clap trap.
4) Support using public funds to expand health insurance coverage to the
underprivileged? I do.Democrats are more concerned with making sure ALL Americans have health insurance. In that context those without will have their minimum needs met. Democrats keep the costs in mind.
Progressives want total unlmited healthcare for all. They see it as an inaliable right. What the neglect to pay Attn. to is the cost. Since it’s a “right” to a progressive no price is too high.
5) Support fully funding agencies such as OSHA, the IRS, and the SEC? I do.You’re trying to encapsulate several huge issues. Some of which Dems and Progs could totally agree, some however they are diametrically opposed. Separate them and I can explain, and YES I DO know what they stand for.
6) Support stronger environmental safeguards against mercury and CO2 which
causes global warming? I do.Most people support this, THIS IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE ONLY issue. As I recall issues surrounding Mercury surfaced in the 50s. C02 concerns also has been around for decades. These are very mainstream.
7) Support expanding Pell Grants to needy students? I do.Define needy. I have a feeling what you would consider “needy” is far different than what a Democrat would. As for my personal preference I think college should be free. However just because I disagree with the standard Democratic line, doesn’t mean I will turn on them completely. A Prog would in a heartbeat. If it’s their pet issue.
8) Support increased funding for public transportation and higher fuel
efficiency standards for automobiles? I do.
Again the devil is in the details. I’ve said over and over, one of the things that makes working with LEFT Progs. impossible is their inflexibility. Democrats want this, but they are willing to work with the Auto industry to get them to agree to a long-term goal. Progs. usually demand the Gov’t make all their goals manditory, and demand lazy car makers institute those changes completely disregarding any market or financial restraints they might fact.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 25, 2005 at 2:51 PM Jon B said:
............Personally I’m of the opinion you’re a Republican
OH THAT IS REALLY LOW to stoop to such insults. LOL. I am not a Republican, not even close.
I am a Liberal (LIBERAL) Democrat. AS I have said about 4x. The differences between a LIBERAL MAINSTREAM Democrat and a LEFT PROGRESSIVE is WIDER than the difference between a LIBERAL and a STRICT CONSERVATIVE.
.............You’re idea to dump progressives is just an idea to keep the Democratic Party in disarray.
I have been extremely clear. I AM NOT talking about ALL PROGRESSIVES. I am specifically talking about the extreme Progressives LEFT
.............The Democratic Party succeeds when it represents the mainstream of America.
I Agree totally. By definition, PROGRESSIVE IS NOT MAINSTREAM. In their own words they are trend setter, trail blazers.
.........The “success” of the Republican Party is due to doing just the opposite
..........WRONG, It is due to the Repugnicans being EXTREMELY POLITICAL. Everything they do, Fundies incl. is POLITICALLY TUNED FIRST. LEFT PROGRESSIVES REFUSE TO PLAY POLITICS. To a LEFT Progressive being political is being a hypocrite.
..............Progressives are not the backstabbers of the Democrats.
The DAMAGE progressives did in 2000 will be with us for 50yrs. Their support of Kerry was TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE. Their demands on Clinton damaged him even before he took office. Gay Progs immediately demanding Clinton allow gays in the military. He didn’t plan dealing with the issue immediately, but was forced into a no win battle with those who opposed this, and it focused the FRight Wing like a magnifying glass. From that point onward, it was a countdown to the Republican take over.
................Kerry on Iraq did not take an oppositional stance on Iraq during his campaign
Kerry’s LONG RECORD should give any fair minded peson comfort in knowing IF ELECTED, KERRY would have done was 180 degrees different from what Bush. Your feelings are typical of a Progressive. YOU DEMANDED KERRY say exactly what you want, the way you want it, anything less makes him a “war supporter.”
...........If the opposing party’s leading candidate can’t stand up and oppose the
incumbent on an issue (Iraq) that had half the country in opposition then we
don’t have an opposition party.So for you the ONLY ISSUE that mattered was the Iraq war. Strange I was thinking Supreme Court when I voted for Kerry. He could have been 100% in agreement with Bush and I wouldn’t have cared. I wanted him to pick the SC justices.
......................................What’s the point to having a two-party
systemTHE POINT IS - THAT’S ALL WE HAVE. We have to work with it. Our constitution is written to create such a system. Bemoaning this is about as worthwhile as complaining you don’t have wings.
..............But progressives went ABB anyway. They in fact supported Kerry way beyond
what he deserved.The DAMAGE PROGRESSIVE SUPPORT OF NADER IN 2000 WILL BE FELT FOR 50 YEARS. IN YOUR OWN INTEREST, Hold your nose, tepid support in 2004 does not redeem Progressives as allies.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 25, 2005 at 3:40 PM Johnnyeccentrix- Nader was not responsible for the Florida fiasco. You have Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, and the Supreme Court to thank for that. It is clear under any circumstances Gore still won Florida if the recount authorized by the Florida Supreme Court was allowed to contunue. Your castigation of the Nader crowd is disingenuous and overlooks the election fraud that took place with plenty of evidence to all those interested. I guess you are not one of them…
Just so you know johnnyeccentrix, for the current minmum wage of $5.15/hr would have to be well over $8 today to have the same real value as it did in 1997. Progressive calls to increase it to that level are not extremists, they can do the math!! If the minimum wage were raised to $7/hr by 2007 as Kerry proposed, it would not even result in an increase in purchasing power for those affected compard to the wage’s 1997 level!!
Since when has the automobile industry in North America done anything but dig its heels into the ground and kick and scream when it comes to increasing fuel efficiency standards. The Big Three have made miniscule progress in introducing hybrid cars and have conceded that burgeoning market to the Japanese like so many other backward-looking American companies have done in the past. No, working with the Big Three will result only in a stalemate while the problems of oil consumption and global warming only worsen.
Progressives do not advocate their policies irrationally but because they know what works!! Our assertions are made through careful study and fact collection. You generalize this constituency. Many democratic initiatives were adopted from more progressive groups historically. Social security, a very popular program, was first advocated by the SOCIALIST party in the 1920s.
You say that extreme fringes of this party will never gain widespread acceptance. Tell that to the radical evangelical right and Laffer Curve/supply side theorists of the 1970s when they began to mobilize. These “fringe” groups now dominate the GOP today and have squelched out moderate voices in that party and have done so for the last 25 years.
The progressive movement is not as radical as this group from the other side of the spectrum. We seek not to impose myopic moral values onto everyone but rather seek to re-democratize this country and give EVERYONE a greater voice in how thier government functions. Seems rather in line with the Constitution doesn’t it? Progressives seek to build a sustainable economy ASAP because time is of the essence. We as a nation cannot afford to cater to the reactionary corporate circle any longer.
Finally, johnnyeccentrix, you assume way too much of me. I am from the Bible Belt and lived next to a trailer park for a good chunk of my life. I know how the real world works and do not advocate pie-in-the-sky utopian theories. The neocons in the the government do however.P.S. The Iraq War was one of the most important issues of the 2004 election. I listened to Kerry quite frequently and he NEVER gave any hint of turning Iraq 180 degrees if elected. Because of that he did not differentiate himself from Bush on that vital issue. Most progressives I know do not advocate an immediate withdrawal of troops with noone there to replace them. They want to get the American face off of the occupation and destroy any imperial ambitions this government might have for that country. Sounds reasonable to me. Oh, and this country’s foreign policy is not driven by noble ideals but out of perceived economic/corporate interest. If it is not good in intent, then how else can it be classified but bad?
