Jeff Moehring August 2nd, 2007 4:26 pm,

QUOTE:

For what little it is worth I have known that the Democratic Party could give a rats ass about us since long before 2000.

END QUOTE

Really? Well I certainly didn't get that impression whatosever from your previous post. Not at all. And if you truly knew that, one wonders why on earth you would have thought ANYTHING was going to change after "we" have witnessed the Bush-Enabling Dems do as much as possible for the Bush Crime Family since 2000.

In your previous post, you came off at least to me as a Dem koolaid drinker---the term koolaid drinker comes from the Jonestown/Jim Jones story---in this case wanting to believe in a party that was/is not what you think they are.

As for my suggestions, I have stated them several times now in posts on here:

The only options remaining are:

1. A loooooong national strike, not just a day or a couple of hours.

2. The People taking to the streets by the MILLIONS and MILLION in every city and town across this nation, particularly in the District of Columbia.

Do I think that these two options are going to happen? Absolutely NOT. It will have to get much, much worse before anything like that will happen.

Based on what I saw after the 2000 and 2004 stolen elections (where I was told to "get over it" when I protested with others), should Bush cancel the 2008 election and declare martial law for whatever reason, The People will respond by saying:

(Yawn). I'm whatever. Get over it.

That's how they responded after 2 stolen presidential elections. They couldn't be bothered.

Also, one is delusional if one thinks "we" are going to vote our way out of this disaster on a corrupt, fraudulent voting system. Easily hackable e-voting machines are now in place all over the nation. They are owned by Repugs and of course the Dems helped push for the machines to be put in place. We should be voting with paper and a pen, putting an X by or circling the candidate or selection of our choice. As long as the e-voting machines are in place, we will never have a clean election regardless of paper trails.

Of course I'm mad as hell regarding this damnable disaster of a political situation. How can one NOT be mad as hell if one has been paying close attention every passing day? We're in a damn dictatorship for goodness' sakes and the useless Dems helped get us there! The only people who aren't mad as hell are those who aren't paying attention (they are too busy with Harry Potter) and those who are comfortable in their denial.

I'm an independent (no party affiliation). I left the dead Dem Party after their miserable performance following the 2000 stolen election and Gore's pathetic campaign. I'm long done with them.

Also, I AND OTHERS did know more than most people apparently. Either that or others knew but refused to believe it. I'm a realist, not a wishful-thinker when it comes to politics. And all I saw before the 2006 "election" was a lot of wishful-thinking. And it didn't matter what I and other told these looney wishful-thinking Dem koolaid drinkers, they refused to hear it. And now for some reason, the little Dem koolaid drinkers are disappointed in their beloved Dems. Well DUH! Are you THAT dense and thick? I guess so.

And Jeff, if you find the content of my posts "boring and pointless" then don't read them. That's what the scroll function is for...to scroll on by. I scroll on by many posts on here. No one is required to read anything on here.

Bush is at an all-time low. Gonzales is a smirking lapdog being grilled for illegal spying, Condi is a servile incompetent setting up arms deals while the domestic economy tanks

http://www.counterpunch.org/

and the Democrats with the lowest approval ratings of all, cower at the possibility that Bush may call them "weak on terror" because they won't give Bush more license to eavesdrop than ever before.

Meanwhile, in the midst of a spiralling hellhole in Iraq, Democratic politicians strut around trying to prove that they are bigger idiots than Bush.

"...the Democratic leadership in Congress seems about to cave in to Bush ..."

Hey, go with your strengths.

I can't be any more disgusted with the Democratic sellouts we elected. I really can't. No need to rob Democrats' houses; just walk up, knock on the front door, and ask them to give you all their money and jewelry. Our founding fathers would be appalled. I'm very afraid for the future of our government and our rights.

The only thing that's unbelievable is that supposed progressives like Rothschild think the "democrats" behavior is "unbelievable."

"Democratic leadership" is becoming an oxymoron. Or is it the Democrats are just becoming a gang of morons?

Yes, it is caving in and it is extremely frustrating when the Democrats are the alleged alternative to the Republicans. The one I can't stand is the missing e-mails from the White House server and official business on Republican Party servers. Then we here Rove's lawyers have the e-mails and we can't see them. Then we here portions of the e-mails are missing. Remember those Nixon tapes with accidentally erased portions? All of the above is in clear violation of the Presential Transparency Act, something that was established to prevent future Watergate style stonewalling.

No one is pursuing this issue!!! If we are not going to get Bush and Cheney on the whole list of issues, they deserve at least one good slapdown before leaving office.

Until the US populace gets the courage to take to the streets and follow the example of Gandhi's non-violent marches and demonstrations nothing will change. The people have got to WANT the Constitution restored enough to ACT accordingly. If there is no such desire, there will will be no more US Constitution (except in name only).

What a shame to let cowardice bring down such a noble experiment of human governance!!

