First past the post means one person one vote and consituency one representative, which wouldn't be the case proportional rip off voting, which means voting for a faceless party list and having no representative for any constituency, thus nobody to do real constituency work for the folks, and it sucks! Please read what I said about Abraham Lincoln and what's going on the European continent as result of the PR voting.

If you like fascism, you'll love PR voting. Progressives don't have a chance with it, but without as in Canada and the UK, they're coming back, and they're going to come back big time.

@ McDee

Re. Sen. Morse, "... there aren't any like him and haven't been for some time."

Appreciate the sentiment, but what about Paul Wellstone, or Bernie Sanders, or, for that matter, Sen. Byrd in his (albeit belated] reincarnation as a gadfly upon the State?

conscience, you make a good point. If Reid canceled the recess, I would think he was serious about trying to stop the occupation. But I would bet money he won't do that and I only bet on sure things. In spite of kivals' wishful thinking, the Democrats are a lost cause. Definition of insanity: to do the same thing 20 times, getting the same result, and do it again, thinking this time it will be different. Kivals, how many times do you have to be betrayed by the Democrats before you figure out they will do it every time?

What's the alternative to proportional representative voting? Is it the mathematical sensibility of 1 person = 1 vote that worries you or the representative part? I agree that some sort of meritocracy would be nice, but who gets to judge who's best? And does everyone have equal access to the same level/quality of education/experience to make it a fair criteria?

As for IRV, I agree somewhat on that. It might merely degenerate to 3 party, as Australia has -- but at least you have some independents as well.

Still, I'm more inclined toward Range, in which a value can be attributed to all candidates, independently.

If we had proportional representational voting, Abraham Lincoln would never have been elected president in 1860. In Western Europe on the continent, it has resulted in the far right, including the worst fascists getting their fangs into power in varous political systems. We don't need this nice looking, on paper, theory, that never works at all.

As for instant rip off voting or single transferrable voting as its called in other countries, it's been used with vengeance in Australia, and its main achievement so far is to increase the established parties' stranglehold on political power, just what we don't need. Theories are fine, but real practice is what counts, and in Australia, what we have is a government with this system, that is the most supportive of the neo cons almost of all internationally, and it's not because with the first past the post this would be so, as it's not the case in either Canada or the UK, which just recently got rid of W's poodle.

We should implore Senator Harry Reid to CANCEL THE CONGRESSIONAL SUMMER RECESS . . .

That would give too much opportunity to Bush for mischief or new evils --

The way we lost courageous members of Congress was by their being TARGETED by right-wing organizations -- and the CIA in the case of at least Senator Church; presumably they targeted others. And, then the military industrial complex had its favorites and non-favorites.

So we're down the black hole which capitalism creates --
everything judged by the value of a dollar bill!!!

Meanwhile, they've overturned all regulations on capitalism so what we're really dealing with is organized crime.

And, notice that our threft is worldwide as we help steal Iraq's oil right now . . . !!!

Let me add, that this "good old boy" from the heart of the US South, not only took part in Wayne Morse's 1968 campaign, but talked one on one in person to him about tactics and or strategy for that very campaign. It was an election which went down to the wire, with a virtual tie in the vote and recount in the vote following. I maintained then, as I do now, that had we make very public the fact that big time Southwest oil money from right wing and far right types was coming into the state, as it was, we would have won that election, and likely by at least a decent margin. People in the Northwest, especially Oregon, and particularly then, wouldn't have taken to kindly to big Southwest oil money doing much to influence the Oregon senate contest that year. But Morse wouldn't go after these dawgs that way, as he was the all out gentleman, but I would have, and I damn well wouldn't have regretted it. It's not at all wrong to tell the truth about the negative side of your opposition, As Harry Truman once said famously, "If you can't take the heat. Get out of the kitchen." Oh, and Truman defintely told the truth in 1948 about his GOP opposition's negatives, and that's just what the "give 'em hell" campaign was about. Not even the most decent person has an obligation to lie for the political opposition or fail to tell the truth obout it.