Posted by Liberal on Jul 25, 2005 at 4:21 PM The most ideal solution would be to eliminate the Republican-wannabe pussy Dems and the self-righteous hypocritical, religion-crazed Republicans and start from scratch….
Posted by g-love on Jul 25, 2005 at 6:43 PM Liberal, you are right that “Gore still won Florida if the recount authorized by the Florida Supreme Court was allowed to contunue. Your castigation of the Nader crowd is disingenuous and overlooks the election fraud that took place with plenty of evidence to all those interested.”
Out of the 67 Florida counties 40 were majority Democrat registration, some even by 80%, yet mysteriously votes shifted from Kerry to Bush in the 2004 election. In some counties, Bush received almost twice as many Republican votes as there were registered Republicans. Here are two graphic examples to prove how easy it was for computer hackers, especially those who know the Diebold machines that leave no paper trail, to shift votes:
Official voter registration from Bradford and Baker Counties as of October 4, 2004, and official voter returns on November 2:
Bradford:
4,168 Registered Republicans
9,039 Registered Democrats
Baker:
3,126 Registered Republicans
8,926 Registered Democrats
Election Day November 2 returns:
Bush total votes in Bradford County November 2, 2004 = 7,553
Kerry total votes in Bradford County November 2, 2004 = 3,244Bush total votes in Baker County November 2, 2004 = 7,738
Kerry total votes in Baker County November 2, 2004 = 2,180
Bush got over 3,000 more votes than registered Republicans in Bradford County and over 4,500 more votes than registered Republicans in Baker County. In order for this to happen you would have to believe that thousands of registered Democrats switched and voted for Bush and most of those who favored Kerry simply didn’t show up at the polls. However, when you look at the other minor parties like Nader’s and Badnarik, there were no such shifts.The really bad news is that 2008 will probably be no different. I say this simply because I have not read or seen any recent articles pushing for fail-safe, tamper-proof, quadruple security voting systems that leave a paper trail of votes which could be recounted in the case of a close election.
As we all know now, Bush’s new Supreme Court justice nominee, John Roberts, made a special trip to Florida in 2000 to meddle in the vote recount and give Florida governor Jeb Bush legal advice on how to guarantee a G. W. Bush win. What have we been hearing from the Bush-lovers about judicial acitivism? If ever there was a blatant example of partisan, judicial activism, John Roberts is it.
The recount of course, was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court once Gore began pulling ahead in the full recount of all 67 counties which was ordered by the Florida State Supreme Court. So much for respecting States’ rights. And so much for honesty and integrity.
Posted by Richard2 on Jul 25, 2005 at 9:17 PM Jan Shakowski’s optimistic message is a shot in the arm. “I am optimistic; history is on our side. Rather than the beginning of a right-wing shift, I believe we are enduring its last gasp. This is a moment of opportunity for progressives; change is in the air.”
As buoyant as that message is, the biggest obstacles I see are right there in black and white. According to past election statistics about 95% of the incumbents are returned to office. Few, if any experts, believe that Democrats can take back the House in 2006 or 2008, again because of incumbency preference by the voters. In 2006 there are 32 Senate seats up for reelection, 17 of them Democrat and 15 Republican. According to most political experts it is highly unlikely there will be a sea change in either the House or the Senate.
If anything, with the fraud, manipulation, computer hackers, Republican poll thuggery added to the rampant corruption in the entire Republican Party, they may even gain seats and give Bush a filibuster-proof Congress for his final two years.
Since John Kerry lost the 2004 election we have been told over and over by the Republican cheerleaders that we have no chance in the future and they point to the past election losses. They omit the fact that the majority of people did NOT vote for Bush in 2000 and that the 2004 election was highly suspect due to the paperless trail, computer voting machines which gave the key swing states of Ohio and Florida to G. W. Bush. Interestingly enough, though Ohio historically is usually one of the first states to be announced on election night, it wasn’t until the wee hours of the morning that it went to Bush, but not until after one county, I think it was Fulton, declared a “terror alert” which effectively shut down monitoring of the provisional ballot counting when the doors were closed to reporters and observers.
If Jan Shakowski’s optimism translates into votes at the polls, the very first thing that needs to be done before 2006, is to guarantee that all voter systems leave a paper trail in each and every state. We have read time and again that several states have declared that they won’t be ready to implement a fail-safe, paper trail system in 2006 but they “promise” to have that in place by 2008. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Posted by Richard2 on Jul 25, 2005 at 10:16 PM I certainly agree with Richard2.
There is another faint hope, a populist type turning against Republicans.
Opinion polls are going south for the Repugs. More than 50% now believe we were lied to war. Only 30% trust the Republican Congress. Upwards of 70% now believe in some type of troop withdrawal from Iraq. And the Rove-gate is turning out to be a much bigger story than I ever expected the media to latch onto and Americans are finding it alarming.
In other words the progressive message about Bush’s honesty that started early in the Bush term “stolen election”, continued after the start of the Iraq War “Bush lied, people died” and is now part of Rove-gate has gotten through. Either that or the voluminous amount of falsehoods eventually has penetrated the average American’s mind.
The Dems might do well running as hard as possible in ALL Republican House districts with a underlying general theme of “throw the bums out.”
Even election fraud can be beaten and has been beaten in our history.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 25, 2005 at 10:55 PM Just read an article about a recent event by the DLC in Columbus, OH attended by most of the major names of the leadership, Hillary, Bayh, Vilsace, Warner, Al From, Bruce Reed, etc.
“Centrists who contend Democrats cannot retake the White House until voters trust the party to protect them said Sunday the Army should expand by 100,000 soldiers and that colleges should open their campuses to military recruiters.”
As a parent of two boys 16 and 17 you can’t imagine the anger I have when I read this. We already have recruiters in their high school with additional offices less that 1/4 mile from the school and we are bombarded with direct mailings from the military. Now these Republicans in the Democratic Party want more access to the teens when they go off to college.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we did some chickenhawk checking on some of these “centrists” whether we might find a general lack of military participation as we see with the Republican chickenhawks. Sign up their sons and daughters first and then I might believe they are sincere. Chelsea Clinton is of military age, start with her.
I emailed the DLC and explained my concern that I’m tired of the blast of military advertising towards the two boys. That I didn’t want them fighting and possibly dieing in the oil wars of the 21st century.
I served in the Army, I did my time so I have every right to criticize the chickenhawk politicians. And I know a “just war” when I see one.
~~~~~~~
Further I want to address some previous comments about far-left progressives, which I have evolved into. We aren’t so stiff that we don’t understand politics and pragmatism.I was certainly against the Iraq War from the day the plans leaked out of the White House. I smelled a snow job from day one, but funny thing much of the country now agrees with me. But back then I was called unpatriotic and told to move out of the country.
But SOMEBODY had to begin the conversation. There were few of us back then willing to question the motives of the Bushies toward Iraq. It took courage to say things that others didn’t want to agree with. Pragmatically I knew back then how the political pendulum can swing. So what was then a far-left viewpoint is now basically mainstream.
So I don’t want anyone lecturing me on progressives damaging our country or some political party. The damage is being done by those in power, as always.
Progressives took up a very unpopular stand, we were being vilified, now we should be saying “I told you so!” but we haven’t won. Despite polls showing mass support for some type of troop withdrawal, the powers that be (including the DLC) want this war to rage on. Now we get the same claptrap we heard before withdrawal from Viet Nam. “We don’t want to empower the insurgents. We don’t want to appear that we lost. We don’t want the country to break out into civil war.”