Things will change only when the populace is alienated and hopeless.
Then they may :
STAND UP - for what they beleive to be right.
SIT DOWN - in the nearest street to bring transportaion, retail, everything to a standstill.
FIGHT - I hope like Gandhi's Pathan friend Badshar Khan(Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan) (check him out)a Pashtun nonviolent Muslim
FIGHT - Even if it means sacrifice to themselves to totally repudiate the oligarchy
FIGHT - As if their lives depend on active resistance - which they do

When people realize that they cannot ignore the actions of the government and relaize they themselves are the governmet, only then is change possible..

Allow me to quote another blogger of my vintage - estebandito:
(I hope he does not mind)

'As an old hippy draft-dodger,who has been out in the streets se'veral hours a week behind my Iraq anti-war signs demanding an end to the madness since this insanity began (how many years now?), I gotta report: very few people of any age give a good goddam. Oh yeah, we "protestors" get a free coffee now an then and lots of happy honking as the cars go by, but the truth is very sad. Old radicals tell me they are afraid of losing their subsidized rents!! " FBI lists! Got no time for it…"

Practically no one can remember that the way a people get new governments and new directions is ancient and simple: you stop up the streets and you go to jail for misdemeanors and then you go back and do it again. respectfully and peacefully. The fact that this is so self evident yet almost completely ignored tells me that our population of united statesians has largely ceased to function as truly caring, conscience-filled people. Reasons are many……but we are losing hope, and we deserve whatever happens to us now. This is not nice talk in front of the children, or at parties.

Nevertheless, I will continue to sally out and attempt to show folks the facts as well as try and get them to laugh at our predicament ( i usually dress as a clown 'cause clowns have more fun…..it seems like the compassionaste thing to do.'

Additional thoughts:

"To me nonviolence has come to represent a panacea for all the evils that surround my people. Therefore I am devoting all my energies toward the establishment of a society that would be based on its principles of truth and peace." – Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan

"Today's world is traveling in some strange direction. You see that the world is going toward destruction and violence. And the specialty of violence is to create hatred among people and to create fear. I am a believer in nonviolence and I say that no peace or tranquility will descend upon the people of the world until nonviolence is practiced, because nonviolence is love and it stirs courage in people." – Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan to an interviewer in 1985

I think we ought to stop sending in phone calls, emails, petitions to our politicians. It is an exercise in futility. Instead, we ought to focus on educating the public and get it to understand what really is transpiring beneath the political pathos. This too, may be an exercise in futility (hopefully not), but we at least stand somewhat of a better chance convincing the public (if it is possible) than convincing politicians. I feel betrayed and sick to my stomach with these ragtag politicians. They are worthless people who deserve to be voted out of office. I too will patiently wait for better candidates. But rest assured on one thing, no matter how dire the situation gets in this country (if it can get any worse than it already is), I will never vote for a Democrat or Republican for the rest of my life.

Well Feingold et al, time for a DEM filibuster!

The same corporations own them all. Nothing personal, It's business.

Reasons not to vote for the Democrats . . .

while ghandi was doing his thing

---every other tactict was being employed as well
------from tearing up of all the railroad tracks
----to sniping british soldies
-----to letter campaigns and petitions to the "parliment"

nothing changed till the bulk of citizens got on board and did whatever they thought they could.

However the left in the US, so driven by identity politcs and US Individualism (arguably a mental health disorder)
is divided and conquered. these lame message boards are pretty much the extent of what power the left here wields.

keep your clowning around----but have a little bit of fucking solidarity for thoses trying other approaches----sheesh.

I second...or third....etc the comments.

I had a brief moment of elation last election.
Against all odds the Dems took both houses.

But I would have bet a year off of my life that the pitiful betrayal of the voters the Dems have given us would not happen.
Not after how hard we worked. Not after the record turnout.
Not with the unambiguous mandate that brought them to the control of both houses.

I was CERTAIN that Pelosi would come through. I honestly thought "impeachment is off the table" was just to keep from scaring the middle-of-the roaders.
I know it is hypocritical of me, but THIS TIME I honestly hoped a politician was lying.
Regardless I was dead certain, in the depths of my soul certain, that Conyers would rip them a new pooper.

They are as despicable as the Neo-Cons in their own way.

I feel the most despairing of the future that I have ever felt.

"Unbelievably, the Democratic leadership in Congress seems about to cave in to Bush and grant him, of all things, more power to spy on Americans."

Why is it unbelievable, Matthew? It is unbelievable only to those people who have been in denial since 2000 as Dem koolaid drinkers for the last 6.5+ years.

I swear, some people are pretty thick and it takes some people a long time to see things for what they really are, in part, because they don't want to see it. They want to believe otherwise.

But to the non-Dem koolaid drinkers who see the Dems for who and what they really are, this is quite believable and expected.

QUOTE:

Jeff Moehring August 2nd, 2007 2:39 pm

I second…or third….etc the comments.

I had a brief moment of elation last election.
Against all odds the Dems took both houses.

But I would have bet a year off of my life that the pitiful betrayal of the voters the Dems have given us would not happen.
Not after how hard we worked. Not after the record turnout.
Not with the unambiguous mandate that brought them to the control of both houses.