I agree with your sentiment, but I have no use for another cause that wants money. I'd like to see such an organization which solicits (in the following decreasing order):

* my solidarity
* my voice
* my volunteering/time

Money is just another obstacle to winning tossed out to deflect us. We need to prosletyze deep into middle America, making one new progressive at a time, neighbor to neighbor, co-worker to co-worker. Lead by example.

The oligarchy has the resources to keep us divided and we can't entirely blame our liberal diversity for this. But we have choices beyond those the oligarchy provides such as Instant Runoff Voting, Proportional Representation and the Referendum. We simply need to assert the people's prerogative:

http://ni4d.us/

I backed Wayne Morse and did what I could to get him reelected senator from Oregon in 1968. We almost did it. But we at least damn well tried, and I'm proud of that. It's time to start "keeping hope alive' with Reverend and Jackie Jackson and Cindy Sheehan.

ONce again, for those of you who are buying into this line that the "democrats" are promoting as regards their "inability to get the votes":

IF the "democrats" were in reality a democratic faction, they'd be sparing no expense in all corners of this country to rally their anti-war base, make it visible, and get it out on the streets. It's not impossible, the "republicans" do it with their grassroots supporters all the time. But the fact of the matter is that the "democrats" are afraid to mobilize their supporters, because much of their support is coming from people who want, in addition to an end to this war, sweeping changes in the domestic infrastructure.

The only votes that count in this battle are those cast by the people who voted for "democrats" in the last election. People who were impassioned enough to vote for this sorry band of hacks one more time. the "democrats" know full well that if that base starts feeling its real power, it will pull the rug out from under the set asides and sweet deals the "democrats" themselves have cut with big money power brokers at the national level. Such a move imperils their interests.

The "democrats" have the mass base to end this war. The "votes" they're talking about not having come not from people like those who sit and post to columns like this, but from people who buy and sell political hacks like they would pork bellies on the world market. Those are the votes they claim to want, and they're not going to get those "votes", because the ruling class of this country has thrown too much money into this bloody war to give it up without a long, hard, difficult struggle. That's the reality. Live with it. This "democratic" party merry go round is costing us time and lives, and we need to get to building independent political factions to oppose this neo-autocratic bullshit. Those who can't get out of their dogma long enough to see this have a corpse in their mouths.

BigNoseKate,

I do constantly do my little part to prune the progressive tree of branches that will lead to nowhere, so that the healthy parts of the tree will grow more vigorously.

Trying to get others to defect from the Democratic Party just enables the Republicans to further increase their control. I know many progressives are upset that the Democrats seem to have them over a barrel. But the Democrats are the only viable party to the left of the fascist Republicans, and accepting that is just one more frustrating part of life, which is full of similar or worse frustrations. Only when the Republican Party is in its death throes does it make sense to build a third party to the left. And that time may come sooner than most people think, but it has not happened yet, and if people prematurely abandon the Democrats and the Republicans again win the White House the fascists may then be able to put the final nail in the coffin of US democracy, if not of civilization and the human species.

But as far as what my beliefs are, if Hugo Chavez were a viable candidate for US President, that is where my vote would go.

And as far as agent provocateurs go, I am beginning to wonder about you and realitychecker. Wouldn't it be prudent for the agents of the extreme right to ensure that the left became as irrelevant, silly, and undeserving of respect as possible?

Mike Corbeil: Apart from the righteous critique of those Americans who do watch American Idol and/or are fat, smug and ignorant... politics today is all about the money. Therefore any candidate able to run has to have a fiscal war chest. Secondly, as we've seen with Howard Dean and others, if the media does not approve of the candidate, the HATE machine starts to radiate its undermining messages in overdrive.
And while some who challenge Kivals may make good points as per what the Democrats COULD have done to show spine, conscience and intelligence, please do not bash Kivals... he is a deep informed thinker and I, for one, appreciate his commentary.

christisntcomingback,
apologies, i read your website, you make more sense now. peace

mikecorbeil, the other Senator who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was Ernest Gruening of Alaska.