Guess what, all of that is already occurring. Insurgents are empowered, we have lost, and Iraq is experiencing a low grade civil war. But the DLC wants more Army, I wonder what for? Oh yeah, to look like they can protect voters. Progressives can see through the DLC’s gauzy politics and so will the right, they don’t deserve any election victories.
Progressives will eventually win, it may take a few more years of losses, maybe even a decade or two. But if the far-right conservatives can plan a three decade long revolution and finally win, so can we. As far I’m concerned the DLC can join the Republican “big tent” and the Democratic Party will have to suffer some more losses.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 25, 2005 at 11:58 PM The last couple of posts by Richard2 and Jon B are some of the best I have EVER read on this site, and that is saying something. Richard2 is right to point out the hypocrisy of the GOP mantra for “states rights” only when it suits their interests. The same goes for the anti-abortion crowd. To these people, states rights is not a principle but a strategy to enforce their will onto the rest of us. Richard2 does a good job of laying out the serious problems with touch screen voting. Remember, its not who votes that counts but who counts the votes, in this case far-right Diebold. Did you know that Chuck Hagel was CEO of a voting machine company when he first ran for Senate and that EIGHTY PERCENT of the votes were counted by his company’s machines.
Jon B deftly illustrates the TRUE problem with the Democratic Party, the DLC and its DINO offspring. It should be clear by now that lurching farther to the right IS NOT the way to win future elections. Bill Clinton’s success had more to do with Ross Perot in 1992 and the problems Bob Dole caused for himself in 1996. Remember the “fall” Dole had on the campaign trail. That raised questions about his health and helped Clinton.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 26, 2005 at 1:00 AM Liberal,
‘It should be clear by now that lurching farther to the right IS NOT the way to win future elections. ‘
But it is the way to protect your sinecure from the multinationals and the AIPAC.
These DINO Demoplicans aren’t being paid to win elections, they’re being paid to take up all the space and breathe up all the air a real opposition party, one representative of the American people, would need to functon while at the same time steadily moving the “mainstream” political conversation further and further to the right.
They must be defeated in primary elections… perhaps wooden stakes driven through their whorish political hearts… if the Democratic Party is ever to be reborn.
Meanwhile… proceed without the Demoplican Party, as well as within it and with the Rebublicrat Party, to END THE WAR!
Posted by John Francis Lee on Jul 26, 2005 at 7:50 AM Liberal is exactly right about how Clinton won in 1992. Further I’ve always wondered if Perot might have won that election if he hadn’t dropped out of the race temporarily. Remember he accused the poppy Bushies of spying on his daughters wedding? Many voters lost their trust in him, some thought he was nuts. Heck, I thought he was nuts, he was leading in the polls around that time.
And Bob Dole was really just a body in ‘96, Georgie Boy was already being groomed for 2000. The 2000 race was the neo-conservatives focal point even four years earlier, if you ask me or maybe ask Rove. The main Repug strategy for ‘96 was to concentrate on Congressional races.
~~~~~~
I’ve also thought a bit more about the attack against far-left progressives from johnnyeccentx.So many times in history progressives have taken up causes despite the unpopularity of the cause and despite party politics. They didn’t worry if the movers and shakers of the party they may have been loosely affiliated with cared if that party was damaged. The party was the lesser consideration, the issue came first. Progressives took action and just hoped the party followed later.
Take the ‘60s civil rights battles for instance. Northerners came down to the south to help, despite the dangers. There were beatings and murders that were endured to help a cause. Politically the Dixiecrats started leaving the Democratic Party because of those northerners interfering which weakened the party, but it was good riddance to those racists. The party may have become weaker but it became more righteous.
Progressives were the early protesters of the Viet Nam war as well. Verbal abuse, harassment, beatings and murders happened to them throughout the protest years, yet they helped turn a country. They didn’t worry about political parties, they worried about ending the war.
In the last few elections when I looked down my completed ballot there were many Green Party choices that I made. That doesn’t mean I’m a party member. It means I like what they are saying and am rewarding them in my small way. I don’t care if someday the Green Party supplants the Democratic Party or whether the Dems co-opt the Green message, I care that the issues become important.
Elections are basically sideshows for progressives. Taking action is what matters. Living a progressive life matters. Educating ourselves and then helping to educate others matter. Talking to others matters. We have dreams that we want to become reality and we do what we can to make that reality happen.
Here’s my latest dream that may become reality. A recent Zogby poll found that 42% of Americans would like Bush impeached. I remember back in 2002 I signed an “impeach Bush” petition feeling back then that it was only a pipe dream. But now my dream has expanded, it must include Cheney in a package impeachment deal.
But we can thank progressive Democrats for getting on the ball. My home stater John Conyers chairing the Downing Street Memo hearings in a basement. Henry Waxman chairing a hearing on the Rove leak, this time in a real room. It won’t be long before a hearing into Bush crimes might actually be chaired on the House and/or Senate floor. Now there is where a Senate fillibuster needs to be used. Fillibuster all Republican business until hearings into the Bush/Iraq War conspiracy is given the floor.
I can dream can’t I?
Posted by Jon B on Jul 26, 2005 at 2:51 PM JON B:
I agree with you on “Historical” Progressives, The times you speak about are when “Progressives” came from all walks of life.
The LEFT Progressives are the same in label only.
Connecting the LEFT Progs of today with the 60’s Progs, is no more sensible than giving RAP Music artists of today credit for the civil rights movement.
I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area 17yrs A CENTER OF USA PROGRESSIVE ACTIVISM. I’m also news junkie beyond belief. My experiences there are the source of what YOU think is my hatred of all things Progressive. LOL
Merely saying an issue is “Progressive” does NOT make it so.
Few blacks who give credit for the civil rights movement to Progressives of any time. Most blacks would give credit to themselves alone. Your comment would be seen as racist.
Progressives only convince themselves claiming Environmentalism as their own. Especially if you examine the environmentally insane Prog. agenda in SF. Progressives are desperate to dismantle the monstrous evil called Hetch Hetchy. It’s major crime, beneath its waters lies a valley to rival Yosemite in beauty. OH NO!!!! This crime was committed to provide San Franciscans and neighboring towns with the cleanest, clearest, most delicious water in the world. What self-indulgent horror is the Progressive Environmentalists response. LOL
To Progressives Hetch Hetchy must be destroyed, free the beauty hidden under it’s waters. Such beauty requires ANY and ALL sacrifice. It is such a crime against nature. It JUST MAKES SENSE to dismantle Hetch Hetchy. It needs NO FURTHER justification FOR THEM. Yet those selfish, indolent San Franciscans want that justification. Progressives say other water supplies are available. They propose replacing SF super clean water supply with unreliable supplies of dirty, pesticide laden water supply from the delta. Sure it tastes like algae laden mud, but it will be treated with enough chlorine to kill anything. :)
Besides SF will be able to stand proud, because they proved they are not environmental hypocrytes. By drinking the riverine toilet water from the Delta, San Franciscans will share the experience of the rest of th world. Progressives don’t stop giving. Sometimes they suggest a way will be found to help San Francisco with the decades long cleanup of the valley!!! Gee thanks! This kind of pie in the sky thinking is what alienates the overwhelming majority of people.
I’ve been to Yosemite many times. It’s stunning, but I will take a glass of clean, delicious (UNfiltered) San Francisco Hetch Hechy lake water over an opportunity to give future generations the opportunity see what’s under that lake. Future generations who will hate you for eliminating water they will need in that very overheated future.