I was CERTAIN that Pelosi would come through. I honestly thought "impeachment is off the table" was just to keep from scaring the middle-of-the roaders.

END QUOTE

Why would you have had elation last November at the "election?"

I know many people were jumping up and down in premature celebration---which mind you, is typical for many so-called "progressives" to celebrate things prematurely before there is really anything concrete to celebrate---just because the useless Dems became the majority. At the time I asked people why they were getting so excited over nothing (because nothing was going to change) at which point I was called a "troll."

Before the so-called "election" Pelosi said impeachment was "off the table." I said the woman was serious. Dem koolaid drinkers in denial called me a "troll" and a "naysayer." They said Pelosi was just saying "impeachment is off the table" to fool the Repugs. Talk about wishful thinking. They said she was just "playing the game." I said all of that was bullcrap. I'm in the woman's district and she was being serious, I said.

Why on earth would you have been "certain" that Pelosi would have come through?

I'm not saying you did this, but it was people like you (holding your view) that called me every name under the sun simply because I didn't fall for the Bush-Enabling Dems. Since 2000 I have seen them for who and what they are and I'm not the only person to do that. It just takes some people a lot, lot longer apparently...to see the truth. Because the truth hurts and many people refuse to see it or believe it even when it smacks them upside the face. They prefer to think otherwise.

You referred to the "record turnout." If memory serves correctly, the voter turnout nationwide was only in the 40% range. Hardly a "record turnout."

Why isn't anyone demanding proof that over 6 years of ILLEGAL SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS has resulted in finding one single terrorist, or terrorist cell, or friend of a terrorist, or stopping a real terrorist plot against the "homeland," or anyone else's homeland. Give us just one reason to believe the outrageous justifications for keeping tabs and databases on as many of us as possible are true. Just one.

Okay, so 6 years of illegal spying on American citizens has been a complete waste of time and resources with regards to finding and/or catching someone who even once had a thought about a terror-related activity (you know, like reading.) So, then, tell us the truth: WHY ARE YOU SPYING ON US? (And by "us" I mean progressives only, of course. Al Gore and Ted Kennedy on the No Fly List? Ever hear of a GOPathological on any No Fly List?)

Is it possible enough "dots" are being collected on us "dissenters" who are "undermining" the "president" that, when the time comes, said dots can be arranged to make us appear to be... traitors? 10,000 illegal NS letters, tens of thousands of voters illegally purged, militant librarians, "special programs" detention centers, Senators publicly accused of near-treason, nuns arrested, Quaker peace groups monitored by the DoD... connect those dots, baby.

erma,

First....last election was the first time I have voted for the Dems. No I actually voted for Bill Clinton the first time. It was an easy choice over Bush Sr. I didn't make that mistake again.

Second....I was elated that the GOP lost control of BOTH houses. I felt that was certainly better than the status quo. And still do.

Third....I really thought that being a career politician Pelosi would be moved to act in her own self-interest given the sea change in public opinion that the last election represented.

Fourth....I do believe that the turnout of Democratic voters last time was if not an all time record, certainly the highest in a very long time.
I could care less how many turned out for the GOP. The lower the better.

Finally.....what is YOUR suggestion?
Stay home?
Vote third-party?

Or are you a Libertarian?

You sound mad as hell. What is your prescription for the ailment we face?

For what little it is worth I have known that the Democratic Party could give a rats ass about us since long before 2000.
YOU are a little late to wake up if you just found that out 7 years ago.

I was just glad that the GOP lost.

Perhaps you have something useful to say.
But all your comment displayed was a whiny sense of "I know more than you do" attitude.

That Erma, is boring and pointless.

all the best

Erma,

Obviously your "impressions" of what I think are not that accurate.

I am aware of what a Kool-Aid drinker is.
Again your "know more than everybody else" mentality is showing.

If after my second posting you could use the term "their beloved Dems" and ascribe that sentiment to me your "impressions" are batting zero so far.
You seem to assume that because you know something that everyone else is a dumbass.
That sanctimonious posturing probably does more to turn off those that need to have their eyes opened than anything else the left does.

And for what little it is worth I read your post simply because it began with MY NAME and you were obviously speaking TO ME.

DUH!!.....Why else do you think I bothered to read it?

QUOTE:
annabelle August 2nd, 2007 7:14 pm

Many writers have very insightful comments to make and their thoughts and ideas and perspectives are welcome and appreciated. The writers who find it necessary to downgrade others, even being critical of grammer, etc. are taking up valuable space for positive and creative ideas. I doubt if too many readers really have time to get caught up in your little spit fights. Why don't you use all of the energy to solve problems rather than nitpick what other have to say???

END QUOTE

Well isn't your post a perfect example of what you are complaining about in others?....you took up "valuable space" to say that?...for THAT post?...to lecture on THAT?...rather than "use all of the energy to solve problems rather than 'nitpick' what others have to say?"

Do YOU own any mirrors?

I swear, some people! At first with your lecture, I was thinking that you were some sort of moderator stepping in to talk about something. And then the more I read, I realised this is no moderator. It's just some person who didn't like something they read on here---perhaps language in somebody's posts was not bourgeois elite enough for you?---and doesn't realise they have just done with their own post what they are complaining about in other people's post(s).