Our representatives have alot of vacation time, but they will be there on JULY 23 (Monday). You be in DC too. Don't let them go home without hearing from us, without seeing us, without having to step around us.

August 1 - September 5 Senate not in session - August Recess

My perspective:

A lot of people are afraid to even look at Presidential Candidate Ron Paul because he's running as a Republican. He's hardly a Repug. and he's certainly not a damned neocon.
He's a libertarian who is making his voice heard by stepping onto the republican debate stage. Third party candidates just can't get enough media coverage to win even the greatly needed 5%.

I really feel that the libertarian ticket is the way to go. Government is definitely one of things where "less is more." I respect Ron Paul for taking on the disgusting name of "Republican" in order to get his message heard. honeybeeATX–sez

I didn't think it was possible but Libertarian's are worse than Republican's! They are further to the right than most Republican's! One of my children used to call himself a Libertarian. When Bush started running for office he was all hot to trot to see him in office. He was far enough to the right to please any Libertarian. You can paint the man anyway you feel like but he is still a 'right wing nut case'! I listened to what he had to say on Jon Stewart one night. There wasn't enough difference between him and the other Republican's to bother making a distinction. He spouted the same sickening conservative rhetoric they all spout. He will make a good Republican! So no thanks honeybee! That type of individual leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I have had enough of the neocon's and fascist's!

YANKEE DOODLES-I agree w/most of what you say but you will gain many more fans if you learn to practice BREVITY.
Thanks - PAX

Less government with Ron Paul..does that mean that you do not want Social Security, Worker's Compensation, food stamps, Medicare for the elderly and disabled.
Look at what happened at VA TECH and tell me that you want every person in this country suffering from mental illness such as schizophrenia to be without medical care and medication? Or do we just shoot them?
Some things government does need to do. Invade other countries and steal their resources/oil..no. Ron Paul is right on that. It's the rest of his agenda that is scary.
No one wants to pay for Social Services until it hits their own family. Then they are enraged more is not being done.
Kucinich 2008 and 12

christisntcomingback? you mean he was here? and by the way what the f**k are you talking about?

Ken Hausle:
I think you're spot on correct. I opt for the mass awakening. I call this the true second coming of Christ: when everyone wakes up from their dead selves and realizes just how powerful we truly are.

At that point in time the will of the people will be done. We'll get to witness a rapture: those who refuse to acknowledge that they were born a-okay the first time (I'm sure they will be Christians) will be slayed on the spot by our mere collective thought.

I guess that includes the muggles.

Hooray for the late Wayne Morse and for Mike Gravel who carries on the banner to LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!

http://www.gravel2008.us/

The People are too apathetic to vote. 41.3% in 2006. The affluent ALWAYS manage to turn out.

http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2006.htm

mikecorbiel,
Cheeseburgers and coke are too tasty, SUV's and McMansions are too comfy, and Hollywood movies too mindlessly entertaining for most to even care. Keep them fat and happy and throw in a few patriotic platitudes, have a mock election with a faux two party system, continue to conjure up fear of "other" to keep the war machine greased. Most people just don't give a shit, usually until it's too late.

" Yankee Doodles July 19th, 2007 5:28 pm

American Mainstream Media & Bush Administration and its Collaborators Are Viewed Worldwide as Slimeball-Scumbag Losers & War Criminals!!!"

That should of course include Congress, for it's collaborator, EN MASSE; even more guilty than the Bush administration, given Congress has the ability to stop the wars and clearly refuses to do so. Not only that, it's siding with totally criminal war of aggression on Iraq, NEXT. It's collaborating with all major US crimes, so of course also the cases of the US wars of aggression and for corporate racketeering in African countries, as well as on other continents.