Progressives in the Bay Area (funded by FRight Wing Repugnicans in part) received unexpected support from the Repugnican Governor. Far be it for him to pass up using yet another weapon provided by Progressives to threaten Bay Area Democrats with. The Bay Area is where the central leadership of the CA Democratic establishment lies. The possibility of draining Hetch Hetchy scares them like nothing else. The Governor is then quick to say give in to me, or else I will support the Progressives. Democrats refuse to budge. In response the Repugnican governor decides to elavate the issue, and starts holding hearings on draining Hetch Hetchy.
Suddenly the impossible nightmare of most San Franciscans looks possible. A nightmare dreamed up by Progressive Environmentalists. Who spent years trying to figure out how San Franciscans can sacrifice in order to make the world a better place (as they see it.)
Those same progressives run cover for the Repugnican Governor. Blinded by their own righteousness Progressives again make dangerous allies and blind to the Govnr’s true goals They happily say this is just an honest caring example of the Governator’s environmental beliefs. Yeah right!
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 26, 2005 at 4:49 PM Johnnyeccentrix, I cannot speak for the progressive movement in San Fransisco, a city of a mere 720,000 that is very small geographically. What I do know is that the voices of the progressive movement such as the Nation, TomPaine.com, and this website, are not inflexible and do an excellent job of framing the issues in terms of rockhard American values: security, justice, and community. Not all aqueducts are worth their cost in financial and environmental terms. Just look at the Colorado River Aqueduct a few hudred miles south. That serves the greater L.A. area. As a result of its water being strewn about far and wide to most of the western metropolises, the river rarely reaches its mouth and has decimated native peoples who relied on river water in the delta for their livelihood.
I simply cannot accept your claims at face value without first independently researching the issue.
As for your assertion about Jon B’s claim that progressives only fought for Civil Rights and not blacks, that is patently absurd. Jon B was merely stating that the progressive movement supported the civil rights movement. They did not take responsibility for it! And many blacks were part of both, certainly Martin Luther King Jr. was. Civil Rights is just as pertinent today as it was forty years ago. Just look at all the voter intimidation in Florida four years ago as evidence.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 27, 2005 at 12:24 AM Liberal
The 10 major dailies (NY Times and Wash Post included) funded a research study into the Florida election. Using the best statical proofs to compensate for the problems in FL, and following proven scientific methods they determined what the most likely outcome of the election in the 2000 FL election. They concluded BUSH DID INDEED WIN FL in 2000, by a razor thin margin of a few hundred votes.
Studies that Analyzed Nader voters then, concluded almost about 60% would have voted for Gore if Nader had NOT been an option. The rest would have stayed home. Based on the studies conclusions and surveys of voters it’s pretty clear, PROGS, and NADER cost Democrats the election in 2000. This study barely received notice when it was released, JUST AFTER 9/11.
The warnings were clear prior to the election. The country was split 50/50. LEFT and MODERATES HAD TO STAY 100% united to win. Significant #s of LEFT PROGS deciding there WAS NO DIFFERENCE between GORE and BUSH went their own way and voted for Nader.
The Progs did cost Gore the 2000 election.
The mistakes in FL 2000 happen all the time, in every election, everywhere. The misfortune was it happened in this particular election. Conspiracy lovers immediately jumped to the conclusion that clear fraud and theft was at the root.
The LEFT PROGS who voted for Nadir were the quickest to cry foul. They can never admit to making a mistake. Besides a stolen, corrupt election fits nicely with their belief that this is a corrupt nation.
I DID NOT CALL Progressive support for a higher minimum wage extremist. I ONLY FLATLY POINTED OUT the BIG difference between the Dems and Progs.
What you further clarified is the DEMOCRATIC position,
The PROG position would make living wages of $11 to $15+ the minimum. Why you give Progs. credit for the Democratic stance I do not know.
I love how you “expand liberally” on my reference to automakers to make it seem like I think they’re swell. I think they are assholes, HOWEVER they are assholes with tons of money and power. Dems recog. the need to include them due to their industrial might Exclude them and you increase the obstacles to obtaining what we want 10x.
I find it humorous that you seek to invalidate my points by saying I am generalizing with your own broader generalizations. Doesn’t EVERY PARTY claim “the desire to give the public a greater voice in how government functions.”
While I despise the religious FRight wing, the were NEVER radicals or fringe, now with the #s they have. They can call 30% of the nation supporters. The # alone makes them MORE mainstream than Progs ever will be. For them Pat Roberts, Jerry Falwell and ilk are A-OK. It’s the Progs. that are evil.
I also have assumed NOTHING about you. I have assumed about LEFT Progressives. I’ve been pretty consistent in referring to LEFT PROGS. \\\\\\
I even wondered why you were so aggresively defending Progs. when you call yourself LIBERAL, and hold liberal positions.PROGS DO NOT call themselves Liberal. They ARE NOT the same. In San Francisco the political spectrum goes from Left Wing - the Progressives to the Right Wing - The Liberals LOL, and they are FAR FAR apart. Please find the lines where I make a direct assumption about YOU PERSONALLY?
IF YOU KNOW NO PROGS who advocate immediate, unconditional withdrawal, THEN YOU DON’T KNOW A PROG.
What you said is your position IS THE LIBERAL ONE, and almost identical to Kerry’s. That being the case, why were you so upset with him?
While Iraq is important, because YOU FEEL IT IS THE #1 issue, DOES NOT make it so. People constantly rank the economy above Iraq, even during the election. It seesawed back and forth.
To me the Supreme Court was the ultimate factor. Who chooses the justices, choose the direction of this nation for at least 50 years. We’ll be out of Iraq for decades by the time we can start to undo the damage Bush SC judges will inflict on this nation.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 27, 2005 at 12:45 AM LIBERAL you said: I cannot speak for the progressive movement in San
Fransisco, a city of a mere 720,000 that is very small geographically.Well you lose tons of credibility with that little statement.
ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE NOT AWARE THAT SAN FRAN Bay Area has one of the highest ratios of Progressives of any major city.
I DID NOT JUST SAY SF, I SAID the San Fran. BAY AREA. This includes the many Prog. areas in the East Bay which together have a population of over 5 million.
In this area, Progs have one of the HIGHEST RATIOS of any area in the USA.
I spoke specifically to the split between Progs and Libs in SF because I know it well. In other places of Prog power, they have eliminated Dems as a force. In fact in Berkeley only after several decades of SINGLE party Prog. rule has opposition started to resurface.
LACKING KNOWLEDGE of this is NOT a defence. If you do not know this, then I doubt if you are truly as aware of Progressive politics nationwide as you say.
Furthermore you constantly defend Progs with the type of behavior I WANT TO SEE. I’d love it if Progs were the types that you refer to.
BECAUSE YOU ARE SO UNFAMILIAR with the broad spectrum of Progressive types, you assume they are all just like liberals.
Maybe one day you’ll get it. LIBERAL IS NOT A SYNONYM for PROGRESSIVE. It’s NOT EVEN CLOSE.
;)
.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 27, 2005 at 12:57 AM Sorry that my lack of omniscience offends you johnnyeccentrix. I am more concerned about progressive politics in my own communtiy and cannot read about what goes on everywhere all the time. Your demands of me are ridiculous.