The Dems and the GOP are both owned by the same masters -- big business, big finance, and the Israel lobby.

The differ on tactical issues only.

Let's face it -- if Bush had won in Iraq few if any Democrats would be opposing him on this issue despite the horrendous slaughter of Iraq civilians in a brutal war of plunder and aggression.

Such is the sorry state to which American politics has sunk.

i'm with the post from another thread:

Curmudgeon, PLEASE stop posting the same post to every thread on the site!

QUOTE:

Jeff Moehring August 2nd, 2007 5:34 pm

Erma,

I am aware of what a Kool-Aid drinker is.
Again your "know more than everybody else" mentality is showing.

END QUOTE

Well, your second sentence is your interpretation. I defined what a kool-aid drinker is simply because I have talked with many people in the past who had never heard the term and they didn't know what I was referring to. So to avoid any confusion over the term, I defined it. That's all. But please, I didn't mean to at all insult your high bourgeois elite intelligence, speaking of "knowing more than anybody else." Do you own any mirrors?

QUOTE:

You seem to assume that because you know something that everyone else is a dumbass.

END QUOTE

You've completely missed the entire point of the discussion...at least the point that I was making. Anyway, I'll just say this and leave at this: When one acts like a "dumbass" due to their wishful-thinking and blinders and their blind allegiance to a political party (Bush-Enabling party), what do YOU call it? Something mealy-mouthed like a "misstep" or a "wrong move" or "an error."

QUOTE:

That sanctimonious posturing probably does more to turn off those that need to have their eyes opened than anything else the left does.

END QUOTE

I have tried many different approaches with people and the fact is: I just state my opinions. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind because I don't see that that is possible. People will think what they want regardless. Most people are programmed with at least 2 things at a very early age:

1. A believe in a god (usually the christian fellow) AND
2. Political Party line

I can't begin to count the number of people I've heard say, "I'll be a Dem (or Repug) until the day I die. My family has always been Dem (or Repug) and that's the way it is."

With most people it is impossible to deprogramme that party-line stuff which is why I've seen so much blinders-on and wishful-thinking from so-called "progressives" when it comes to the Bush-Enabling Dems.

I live under NO illusion that I'm about to change anyone's mind. From my experience with talking with people and using different approaches, most people are pretty set in their thinking/opinions and most especially along D or R party-line. D and R is all they can conceive of thinking. I state my opinion just as others do and some times I make people think - some people have told me just that.

And when I urged you to scroll on by my posts obviously I was referring to FUTURE posts. I thought that was a given.

It is clear to me that a vote for a dem is a vote for Cheney/Bush.

I think it's time to either wear a maple leaf on my hat and learn to say "vitt a min" instead of vitamin and "zed" instead of zee, or find the best place to cross the Rio Grande after darkness falls.

You can tell which way the wind blows when "for profit concerns" get into the "prison" industry, in a big way.

If you want proof of the veracity of Rothchild's contention, look at Pelosi on PBS where she tells us she is proud of what her so-called leadership in Congress has accomplished.

Swan-Song From An Educated A**hole
(Do Democracy A Favor; Wise-Up Or Stay Away From The Polls)

"WHAT CORPORATE America wanted was nothing less than the Third Worlding of the US, a collapse of both present reality and future expectations. The closer the life and wages of our citizens could come to those of less developed nations, the happier the huge stateless multinationals would be. Then, as they said in the boardrooms and at the White House, the global playing field would be leveled" (Sam Smith, Pro-Review)

This was the program, and what did Big Media share w/us?-- Monica. Is this the "lesser" evil you meant, democrats?--a deregulated USA w/ GWB as outlaw beneficiary in a chaotic regime? Look around, democrats-- Iraq/Iran?/Pakistan?/Syria... et al, the NAFTA War(s), now a big part of daily life. Is This What You Had In Mind?

Like so many good Democrats, we want to believe.... But you and millions of others will be going to the polls w/o a clue about how we got here from the 80's. A democracy cannot function without a free press, and this, coupled w/NAFTA & the merging of our 2-pty system were/are capable, each by itself of destabilizing if not crippling a viable democracy. Pay attention, democrats--the list of right-wing reforms Bill Clinton engineered in the 90's were/are mind-blowing but the only information the press shared w/us was the steady drumbeat, Monica, and again, we're learning more than we care to know---now, about Hillary's cleavage. And, still, not a single VERIFIABLE word about their political activities since the 80's. . .

I'm not thinking you, or anyone, should take my word for it--all I'm saying is Clinton knew what he was doing when he eliminated the free press in '96 and the Corporate Media Giants have had the Clinton's back since then. It's scary how successful they've been at suppressing public access to information; they work so hard at this because they know, the only enemy! powerful enough to defeat the Clinton's is the truth!! Please, if you think you have a right to know BEFORE! you vote then -- do your homework, democrats. .