But the worldwide view is otherwise very accurate.

"And, you all think America's morality is so above all other nations, right? WRONG!!!!"

Well, no, it's not wrong; in the sense that Americans DO have a serious tendency to think that way about themselves, thinking they or we are superior in moral terms. It's wrong to do, to be this way, being morally wrong and also very unrealistic, self-delusion, etc.; but it's very much been and too much remains US reality, to be very wrong on many moral, ethical terms.

"Thanks to Bush and Cheney, America is now, the number one rogue nation in the world now and there are so many examples of this, it is sad to say."

No, they're NOT the inventors, haven't invented any new way of governing, REALLY. The seeds were planted by others, though Cheney's had a long history of involvement.

Etc.

"Morse was one of only two members of the entire Congress to vote against that resolution, ...".

Who was the other member who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? McGovern, Gravel, ...?

" Ken Hausle July 19th, 2007 1:09 pm

How congress came to be populated by so few folks of courage coupled with moral conviction is a sad and telling commentary on the state of US. They must all be in absolute denial.

..."

Well, they did not get them by themselves. Americans, US electorate is the GUILTY party, guilty for electing people who are already provably and clearly enough UNFIT for public office; at best fit for just cleaning floors and toilets, emptying general wastebaskets, etc., of public office locations. But American voters evidently enjoy voting for corrupt people, so the US ends up with very corrupted govt.

We reap what we sow. The electorate sowed, and now it reaps the "rewards", consequences of planting rotten-to-the-core seeds.

Ron Paul was right in saying that Congress is even more guilty that the Bush administration is with respect to the GWoT wars, because Congress has the final say and could stop the wars of aggression, but refuses to do so.

Why? Well, Congress obviously wants these wars of aggression. Congress also did nothing but hellishness with respect to the other war of aggression on Haiti, to criminal oust the democratically elected leader, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

No, no, no. Congress is FULL of corrupt members and wants the warring. If it did not want the warring, then it'd stop the warring, but Congress does really NOTHING to stop these wars and address these extreme crimes as required by law, as well as simply according to true ethics, morality. Nope. Congress is full of rotten-to-the-core members. Extremely few have any respectability, and among them, fewer have very serious respectability.

Voters are reaping the harvests of their rotten seedings. It's very dangerous to leave politics up to such rotten and irresponsible electorate. If Congress doesn't accept to clean up its "act", and it's obvious that Congress is not accepting to do this, then the electorate, to become finally responsible, must see to ensuring that Congress is corrected.

The responsibility now falls to the electorate, but it's going to take massive, widespread movement by the electorate, else the govt will be able to again override ... and maintain its hellish course of governance.

The president is really, technically just an administrator of The People's decisions, so also are Congress and all other govt-employed people. The People therefore have the responsibility to make sure that this ethical rule is ADHERED to.

Not easy would that be to see to, but it's the electorate's responsibility to work on this. Congress is not going to do what is needed of it, and the Bush administration certainly isn't going to do so, either. So the electorate must unite strongly and move on with doing what needs to be done.

Good luck. I don't expect that we can expect that the US electorate will finally live up to its responsibilities. It'd be phenomenal, if the contrary happened.

I'm enjoying the comments of appreciation for Wayne Morse. I just wanted to let folks know he hasn't been forgotten everywhere. He remains a folk hero here in Lane County, Oregon. There's a Wayne Morse free speech plaza at the county building in Eugene, a bust of Wayne Morse in the UO law school with inspiring words on the importance of authenticity and nonconformity in politics, etc. The Wayne Morse Center for Law and Politics attempts to keep his spirit and principles alive. See http://www.waynemorsecenter.uoregon.edu/events.html.

My two cents on the realitychecker/kivals debate: reality checker is correct. The dems could have simply refused to appropriate money. They didn't need a supermajority for that. The burden would have been on the republicans to craft a compromise package, rather than on the dems. Most of the dems would rather play politics with the issue than stop the war.