KERRY NEVER ADVOCATED A WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS FROM IRAQ!! Tell me where he said that, please. The supposed “liberals” in the democratic party, from Bayh to Clinton, are so far to the right that it is hard to see where they end and the GOP begins. Seems like Hillary Clinton and Susan Collins agree on just about everything. All the progressives I personally know do not favor an immediate withdrawal of US. troops. They support House Concurrent Resolution 35 sponosred by Lynn Woolsey of California.
The only people I know of advocating a minimum wage of $11/hr and up are the Socialist and Communist parties! Neither the Nation nor TomPaine.com advocate such a level. The mainstream Democrats support a min. wage of just $7/hr. by 2007, NOT AN AMOUNT THAT WOULD BRING THE PURCHASING POWER OF THE WAGE TO ITS 1997 LEVEL!! You really do not understand Kerry’s positions do you?
A sign of a desperate debater is one getting caught up on semantics. “Liberal” means different things to different people. Liberal to me represents the core values of the Democratic Party forsaken by the center-right DLC. Liberal to the GOP means anything slightly left of the GOP platform. I guess you subscribe to the latter interpretation.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 27, 2005 at 1:18 AM Liberal:
Simply put, you are very different from the politically active “Progressives” I’ve experienced.
Progressives who hold elected offices in San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland, and who use their positions to push the issues I describe.
The issues you hold are in the opposition, and considered appeasement.
To me you are EXACTLY as your name indicates YOU ARE A LIBERAL.
I don’t know of any ELECTED progs. who resemble you. Those that do resemble your beliefs are generally known as Democrats/Liberals. hmmmm.
Maybe you are a Progressive like Christine Todd Whitman is a Repugnican. LOL
It’s clear you think it’s just fine to call yourself progressive. I mean to you they seem one in the same. To you Progressive is just another way to say liberal.
The Progressives, some in elected office, who call themselves proudly progressive don’t call themselves liberal except in the most general sence.
You are right, their ideas are socialist sounding, and guess what THE REAL PROGRESSIVE PERSON has strong socialist leanings.
Are you familiar with the SELF-DESCRIBED “PROGRESSIVE/SOCIALIST/INDEPENDENT” member of the US house from Vermont?
He uses socialist and progressive interchangeably. He doesn’t call himself a liberal. He does not want people to think he and Hillary are political clones.
Of course you are free to call yourself whatever you like. I suspect though the ones who would really give you tremendous grief, are not people like me, but REAL HARDCORE PROGRESSIVES. LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 27, 2005 at 1:44 AM LIBERAL:
Symantecs are such a problem for you (in terms of relating to mine, NOT understanding in general) because you eschew “context.”
I am constantly putting what I say in context. For example I state my feelings on Progressives stem from my years of experience dealing with Progressives, ELECTED PROGRESSIVES.
Being ELECTED, when they define themselves as Progressive they have far greater weight than someone who decides he likes the way progressive sounds and calls himself one.
You DO NOT PROVIDE CONTEXT, NOR do you seem to ACCEPT CONTEXT given to you.
As a result you react to my words as if I am talking about you, because I refer to Progressives.
Hey you call yourself Progressive. So I AM, but you call yourself Progressive outside the context of the word as it is used by ELECTED PROGRESSIVES best in position to define the term and the issues. I have adopted their OWN definitions. I did not just decide Progressive is bad.
I HAVE been super clear what I AM TALKING ABOUT.
Call yourself “Progressive” all you want. Though your name “Liberal” is the truly accurate label for you.
In the real ELECTED WORLD OF PROGRESSIVES (this is context) You are NOT Progressive. You would need some serious re-education to earn that label. LOL They are NOT the same.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 27, 2005 at 1:53 AM I wonder if johnny-in-central-tx isn’t part of the DLC/RNC campaign to grab the Democratic Party.
It seems they’re making a concerted effort to merge their neo-liberal forces with the neo-cons and eliminate any other force in American politics.
They’ll be successful if we don’t take the Democratic Party from these DINOs. They voted more money for Iraq, they voted for the PATRIOT Act. Bayh, Clinton, Kerry and the rest of the Demoplicans have come out in favor of MORE troops for Iraq. They will only continue the Republicrat Al Qaeda recruitment efforts. They are clearly in the thrall of the AIPAC and other corporate “campaign contributors”.
What we have to do is run in the primaries against them, take the party back.
“Progressive” is the word they seem to have chosen to replace “liberal” as label to demonize Americans who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid.
Don’t get mad. Organize. Defeat them in the primaries. Take back the Democratic Party from the neo-liberals. Take back the Republican from the neo-cons for that matter.
No more war.
Posted by John Francis Lee on Jul 27, 2005 at 1:04 PM The DLC has hijacked the name progressive from those who truly deserve it. Does the DLC run “Progressive” Policy Institute ring a bell?
Posted by Liberal on Jul 27, 2005 at 8:49 PM The Democrats’ 2008 Choice
David Sirota
July 27, 2005David Sirota is a writer and veteran political strategist. Sirota’s regular blogs can be viewed at HuffingtonPost and SirotaBlog. This first appeared on HuffingtonPost.
“The 2008 Democratic presidential candidates this week are busy genuflecting at Corporate America’s alter—otherwise known as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Now, it’s true—the DLC is really just a group of Beltway-insulated corporate-funded hacks who have spent the better part of the last decade trying to undermine the Democratic Party’s traditional working class base—a base that had kept Democrats in power for 40 years and now, thanks to the DLC, has been forfeited to the Republicans. Even so, the fact that these presidential candidates feel the need to bow down to the DLC is a troubling sign about whether the Democratic Party is really serious about regaining power in America.
Let’s just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and “free” trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business—even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC’s business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America’s economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda “centrist,” even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda .
Now, you could make a credible argument that the DLC’s corporatization/Republicanization of the Democratic Party was justified, had it led to electoral success for Democrats. Few would argue that today’s split-the-difference Democratic Party hasn’t followed the DLC’s policy direction over the last 10 years. That means the last 10 years of elections really have been a referendum on whether the DLC’s model—regardless of any moral judgements about it—actually wins at the polls.
And that’s when we get to the real problem with the DLC—its policies are BOTH morally bankrupt, and politically disastrous. The rise of the DLC within the Democratic Party has coincided almost perfectly with the decline of the Democratic Party’s power in American politics—a decline that took Democrats from seemingly permanent majority status to permanent minority status. In this last election, just think of Democrats’ troubles in Ohio as a perfect example of this. Here was a state ravaged by massive job loss due to corporate-written “free” trade deals —yet Democrats were unable to capitalize on that issue and thus couldn’t win the state because the DLC had long ago made sure the party helped pass the very trade policies (NAFTA, China PNTR) that sold out those jobs.
To counter, the DLC holds up Bill Clinton’s 1992 win as proof that its policies win elections, but that is so dishonest it’s laughable. First and foremost, almost everyone would agree Clinton ran a very un-DLC-like populist campaign for President in 1992, and won far more on the strength of his charisma/personality than any policy platform from a bunch of pencil-pushing geeks at the DLC in Washington, D.C. Secondly, since that 1992 victory—with the exception of Clinton’s 1996 victory over one of the weakest GOP challengers in modern history—Democrats have been roundly destroyed in national election after national election.
Thus, we are brought back to the bottom line: with the DLC, Democrats get all of the bad policies, and none of the good electoral outcomes—it is the worst of both worlds.”
See the rest of the article at TomPaine.com.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 27, 2005 at 9:06 PM johnnyincentx in below quotes.