"Clintonomics" don't hear that term much anymore? It was openly referred to everywhere, until it generated the U.S vs. the World when it was renamed: "Rubinomics." Clintonomics, the real! New World Order, surfaced in the 90's. Dems like to blame it on a republican congress but Bush the 1st tried to pass NAFTA, & failed because of democratic opposition; there WAS! a strong dem. majority when Clinton took office.

Most of the Clintons political life has been spent ingratiating themselves to the Corporate Aristocracy, and dedicated to destroying the left. When they founded the DLC in the 80's w/Lieberman--that was their *express, and explicit mission. I was a naive a**hole like you who didn't do my homework & voted for Bill Clinton-- the first time around. Check out the candidates, my friend, do democracy a favor and express yourselves through a 3rd party or stay away from the polls.

QUOTE:

starislon2 August 2nd, 2007 6:37 pm

It is clear to me that a vote for a dem is a vote for Cheney/Bush.

I think it's time to either wear a maple leaf on my hat and learn to say "vitt a min" instead of vitamin and "zed" instead of zee, or find the best place to cross the Rio Grande after darkness falls.

You can tell which way the wind blows when "for profit concerns" get into the "prison" industry, in a big way.

END QUOTE

Right-on! My thoughts exactly. I'm slowly working on learning Spanish. It's very interesting.

Swan-Song From An Educated A**hole
(Do Demcoracy A Favor; Wise-Up Or Stay Away From The Polls)

"WHAT CORPORATE America wanted was nothing less than the Third Worlding of the US, a collapse of both present reality and future expectations. The closer the life and wages of our citizens could come to those of less developed nations, the happier the huge stateless multinationals would be. Then, as they said in the boardrooms and at the White House, the global playing field would be leveled" (Sam Smith, Pro-Review)

This was the program, and what did Big Media share w/us?-- Monica. Is this the "lesser" evil you meant, democrats?--a deregulated USA w/ GWB as outlaw beneficiary in a chaotic regime? Look around, democrats-- Iraq/Iran?/Pakistan?/Syria... et al, the NAFTA War(s), now a big part of daily life. Is This What You Had In Mind?

Like so many good Democrats, we want to believe.... But you and millions of others will be going to the polls w/o a clue about how we got here from the 80's. A democracy cannot function without a free press, and this, coupled w/NAFTA & the merging of our 2-pty system were/are capable, each by itself of destabilizing if not crippling a viable democracy. Pay attention, democrats--the list of right-wing reforms Bill Clinton engineered in the 90's were/are mind-blowing but the only information the press shared w/us was the steady drumbeat, Monica, and again, we're learning more than we care to know---now, about Hillary's cleavage. And, still, not a single VERIFIABLE word about their political activities since the 80's. . .

I'm not thinking you, or anyone, should take my word for it--all I'm saying is Clinton knew what he was doing when he eliminated the free press in '96 and the Corporate Media Giants have had the Clinton's back since then. It's scary how successful they've been at suppressing public access to information; they work so hard at this because they know, the only enemy! powerful enough to defeat the Clinton's is the truth!! Please, if you think you have a right to know BEFORE! you vote then -- do your homework, democrats. .

"Clintonomics" don't hear that term much anymore? It was openly referred to everywhere, until it generated the U.S vs. the World when it was renamed: "Rubinomics." Clintonomics, the real! New World Order, surfaced in the 90's. Dems like to blame it on a republican congress but Bush the 1st tried to pass NAFTA, & failed because of democratic opposition; there WAS! a strong dem. majority when Clinton took office.

Most of the Clintons political life has been spent ingratiating themselves to the Corporate Aristocracy, and dedicated to destroying the left. When they founded the DLC in the 80's w/Lieberman--that was their *express, and explicit mission. I was a naive a**hole like you who didn't do my homework & voted for Bill Clinton-- the first time around. Check out the candidates, my friend, do democracy a favor and express yourselves through a 3rd party or stay away from the polls.

Many writers have very insightful comments to make and their thoughts and ideas and perspectives are welcome and appreciated. The writers who find it necessary to downgrade others, even being critical of grammer, etc. are taking up valuable space for positive and creative ideas. I doubt if too many readers really have time to get caught up in your little spit fights. Why don't you use all of the energy to solve problems rather than nitpick what other have to say???

Apparently, the Dems are listening to us:

Posted on 07/31/2007 11:32:22 AM PDT by Man50D

(CNSNews.com) - House Republican leaders Tuesday criticized what they called an "11th hour decision" by Democrats to put off a hearing on updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) until after Congress' August recess, warning that "national security can't be postponed."

"Democrats have ignored, downplayed, and done everything possible to sidestep addressing the FISA problem," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a news release. "Now, they have canceled a hearing with the director of national intelligence (DNI) rather than have him address the issue directly on Capitol Hill."

Would you ladies quit pissin and moanin.....it is a consumate waste of time....just say it once then bag it.