If "the votes aren't there," it isn't because of the repubs, it's because most of the dems have allowed themselves to become, to varying degrees, corrupt and craven. I'm not sure they can help it. The value system of the party replicates itself. Unalloyed idealism and principle aren't allowed to take root, because they would threaten the status quo for both incumbent repubs and incumbent dems.

For a morally compromised career politician, it's easiest to dismiss purists as "naive" or "wacko," so that you don't have to look honestly at your own reflection in the mirror they hold up.

It's apparent from the latest news that Valeries lawsuit against Bush and Cheney has been turned down by a federal judge that the forces that work against our constitution and Bill of Rights is widespread throughout all the people in high places. So don't back on either the Democrats or any new President to get us out of the war and restore Democracy to America. Apparently it's time to take to the streets and holler for impeachment and the overthrow of the Republican Party. We can't afford to wait as innocent people are dying. Bush's Administration is the most disgusting administration this country has ever had. And the young folks aren't aware of the dangers to Democracy that is now apparent to the older folks who remember Hitler. Ask them and be prepared to be surprised.

Realitychecker,

Thank you for the comments on kivals. I was about to say much the same thing. This person has a history of presenting him/herself as a "progressive" but never fails to put forth opinions that discourage attempts to promote the progressive agenda. It is classic agent provocateur tactics.

As the saying goes, the proof is in the outcome...kivals "opinions" speak far more loudly than his/her protestations.

On topic, I was too young, at the time, to be aware of Senator Morse, but he sounds like my kind of legislator: Tell it like it is and take no quarter!

Years ago I had access to the Congressional Record, and an occasional few minutes in my job to page through it. Soon my favorite reading was to scan the senate section, to see if Sen. Wayne Morse had again "made a record" on the issue(s) of the day.

Where are the Wayne Morses of today? Why do we tolerate Sen. Warner blathering away, while still voting to support Dumbya?

Senators, if you think the effort in Iraq is wrong, and/or a failure, when will you vote to reflect and support that view?

realitychecker,

Thanks for the kind words. I guess you are in charge of the ideological purity department at Common Dreams. I find that funny because I am probably as far to the left as anyone here, or anyone anywhere, but I am too old to ignore practicality.

Political commentary is not just an abstract art form for the purist, to represent the impossible utopian dream, which of course no more than two people can ever agree upon in detail for more than a moment. Though Bismarck was not an admirable figure, he did have an able mind and provided humanity with a great quote on the subject: "Politics is the art of the possible." And consistent with that, political commentary should also focus on what is possible.

Re: Ron Paul

And yet "free market" is a total oxymoron today. When it's cornered by monopolies and distant Big Box corporations, modern global zaibatsu's, natural resources are for the most part spoken for -- and those of us who are born into wealth tend to keep it, while those of us born into poverty tend to inherit that.

The fix is going to be complex. But we do know that a few centuries of unchecked plundering by colonial age pirates (proto-capitalists) caused it. I can't see how the unchecked power of money is going to solve our problems.

sorry... "gradually influence the public mind and persuade it to put pressure on politicians..."

I am sure that everyone here is familiar with the phrase "tell a lie frequently enough, and people will begin to believe it." Someone on one the CD threads mentioned that if you bring up impeachment, even though it is very unlikely to actually happen, psychologically it might resonate with the public. So many of us on these message boards have dismissed impeachment as an impossibility, which I think is being realistic. That is not to say that I am against impeachment, and in fact strongly support HRes333. However, constantly repeating it in public, on MSM message boards, and other locations, gradually could influence the public mind, and persuade it to put pressure on its politicians. And if the politicians do not comply, no votes for them. Just a thought.

honeybeeATX--sez

A lot of people are afraid to even look at Presidential Candidate Ron Paul because he's running as a Republican. He's hardly a Repug. and he's certainly not a damned neocon.
He's a libertarian who is making his voice heard by stepping onto the republican debate stage. Third party candidates just can't get enough media coverage to win even the greatly needed 5%.