“The 10 major dailies (NY Times and Wash Post included) funded a research study into the Florida election. Using the best statical proofs to compensate for the problems in FL, and following proven scientific methods they determined what the most likely outcome of the election in the 2000 FL election. They concluded BUSH DID INDEED WIN FL in 2000, by a razor thin margin of a few hundred votes.”
You forgot that BEFORE the election as Greg Palast reported in depth that thousands (mostly blacks) were illegally purged from the voter rolls. Thus many voters were excluded from even being part of a recount. By the way an investigation concluded that Palast was accurate and that the Florida state election commission (operated by the Secretary of State office) was negligent at best and criminal at worst.
“Few blacks who give credit for the civil rights movement to Progressives of any time. Most blacks would give credit to themselves alone. Your comment would be seen as racist.”
So here go throwing words like racists around to try to win an argument. Yes, many blacks would credit themselves and they certainly have that right but as many would also acknowledge that they had help from whites as well as many parts of the rainbow.
You keep trying to say progressives of the past have no relationship to today’s progressive. I’ll try to explain it again. People that do progressive things throughout history, DON"T CARE ABOUT LABELS. They don’t care what they are called, they care that the problem(s) gets changed and resolved.
As to Hetch Hetchy I know some about the issue, but won’t claim to know the details, but what I do know from reading your version is that it is your version and it sounds fairly one-sided. Reading your opinion on it I could sermise that if it had to be Yosemite Valley itself to be buried in water you would do it.
“Hey you call yourself Progressive. So I AM, but you call yourself Progressive outside the context of the word as it is used by ELECTED PROGRESSIVES best in position to define the term and the issues. I have adopted their OWN definitions. I did not just decide Progressive is bad. I HAVE been super clear what I AM TALKING ABOUT.”
No you haven’t. You can adopt your own definition of progressive except then you confuse others. Define progressive as it applies to you and then maybe we can understand who you are. You’ve certainly confused several of us in this forum, calling yourself progressive and yet not agreeing with any of us on any of our opinions. You can’t just cite a small laundry list of things you’d vote one way or the other on and then say you are progressive. Libertarians for instance can agree with progressives on many items in that laundry list until you expand the list to include other things.
For instance in the 2004 election there were six candidates that were on enough state ballots that could have conceivably collected enough electoral votes to win. Four of those candidates considered the Iraq War unconstitional and advocated immediate withdrawal. So political ideology as diverse as the Green Party (Cobb) and the Constitution Party (Peroutka) were “progressive” on one issue. Joining those two were the Libertarians (Badnarik) and independent Nader. Conspicuously absent was John Kerry. Of course Kerry didn’t carry out his constitutional duty, he couldn’t use that in his campaign.
The word progressive was not bandied about much in the 1960s, it doesn’t mean they weren’t progressive or did progressive things. In fact the word that many liked to use was radical. So call me a radical, I don’t care. Well, maybe I do, because I consider the neo-cons radical.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 28, 2005 at 12:15 AM Jon B
Proving I’m wrong about say Hetch Hetchy should be pretty easy.
One thing to do is do some simple searches for “data” information. This will avoid the long-winded “opinion” pieces that state conclusions as if they are facts.
aaa
To find out if I’m right just do some easy searches….Water Quality DATA - Central Valley Rivers
Future Water Availability - Central Valley
Foreign matter content - Central Valley
Pollution measurements - Valley Water
Hetch Hetchy Water Quality
Tearing Down Hetch HetchyThe information you find should tell you I’m kind of right to call valley water supplies as reverie toilet water. It’s worse than the Mississippi river (What, you didn’t know that was also a sewer?)
I was definitely sarcastic about Progs views re: Hetch Hetchy, BUT I DID NOT MISTATE the truth of their positions.
One thing is clear is your decision making process. It’s straightforward and simple. It goes kind of like this. :)
1st. Step. Decide if you like what you are hearing or reading.
2nd. Step. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE IT take these steps….....
a)immediately assume it’s basically a lie. b)assume the person cannot prove any of it, because any proof or reason he uses to prove it is obviously also a lie.
c) DO NOT read everything, just skim. Lies are best decifered by skimming.
d) Respond to his “IN CONTEXT” comments with a cut and paste job, that makes it seem like you read in context (ignore the fact that cutting and pasting is literally “taking out of context”)
c)UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES will you do any research on your own.
d)invalidate his genralizations with your generalizations stated as fact.
e)REMEMBER YOUR ROLE - Condemn anything you disagree with. Your agenda cannot be questioned.
f)If confronted with hard facts, dismiss them, facts can often get in the way of the truth.IF YOU AGREE -
a)praise the person for his accuracy and forthrightness for saying what needs to be said. b)Add your own opinion stated as if it is fact.
c)Add your own anecdotal experiences to buttress your hard facts ;)So there is no point on going toe to toe with you. You are only interested in reinforcing your own feelings.
However since it’s kind of fun, I will reply to one thing.
Your counter a “PURE” scientific study with what greg palast information’s is interesting to say the least. His study and the newspaper study weren’t and cannot be related.
What Palast says is true (I read it) Unfortunately it doesn’t invalidate the election. Since it happens in every election. This fraud is the norm. For results of a study to be close to accurate, NORMS ARE factored in. They form the baseline. Including them would invalidate the study, ironically. It would be giving weight to something that doesn’t happen.
The study used some of the highest quality mathematical tools to decipher the overwhelming amount of information available from the election. With the millions of bits of data nicely catalogued, they DID HAVE the ability to be as accurate as they said.
To those who despise polls, and think this is all scientific nonsense. This study is a lie, but for those who have a better understanding of the science of mathematics, the study is solid hard proof. Let me guess which type are you…
MY DEFINITION OF PROGRESSIVE was taught to me by the practices of ELECTED PROGRESSIVES IN San Francisco. If you disagree with it, you disagree with them.
To say I’m wrong without knowing anything about them, just illustrates my point above LOL.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 28, 2005 at 3:40 AM LIBERAL YOU WIN THIS ROUND!
A quick rundown of “who’s who” at the DLC speaks for itself and says the DLC has indeed been subverted from within and now works to undermine the working class of America as the columnist Dave Sirota says. After realizing who is on the list, what he said was too kind…...
Chairman of the DLC - HILLARY CLINTON
The reason for her rightward drift in the last year becomes crystal clear - she’s revealing a bit of her real self!!
Now that it’s clear she is a FRight wing agent, could have all the Clinton white house troubles stemmed from her?BOARDMEMBERS OF THE DLC
BRUCE REED - spent 8 years in the Clinton/Gore white house. This is proof that Repugnicans were on the inside destroying Pres. Clinton and working to bring Hillary to the dark side.
TOM VILSACK - Governor of Iowa, the blue state that went red in 2004. Need I say more.
TOM CARPER - Senator from Delaware, the state that gives us the backstabbing (I actually do mean this LOL) Biden. There is no need for any proof. He redifines the meaning of New Democrat - It means die hard Repugnican
JENNIFER MANN - State Senator from Pennsylvania. She nicely fills the role of secretary and coffee gofer. She’s a former business owner. Which means she is an oppressor.
MICHEAL COLEMAN - In the Mayor of Columbus, the DLC has it’s Colin Powel, a man willing to betray is heritage to get in good with the “man.”
LIBERAL THAT INSIGHTFUL BLOG BY SIROTA on the DLC WAS ALL I NEEDED TO WAKE ME from my stupor. We don’t need to know what the DLC’s positions actually are, not when we have guys like Sirota to decide for us.