Matthew Rothschild makes a very good distinction in his article. He mentions "Democratic leaders" or "Democratic leadership" multiple times. And then he refers to "Democrats" separately, as in not all of them agree with the leaders. It is important for progressives to recognize that our own among the Democrats (Lee, Lewis, Woolsey, Kucinich, McDermott, Waters, and many others) are part of the solution. Overgeneralizing about the Democrats as all bad is inaccurate and Rothschild does not make that mistake.

Its Nader's fault. If he hadn't run for president in 2000 the Democrats wouldn't have been able to cave into Bush.

Chees . . . This discussion reminds me of Groucho Marx's statement that he wouldn't join any club that would have him.

The Bush-Cheney Crime Syndicate is blatantly guilty of abuse of power and treason, yet the eunuchs -- Democrats -- do absolutely nothing. It's all talk -- blah blah blah. Congress has become a bunch of comedians. The Bush-Cheney Crime Syndicate refuse to be questioned, and the few that are conveniently have "forgotten" everything.

Thanks Earthian,

your reminder that there's a big difference between Dems like Kucinich, Waters, Lee, Woolsey, etc. and the so-called-leadership is right on.

For example, I think anyone who wants to change the imperialist, capitalist workings of this country should support Kucinich in the primary. This does not mean I'll support a corporate Democrat in the general election, or that I won't work simultaneously to change the electoral system to include more non-corporate parties. Some of the posts on Common Dreams are just a little too purist when it comes to this (very important) question relating to what to do with your vote when you're living under capitalism.

QUOTE: Earthian August 3rd, 2007 12:14 am

Matthew Rothschild makes a very good distinction in his article. He mentions "Democratic leaders" or "Democratic leadership" multiple times. And then he refers to "Democrats" separately, as in not all of them agree with the leaders. It is important for progressives to recognize that our own among the Democrats (Lee, Lewis, Woolsey, Kucinich, McDermott, Waters, and many others) are part of the solution [ARE THEY REALLY?]. Overgeneralizing about the Democrats as all bad is inaccurate and Rothschild does not make that mistake.
END QUOTE

FYI:

Democrats' "Out of Iraq" caucus puts on a show for its radical friends

By Tom Carter in Washington DC
5 February 2007

A January 29 event in Washington sponsored by the "Out of Iraq" congressional caucus exemplified the political orientation of the left-liberal, Stalinist and middle-class radical forces that organized the January 27 antiwar protest.

The event, advertised as a book fair and discussion, was addressed by Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey, both Democratic representatives from California. The two congresswomen were among a number of Democrats who addressed the January 27 march, which was sponsored by the United for Peace and Justice coalition.

The January 29 event was held for the benefit of march organizers and participants who had remained in Washington to lobby congressmen and senators. The two congresswomen presided over a panel discussion of academics, journalists and veterans who had published books on the Iraq war.

The panel reflected the political tendencies involved in United for Peace and Justice. It included Christian Parenti, a correspondent for the Nation magazine, and Anthony Arnove, a member of the International Socialist Organization who has written articles for the Nation, the International Socialist Review, Socialist Worker, Red Pepper, and other radical publications.

It is not a revelation that Waters and Woolsey are political impostors, who have made their careers by adapting themselves to the policies of the American ruling elite while conning their constituents with demagogy and empty promises. Nor are the opportunist politics of the forces that dominate United for Peace and Justice a new discovery.

Nevertheless, this reporter was struck by the unqualified and unrestrained character of the support—even adulation—exhibited for these Democratic Party fakers by those in the audience.

Like groupies at a rock concert, many of the 50 or 60 attendees lined up to be photographed standing next to Maxine Waters, grateful for the chance to bask in her reflected glory. In the course of the proceedings, the audience cheered at every left-sounding declaration the congresswomen made—on several occasions interrupting their remarks with standing ovations.

Taken as a whole, the event illustrated some hallmarks of the radical protest milieu: an appalling superficiality and willful blindness in political approach and analysis, an organic gravitation to the Democratic Party, and a longing for political respectability.

The political perspective that dominated the event was clear from the outset. In her opening remarks, Woolsey noted that prior to last November, when the Democrats were in the minority in both houses of Congress, they would have been obliged to hold such a meeting in the basement of one of the congressional office buildings. She gestured at the large, ornately-upholstered hearing room usually used by the House Ways and Means Committee to dramatize the Democrats' change in fortunes. The entire audience erupted in applause.

Notwithstanding the exultation of United for Peace and Justice, the Nation and associated groups over the Democrats' newfound congressional supremacy, the benefit to be derived by the broad mass of working people from the fact that Waters and Woolsey are now in the majority and can host meetings in more prestigious environs can be precisely estimated. In round figures, it is zero.

Who are Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey, and what do they represent politically? They and the rest of their Out of Iraq caucus are not in principle opposed to American imperialism or the global aims and interests of the US financial elite. They seek to keep opposition to the war on the most narrow and superficial level and conceal the root causes of the war in the capitalist system itself—a system which they defend.