**************

Ron Paul is not sucking at the trough of the lobbyist's sow, Ron Paul is as disgusted at Neocondom (the pun was intended!) as the most ardent progressive, Ron Paul also proves that you can keep on winning despite being a non-favorite of the party establishment without spending bazillions of dollars.
All of this is worthy of the respect and imitation of all political persuasions.

That being said, HoneybeeATX, Ron Paul is at heart a hater of any and all government sponsered efforts to protect and strengthen those among us most in need. Ron Paul (and his libertarian friends)thinks that for-profit business is the single best way to organize society and that the role of government is to leave business alone as much as possible.

Ron Paul has no answers but at least he understands some of the questions confronting political ethics better than his fascist neocon brethren in the Republican Party. Ron Paul for losing opposition candidate but not in any way for President.

Don't waste your time reading or responding to kivals. It's the same thing every day, every article. Democrat-apologist. I just wonder how he knows what would happen since it hasn't been tried. The Dems did not have to pass any bill to stop funding- all they had to do was continue passing the same bill and if Bush vetoed it everytime then he wouldn't have any money to keep the occupiers in Iraq. Done.

Same for you CV. All the Democrats would have to do is let the Republicans filibuster for as long as it takes. Do you think they would give up their Summer breaks to fly in the face and defy the American public? Call the vote and don't end until you get it. Let it takes days or weeks- what a political circus that would be. So whether it was for political reasons or not having the votes to PASS bills- either way it just doesn't stand up to simple logic. Quit trying to call it by any other name, the Dems are beholden to the same monied interests that are driving these wars and occupations.

Time to get real. The corporate whores in the Democratic party have no intention of ending the occupation of Iraq, or the war on terror, or the war on poverty, or the war on drugs, etc, etc.

Ken Hausle,

I wish it were true that Impeachment would progress today as it did in Nixon's time, but something has changed. The corporate media was much more responsible and was responsive to the public back then. Today's corporate media is completely hopeless and would most likely bash the Democrats nonstop for starting the Impeachment process. And though most Americans might support it, with the steady drumbeat of the corporate media, especially the far right media, criticizing the Impeachment procedure, the voters who put the Republican Senators in power would probably not punish them for being loyal to their party leader.

CV:

Back in late March they managed to pass $100 billion to continue war funding. A large number of democrats exposed themselves as neocons.

But it's not simply a dualistic scenario of not having enough votes to pass.

Again, the non-neocon Democrats could write a bill to:

1) Earmark $0 for mercenaries.
2) Earmark $0 to continue the war.
3) Earmark plenty to withdraw the US troops in a safe and timely manner.

So let's assume it'll fail (I agree).

But now they have political ammunition. They can dangle the failure as:

1) With #1. They attempted to follow the Geneva Conventions in good faith with regard to the use of mercenaries. They even attempted to move some of the money spent on Blackwater, etc. back to the under-supplied US troops.
2) With #2 they went on record as opposing this illegal oil-grab war against an enemy unrelated to 9/11 (even if you believe the official story from this otherwise extraordinarily untrustworthy government on practically every other issue). They also followed through, on good faith, with the public mandate that sent them to office in the first place: end the war.
3) With #3 they cannot be accused of putting our troops in danger. They'll sufficiently fund a speedy and safe withdrawal. And, indeed, they'll be pulling them out of senseless danger (this entire adventure).

So there's a purpose in deliberately and strategically losing as well, a great opportunity to take a noble stand and put neocon feet to the fire.

It is also "completely within the Democrats power" to Impeach (simple majority in House). Come on kivals, don't you know what happened with Nixon. It has been discussed on several of the threads.

Once impeachment hearings commence, all bets are off. Fine with me. We desperately need to change the course NOW.