Sirota is right The DLC is made up of vile Repugnicans who have insinuated themselves within the very fiber of the Democratic leadership. These scoundrels have manipulated and lied enough. IF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS TO SURVIVE, THE DLC MUST BE EXPOSED as the sabatores they are!!!
Any use of the term “Progressive” is a mockery of the political term.
I blame the success of the DLC on the Iraq War. Progressive types, the vanguards of political truth have been so busy protesting in the streets, they had no time to spot the DLC backstabbing until after the dirty deed was done.
Now all of us, the working class, middle class w/hearts and really, compassionate rich who are the body mainstream Left Wing Progressivism have to save the Country from turning into a 1 party fascist state ruled by Repugnicans and their deceitful lackey allies the Demorats.
Progressives have to act fast, before more Liberals are fooled into believing like I wrongly did, that the DLC is a centrist organization with its own agenda, distinct and extent, purpose from the Repugnican cause.
:)
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jul 28, 2005 at 4:10 AM Johnnyexcentx…What Palast says is true (I read it) Unfortunately it doesn’t invalidate the election. Since it happens in every election. This fraud is the norm. For results of a study to be close to accurate, NORMS ARE factored in. They form the baseline. Including them would invalidate the study, ironically. It would be giving weight to something that doesn’t happen.
Actually it is not the norm. Some states or individual districts have fraud or degrees of fraud, others don’t. Florida is in the minority about not allowing ex-felons the vote. Further every state has various forms of election rules. How to register, where to vote, distance ratio of voting location to voter residence, which partys are allowed on a ballot, how to qualify for a ballot, type of ballot, on and on. In fact voting in America is so haphazard, I would never consider using the word norm.
HAVA (Help America Vote Act) was supposed to reduce some of this haphazardness, yet didn’t. In this past election for instance, controversy surrounded Ohio because they didn’t initiate or complete HAVA requirements. So I would argue whatever studies you might be refering to are fatally flawed for including unnormal norms.
And sure it invalidates the election but not legally. It invalidates it in the opinions of many Americans who so don’t trust our election process they don’t bother voting.
Another problem with our election system is that someone that can prove legally that they were unjustly denied the right to vote can’t get the simple recourse of being able to cast a vote in the election they were wrongly denied access to after the fact.
And don’t get me started on computerized voting which should be an answer to creating a more unified voting process, but has so far proven to be untrustworthy.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 28, 2005 at 6:25 AM johnnyboy….One thing is clear is your decision making process. It’s straightforward and simple. It goes kind of like this. :)
1st. Step. Decide if you like what you are hearing or reading.
2nd. Step. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE IT take these steps….....
a)immediately assume it’s basically a lie. b)assume the person cannot prove any of it, because any proof or reason he uses to prove it is obviously also a lie.
c) DO NOT read everything, just skim. Lies are best decifered by skimming.
d) Respond to his “IN CONTEXT” comments with a cut and paste job, that makes it seem like you read in context (ignore the fact that cutting and pasting is literally “taking out of context”)
c)UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES will you do any research on your own.
d)invalidate his genralizations with your generalizations stated as fact.
e)REMEMBER YOUR ROLE - Condemn anything you disagree with. Your agenda cannot be questioned.
f)If confronted with hard facts, dismiss them, facts can often get in the way of the truth.Excuse me, but don’t lecture me about on-line debate. You’ve been picking and choosing whatever you want to highlight from others posts and it sure appears you skim, take out of context, condemn, generalize, etc.
MY DEFINITION OF PROGRESSIVE was taught to me by the practices of ELECTED PROGRESSIVES IN San Francisco. If you disagree with it, you disagree with them.And as I expected you didn’t define your personal progressiveness except with this non answer as if I’m supposed to spend days researching SF politics and then conclude exactly as you do. What I asked was this “Define progressive as it applies to you” but maybe better should have been…who knows? Whatever I’d get in answer would probably be some semantic driven answer with a LOL at the end. I actually cared to know what you are about as far as being a progressive at one point, but I’ve lost my interest now.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 28, 2005 at 7:04 AM Liberal…The DLC has hijacked the name progressive from those who truly deserve it. Does the DLC run “Progressive” Policy Institute ring a bell?
When I emailed the DLC with my concerns the other day, I mentioned this to them as well. They are playing the framing game as much as the Republicans. It’s enough to make a person dizzy, this framing war. 1984 is here, newspeak, war is peace, up is down.
So not too long the word progressive will be as meaningless as conservative and liberal. These words mean only what the person who uses them wants them to mean or the opponent uses as an insult. A conservative president spends money like a drunken sailor. A liberal president rents the Lincoln bedroom to corporate friends. I wonder how long before right is left and left is right.
Maybe progressives need to brand ourselves. Go with Bullmoose or something new like podapiddles. Those darn podapiddles stirring up trouble again.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 28, 2005 at 7:34 AM The term “progressive” has been adopted by liberals who have given up on and abandoned the label “liberal” because it has been so demonized in the public mind by the Machiavellian conservatives.
Having read this thread, I conclude that johnnyincentx is just a conservative troll whose purpose is to now demonize the word progressive.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 30, 2005 at 8:03 AM As long as they are counting the votes, how do we ever know if we’ve won or lost?
Posted by pgobrien on Jul 31, 2005 at 11:03 PM from lefty…Having read this thread, I conclude that johnnyincentx is just a conservative troll whose purpose is to now demonize the word progressive.
I agree, even though he denied it. More than demonizing the word progressive, he brought the conversation down low.
I like the word progressive because that’s what I am. I consider myself farther left than a liberal. I’m somewhere between a liberal and an anarchist, maybe a neo-anarchist, a radical or I’ll go with progressive. But I wasn’t always this far left. It has taken these radical years of Bush to push me to the leftest zone as a gut reaction. I feel like the counterweight of a pendulum, the government shifts more right, I shift even more left.
I’d probably be full blown anarchist except I still believe in an election system in a democracy. The problem as pgobrien states “As long as they are counting the votes, how do we ever know if we’ve won or lost?”
I’ve long since decided we need more forms of direct democracy. I’m ready for voting on issues and am becoming more disenchanted with voting for representatives. I’m all for initiatives or propositions and making them easier to get on ballots. I like the Oregon system for state initiatives. But we need so much election reform, there is too much money directed to passing or failing a proposition just as there is in candidate balloting. And to this I like the several states like Arizona that have taken up state-funded campaigns.
I have this vision that someday computer voting will be trustworthy and that we will be voting mostly on issues and much less on representatives. Maybe a few decades from now, we all will be able to sit down at our computers periodically and vote about the things we care about directly. Shoot if Congress can’t do its constitutional duty and declare war for instance, I’m willing to let the people do it for them. I sure wanted to vote about going to war in Iraq, but our Congress didn’t.
But to answer pgobrien, we don’t know. So we need to make verification even more stringent and more open. There are plenty of ideas on how to make an election system more accurate and trustworthy with computer voting. I’m not ready to give up moving voting into the 21st century. I was worried from the get-go when I saw that private firms would be doing the tallying and only they would be verifying.
I felt that elections should be in the hands of a government agency, a postal service for voting as it were. Why? Because they could be scrutinized better from the outside with FOIA (freedom of information act). With private companies handling the voting, what recourse do we have to investigate the inner workings of the process? I believe Diebold for instance claims they don’t have to reveal source code or have monitoring of recounts that they do in their offices based on trade secrets. What the hell!