Thus they are obliged to combine sometimes militant-sounding denunciations of the war with protestations of patriotism and praise for "our men and women in uniform." They accept uncritically the political-propaganda framework concocted by the Bush administration to justify the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the future wars being planned by US strategists—the so-called "war on terror." They can be heard denouncing the Iraq war as a diversion that has weakened the "war on terror," and suggesting that more troops, money and blood need to be devoted to Afghanistan or other countries deemed obstacles to US interests.

They are driven infinitely more by the failure of the US colonial exercise in Iraq than by its imperialist and lawless essence. That is why all of their declarations and actions assume such a two-faced and cynical character.

It should be recalled that Woolsey voted for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which declared that the policy of the United States in Iraq was regime-change. This act, passed unanimously in the Senate and overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives during the Clinton presidency, set the stage for the military invasion carried out under Bush. Having voted for a policy that implicitly set the course for military aggression, Woolsey shares political responsibility for the catastrophic consequences.

Waters, Woolsey and a half-dozen other congressmen founded the Out of Iraq caucus in June of 2005, i.e., after more than two years of bloody occupation and after mass antiwar sentiment within the US and around the world had reached the point where it could not be safely ignored.

From the beginning, the founders of the Out of Iraq caucus took great pains to provide alibis for the failure of the Democrats to oppose the war, writing in their mission statement that "in the shadow of events on September 11, many felt unable or unwilling to speak out in opposition to the war in Iraq."

On January 17 of this year, Waters and Woolsey introduced House Resolution 508, a bill with virtually no chance of passing that calls for the withdrawal of US forces within a six-month period. At the January 29 book fair and discussion, as well as at the protest two days earlier, both congresswomen touted this bill as a rallying point for opposition to the war.

The bill itself begins with the obligatory tribute to the troops: "The brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces continue to serve with distinction in Iraq and have earned the respect and gratitude of the American people."

It goes on to declare that the government of Iraq has been elected "democratically" and calls for the defense of that government during its "transition to democratic rule." The authors of the bill, in other words, promote the grotesque fiction that the government in Iraq, established at the point of American bayonets, is legitimate and democratic.

In defending this puppet regime the bill effectively legitimizes the colonialist war that created it.

The bill proposes the deployment of an undefined "international stabilization force" in Iraq as a replacement for US forces. This is a euphemism for a new imperialist force, whether under the auspices of the United Nations or NATO, to maintain the subjugation of the Iraqi people.

At the January 29 event, Waters on a number of occasions referred to herself as a "patriot" and reiterated her "support for the troops." At the conclusion of the discussion, she asked all veterans to stand and receive a round of applause.

The discussion itself was carefully circumscribed. Political criticism was directed exclusively against members of the Bush administration and the Republican Party, and criticism of the war was largely restricted to its "mismanagement."

Waters at one point asked members of the panel for their suggestions for a "credible exit strategy" that could be embraced by other members of the Democratic Party. To a principled opponent of the war, the "exit strategy" is simple and straightforward: withdraw all troops immediately and unconditionally. "Credible exit strategy" is a code phrase bandied about in Washington and by the media that implies a plan to salvage US imperialism's basic interests in Iraq and avoid a catastrophic defeat.

At another point Waters stood reality on its head, asking the panel how the American people could be convinced to oppose the war: "How do we help the American people to understand, to have the courage?" she asked.

As Waters well knows, the American people are already overwhelmingly opposed to the war, which is why they voted to end Republican control of Congress last November. Her suggestion that the war continues because the people lack courage is a crude attempt to project the cowardice and complicity of herself and her party onto the population.

The mutual love fest between the protest organizers and the left-talking Democrats highlighted some important facts of American political life. The Bush administration would not be able to carry out its policies of war and attacks on democratic rights without the compliance of the Democratic Party.

But for the Democrats to serve this function, they require a "left" face, whose role is to keep up the fiction that the Democratic Party is a "party of the people" that, despite all of its sins, can be pressured to pursue policies of peace and social justice. This is where Waters, Woolsey and their ilk come in.

This deception could never be effective without a loyal corps of professional protesters, political opportunists, middle-class radicals, Stalinists, etc., whose job is to lend these con artists credibility so as to keep the working class chained to American capitalism's two-party duopoly of social reaction and war.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/rads-f05.shtml

As for Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey...

Living in San Francisco, I have been to all of the major anti-war protests here in the City.

Barbara Lee spoke at (I believe it was) the very first protest we had here after Bush's attack on Iraq.

But since then, neither Lee or Woolsey have been to any of our protests. The same for Boxer. She's been to NONE of them along with Lynn Woolsey. And of course war-profiteer Feinstein ain't about to go to any anti-war protest when she is pro-war and making $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ off of war in Iraq/Afghanistan through her husband's company, Perini.

For some of our protests, San Francisco was the major city on the West Coast for the protests so people came here from Los Angeles, Seattle and Portland for example. Maxine Waters of Los Angeles hasn't been to ANY of our protests either when people from Los Angeles came up here to join us.

I just thought I should point this out.

Democ-rats are the real problem. Utter scum.