Peace,
Ken Hausle
* I support HRes333 - Impeach the VP
** logging off for real this time....

Impeachment requires conviction by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate. Any bill requiring the troops to come home requires a two-thirds vote in each house to override a certain presidential veto. Just getting a bill to the president requires 60 votes in the Senate to cut off debate. So the Democrats cannot, and know they cannot, succeed with those strategies (though I support Impeachment, I know it would not be successful in the Senate). However, it is completely within the Democrats power to stop the war by refusing to pass appropriations for the war. And of course they know it. But they are scared to death of the combined power of the corporate media and the military-industrial complex, which will certainly take the Republican side and blame the Democrats for "losing the war."

honeybeeATX,

Although some of the tenets of Libertarianism are appealing I could NEVER back it.
It is deservedly called "Anarchy for the Rich".
The Libertarian mantra of unfettered laissez-fair capitalism is brutal, predatory and ultimately cannibalistic.
It is exactly this sort of capitalistic greed that is the problem IMHO.
And while you are at it you might want to check out Paul's strident anti-abortion stance and his ties to right-wing white supremecist groups.

All the best

"and my charge against my government is that we are not giving the American people the facts".
Of course not. No centralised power, be it governmental, religious or corporate, will ever let the "facts" be known unless it furthers their agenda. Those few honest individuals within any power structure who wish to divulge information, or question prevailing assumptions, are labeled unpatriotic, traitors, heretics, or whatever the current form of "banishment" is.
I can't help but to look at all these attempts to get the Democrats to end the war as a waste of time. The least that may happen is some compomize of troop reductions, but bases will remain, the ships will remain, the war machine will grind on and on, all the while being kept alive by the "terror threats".
We keep this monster fed with our taxes, with buying useless corporate toys, and by accepting the age old assumption that we need some form of entity to watch out for us. The power machines throughout history have all fed on fear and the treat of terror in one form or another and yet they themselves are usually the perpetrators of the worst terror. It's not until enough of us refuse to participate in the game (taxes, overbuying, etc)that we have any chance of even slowing this Leviathan down.
As I look out at the downtown streets of my hometown I know I'm only dreaming.

Folks, we know exactly how Congress became populated with men and women lacking courage and conviction -- they all sold out to corporate donors. It's so painfully simple.

Since I'm on a roll with the keyboard (although I think its time for me to sit back for awhile), and I'm getting ready to go on vacation, I might as well add that when I said "we are ALL DEAD", the "we" I meant was humanity (and probably most other mammels, many birds species, probably much of the rain forest life, etc.). Talk about a ride for the surface of planet earth.

But take solace, life is going to go on regardless of whether humanity does. Heck, I have fungus growing on my chest that will likely continue on. It makes ya wonder - what is intelligence? We might have a lot less of it that we suppose......

Peace,
Ken Hausle
* I support HRes333

CV,

If the democrats really wanted to end the war, they can. The first very simple constitutionally demanded step is IMPEACHMENT.

The longer this goes on the more blood congress collectively has on its hands. The People won't forget unless of course, we are ALL DEAD.

Peace,
Ken Hausle
* I support HRes333 - Impeach the VP

I had the pleasure of hearing Wayne Morse speak in Santa Monica, Ca in 1965. He was amazing. He has always, for me, been the model of what a U.S. Senator should be.
Sadly, there aren't any like him and haven't been for some time.
The statement "Even most anti war activists don't know anything at all about Wayne Morse" is certainly true.
Morse is just the kind to be disappeared down the memory hole. Sad
Note to CV: If the Dems are "all on board to end the war" why did they vote unanimously for the Lieberman amendment to "warn" Iran about their "involvement" in Iraq?
Why did they give Bush more $ than he asked for for Iraq?
Why does their leading Presidential candidate want to keep troops there indefinitely?
Why don't they use the power of the purse to give Bush less $ or NO $ for the war?
Why is impeachment "off the table"?
Why, oh why, oh why, oh why?