Elections are our most basic right in a democracy and we can’t scrutinize the election process because of trade secrets? An election should have nothing to do with private companies, elections are a government function, we the people, don’t you know.
I do have some optimism, afterall we’ve had corruption in our election process in our history and it was overcome. But certainly we need to continue to show our outrage about our election process.
Posted by Jon B on Aug 1, 2005 at 2:43 PM pgobrien,
That’s exactly what I said in the opening post. Jan Schakowsky didn’t respond to that assertion which is not a surprise. What can she say? The privatization of the vote was the last nail in the coffin as far as I’m concerned. Unless we can have confidence in the truth of the vote count, all the talk about Democrat do’s and don’ts is just mental masterbation. Further, the struggle to take back democracy from the crook, Diebold, will be a long tough fight. It’s not going to happen by 2008. It has to be a multi-pronged approach, not the least of which must be the re-education of Americans.
Jon,
I haven’t changed my position as a result of Bush’s putative presidency. I was a socialist liberal before, I’m a socialist liberal now. I thought that public health, safety an welfare were more important than corporate profits then, and now. I thought the Bush family was the most despicable criminal enterprise in the world then, and now. I thought that If the Bush family do not spend eternity in hell with the rest of their ancestors, there is no God before, and now. LOL.
I am a socialist and a liberal. And I don’t think that those terms are mutually exclusive. But by socialist, I don’t mean a totalitarian communist. In my mind, the competitive capitalist system is the key to economic prosperity. (Add to that, my insistance that government has no place in my bedroom or my doctors office, I am a classic liberal). But, unlike totalitarian capitalist, free marketeers, it is not my religion. Unregulated capitalism is NOT a free market for very long. In short order, ownership of unregulated markets finds itself in the hands of very few who crush competition and free markets. That axiom is historically indesputible. Markets must be managed and regulated in order to maximize their freedom. A truly free market can only exist for a very short time.
Further, there are some services that a rich country like the U.S. can and should provide it’s citizens, because it can do so more efficiently, more equitably and more economically than the enterprise system, not the least of which are public education and public medicine.
Posted by Lefty on Aug 2, 2005 at 2:07 PM Lefty (writing about not being able to accurately count votes these days):
>The privatization of the vote was the last nail in the coffin as far as I’m concerned.
Yup.
(And Lefty spoke to Jon, too):
>Further, the struggle to take back democracy ...[requires] the re-education of
>Americans.Our corporatocracy is a scary thing. Americans are naturally a bit sarcastic and disparaging of public programs. Don’t know why that is, but we think it’s common wisdom that no public programs can succeed, even though many have (we seem to need to kill them, so we can say they failed—take for instance, Head Start).
And so, this country has become highly anti-education and hostile to educators, except for those who teach the Ultra Right Party Line.Makes for a malleable body politic, with no critical thinking skills to speak of.
It’s gonna be a long, hard pull back from the place we’ve come to.> I was a socialist liberal before, I’m a socialist liberal now.
Me, too.
>I thought that If the Bush
>family do not spend eternity in hell with the rest of their ancestors, there
>is no God before, and now. LOL.Well, I’m an atheist, so ... I’d really like to see the Bush family at least get some of their comeuppance in the form of public ignominy for the way Georgie’s admininstratin has behaved, but I’m not betting the farm it’ll ever happen.
>I am a socialist and a liberal. And I don’t think that those terms are
>mutually exclusive. But by socialist, I don’t mean a totalitarian
>communist.Of course not. The two have never been the same. One can even be a communist and not be totalitarian. I’m much too fond of some of my personal and real property to deal with communism, though. Communities are nice. Sharing is nice. So is ownership of a thing or two.
>Unregulated capitalism is NOT a free market for very long. In short order,
>ownership of unregulated markets finds itself in the hands of very few who
>crush competition and free markets. ...Absent the possibility of a Utopia—something not subject to the whims of human nature—I totally agree. Markets should be as free as possible without letting them become Feudal and Barbaric.
As a kid (I’m getting on up there in age - 58), I learned about Laissez Faire Capitalism from people who were pretty close to the US experience. It had been seen to fail miserably and that’s why a regulatory system came into being. Now, the children of the Robber Barons are hoping the country has forgotten how bad it was so they can turn back the clock and do it to us again.
>Further, there are some services that a rich country like the U.S. can and
>should provide it’s citizens, because it can do so more efficiently, more
>equitably and more economically than the enterprise system, not the least of
>which are public education and public medicine.Except the American public has been innoculated against believing in Government services by the constant drum-beat of The Government Can’t Do Anything Right.
Posted by pgobrien on Aug 2, 2005 at 11:22 PM Hello Rep. Schakowsky,
As has been referenced by a few other contributors to this thread, I’d like to focus upon a detail that I consider pivotal. If you will, another DO for the Dem Party.
DO vociferously and repeatedly speak out and legislate against privatized vote counting and, in fact, computerized vote tallies in general. Get rid of it, do away with it, forbid it, those of you in government who already have public faces and legislative powers. Please, make these practices non-existent.
In my opinion (and really, I think this can be generalized beyond my mere opinion), it is impossible for a corporate entity to have the kind of objectivity necessary to be entrusted with counting and maintaining vote records. I see it as an inherent conflict of interest, because corporations are run by their boards of directors on behalf of shareholders. Even in the absence of a cabalistic plot to freak the vote, the possibility is simply to great and too tempting for corporate employees to “manage” the outcome.
Even if 99.9% of them are honest, well-meaning, and upstanding citizens, that conflict of interest can’t be avoided. Corporations, like individual citizens and political parties, are too much affected by the outcomes of elections to be considered neutral.
This is not a damnation of Diebold or corporate entities per se, but on the other hand, it’s impossible to fully ensure that no one with the contractor will ever possibly be able to lose, change, or delete vote tallies. Even if huge criminal penalties are in place to punish the few potential wrongdoers (granting the widest possible benefit of the doubt), once an election is falsified the damage is done.
Enough people are already cynical about the value of voting. This is shown by the famously lackluster number of voters who bother to drop in to the polling place on election day. I believe that this cynicism can only be increased by the trend to privatize vote counting. How can this possibly be good for American democracy?
Further, my rejection of computer tallies is based on the fact that it is also impossible for any computer to be hack-proof, immune from viruses or other tampering, or 100% reliable. We saw this in 2004, vividly. Even when they work wonderfully at their various applications, even when users follow the discipline of backing up data and updating their virus filters diligently, computers are simply machines, and exceedingly delicate, finicky machines at that. The outcomes of elections are too important to entrust to devices that must, in effect, count millions of bits of info in one second without ever once making a mistake.
I’d advocate the exclusive use of paper ballots (of 100% recycled, low- or unbleached, please), mandated to all election boards across the US and its territories. There can surely be a simple, easy-to-use format that allows voters to make unequivocal choices and that avoids nonsense like hanging or pregnant chads (what a bizarre and disheartening episode that all was!). Yes, paper can burn, get mismarked, be misplaced, and be freaked. Conspiracies to steal elections won’t be thoroughly impossible if paper ballots are mandated. But I submit that it’s much easier to get an inaccurate count or to find ourselves unable to recover or verify disputed tallies if the data is electronic. And paper is countable with human hands and eyes, which for me is far preferable since it’s more easily verified by another person’s eyes.
I hope you’ll use the influence of your office to put help put a stop to privatized, computerized voting. It’s just one issue that emerges from this discussion thread, but I consider it a vital one.
Posted by Kuya on Aug 4, 2005 at 6:04 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