Nothing changes but the body count. This system is an ongoing juggernaut of destruction on many levels. The criminal, greed driven shortsightedness of capitalism will be the death of us all unless we relegate it to the museum where it belongs.

"Am I missing something?"
Yeah, Paul you are.
If you can't get enough votes, you can't pass bills. What do you think Tuesday Night's action was? That was an attempt by mainly the Democrats in the Senate to pass a bill (actually an amendment) to start to bring the troops home. It would pass by a couple votes if it came to an Up or Down, ALL of the Democrats and three or four of the Republicans. But shutting off debate takes 2/3s. That requires getting Republicans to join in. They won't. Yet.
So let's recap so you don't miss anything.
ALL of the Democrats are onboard to end the war. A couple of Republicans are too, but not enough to get the vote out onto the floor. Any bill that goes before Congress is subject to the rules. There's no magic bullet that lets one side write laws without input from the other*. Or in this case, obstruction from the other.
If you don't have the votes in a democracy, you can't make laws.
*this was illegally subverted by the Republicans for the past decade or so in the Reconcile phase after each chamber has passed a bill and they match them up for a final unified bill, one of the main reasons that we're in the mess we're in.

We have no honest and courageous Senators - including the former Senator John Edwards and only a small handful of Congresspeople, first and foremost Dennis Kucinich. At least we still have Norman Solomon to tell us how it is. And I do remember Wayne Morse. How far we have fallen.

Of course the Democrats could stop this war. They don't want to, but they don't want to be caught not wanting to. And so far, their ploy seems to be working. They've got Democrats arguing with each other instead of confronting Congress. At least we have Cindy Sheehan. So let's support her and fund her campaign to dump Pelosi.

How congress came to be populated by so few folks of courage coupled with moral conviction is a sad and telling commentary on the state of US. They must all be in absolute denial.

It seems to me, that things are going to rapidly boil down to just two options.

1. Some sort of "mass awakening" followed by a relatively orderly re-organization to a peaceful-based government by, of, & for the People (I've posted my ideas on this elsewhere), OR

2. A grinding, painful downfall into "hellish stone-age anarchy" for EVERYONE including those who consider themselves "of a different class".

Gee, what is your choice?

Peace,
Ken Hausle
* Lets choose peace.....

My perspective:

A lot of people are afraid to even look at Presidential Candidate Ron Paul because he's running as a Republican. He's hardly a Repug. and he's certainly not a damned neocon.
He's a libertarian who is making his voice heard by stepping onto the republican debate stage. Third party candidates just can't get enough media coverage to win even the greatly needed 5%.

I really feel that the libertarian ticket is the way to go. Government is definitely one of things where "less is more." I respect Ron Paul for taking on the disgusting name of "Republican" in order to get his message heard.

The Democratic congressmen made it clear that they actively want to continue the wars (Don't forget Afghanistan) when they voted to give Bush more funds than he requested in order to continue the bloodbath.

I'm disgusted at the hypocritical double-speak these cowardly Democrats continue to utter as they claim to be trying to stop the wars. Have they been in politics so long that they truly don't recognize what they're doing? Or do they think the Americans who voted for them, who want to stop the wars, and who want to impeach Bush/Cheney are too stupid to realize what they're doing? News flash: We're not.

Excellent article.

Indeed, I've found both American Public Radio and the Democratic fundraising telephone callers to my home echoing the false analysis that they "don't have enough votes to overturn a presidential veto and stop this war."

What about a bill funding the war for a penny? Or nothing?
Worried about being labelled (by the far-right) as abandonining the troops?

Then write a bill (Congress's job, last I checked) with the necessary funds, with a stipulation that they are to be used to cover costs of pull-out. Add another addendum earmarking $0 for mercenaries.

Am I missing something?

Who elected all of our Senators?