As long as they represent the corporate class, or once elected, corrupted into how the game is played, how can there be any division when the allegiance is the same?
There are so few traitors to their class and to curry favor with the money lenders, a small percentage of the population is gaining greater control on every level from controlling the flow of information to owning the public infrastructure. Everything is being privatized and deregulated, so there is no oversight or accountability. It is wholesale looting and the public is often forced to pay for the means for private ownership to reap the profit--as is happening in Iraq. Listen to all those advocating for public-private partnership schemes for rebuilding infrastructure after the pipe burst in NY city and the bridge collapse. States are selling off their infrastructure for short term fixes, but where it ultimately leads us is to slum nation, because private interests have a pattern of seeking to increase their bottom line at the expense of everything else. It will be a corporate fascism--and when we can't fathom why our elected officials are complicit, it is because the way the government is structured- it too has become "privatized".

erma,

In the interest of fairness I would like to thank you for your most recent comment.

It was USEFUL AND INFORMATIVE:).

all the best

joed,
There aren't enough of us spoiled Americans ( even of those who deem themselves 'progressives' ) to effect change through personal sacrifice. I do believe that we
are getting exactly the kind of government that we deserve.
At some point in the not-too-distant future we will be living under a fascist regime, under martial law -- with dissenters in Cheney's internment camps -- , and the average, consumerist American won't even realize that
the country has changed.

Two gangs try to rob the same bank at the same time.
When the cops show up, each gang points to the other, yelling, "Hey, look! They're robbing the bank!"
Each wants to implicate the other -- but neither wants the bank to go unrobbed.

That's the way it is with republicans and democrats. They may squabble over who's going to get what cut of what swag, but just because they're sniping at each other, don't kid yourself into thinking they're on YOUR side.
They're still in the business of robbing banks.
And the bank is you.

SJ

www.spartacusjones.com

Government eavesdropping without judicial oversight, kind of like 1984, is to address national security professionals can close intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for the security of the USA.

Security from what? Consequence? Karma? I am confused. Wasn't Saddam labeled a threat for spying on Iraqis and making them live in constant fear, among other reasons. This action is acceptable in totalitarian dictatorships. however, the USA is a Democratic Republic. Republicans want Fascism for the USA though, and they are probably going to have it also, even by cheating or burning the USA Constitution itself. The latter I would not put pass by them if they are desperate enough to destroy the Government foundations of the USA. Hell the Republicans destroyed the foundations of Iraq.

Be more concerned about the inevitable economic collapse and national bankruptcy of the nation that rightfiully deserves it. This is more important than most other issues being discussed over there, yet hardly discussed.

Yeah, Matt, but are you and the gang at the Progressive complicit in discouraging effective moves that will bring about impeachment?
Here's what I just posted to the Progressive's site:

Sun, 08/05/2007 - 11:11am — Thomas J. Nagy (not verified)
Counterpunch on the Progressive & when it counts
It's hard to find a plausible explanation for the Progressive's backing impeachment EXCEPT with the most effective tools. Or the defense of Rep. Conyers, who plainly has lost his nerve or worse. John Nichols also talks a good line, till it get down to cruch time and then it looks like he joins Matt and their chums in discouraging action which will bring about impeachment.

Is the "Progressive" bunch no more than a bunch to toadies to the status quo and preservation of the Cheney-Bush gang.

See the article from Counterpunch and make up your own mind.

Forget the "Progressive", organize sit-ins at the offices of the liberals members of the House of Reps. who won't sign on for impeachment. Except for the brave 40+ members of the House, the rest take our vote than do nothing except ingage in inneffective b.s.

But, hey, unlike the infallable ones at the "Progressive", I make mistakes, so please read, decide and act for yourself and what remains of the Constitution.

Tom

June 16 / 17, 2007

Fallout from a Smear

Finkelstein and The Progressive

By JOHN HALLE

For those of us in the academy, among the most important stories of the week was a successful smear campaign waged by Alan Dershowitz and the Zionist lobby resulting in noted scholar and author Norman Finkelstein being denied tenure at DePaul University. The distinguished historian Raul Hilberg spoke for many in admitting to "a sinking feeling about the damage this will do to academic freedom."

One might think that this story would be a natural for inclusion in "McCarthyism Watch", a regular weekly feature on the Progressive Magazine website presided over by Progressive editor Matt Rothschild.

It won't be.

That's because of the minor but not insignificant role which Rothschild and Progressive columnist Ruth Conniff played in fueling the witch hunt.

A year ago, Finkelstein's name came up on a Madison talk show where Conniff was appearing as a guest. Conniff shocked many listeners by describing Finkelstein as "a Holocaust denier" and a "celebrity in a certain, a pretty ugly anti-semitic group in the country." Finkelstein protested demanding a retraction from Conniff's editor, fearing that a respected publication's denigration of his character could influence his upcoming tenure decision. Rothschild responded by reasserting the correctness of Conniff's charges, citing in support canards circulated by Finkelstein's chief antagonist, Dershowitz.

Since the DePaul administration's deliberations were conducted in secret, it is not known whether Finkelstein's fears materialized. It is not unreasonable to assume that Conniff's slanders and Rothschild's defense of them sent a clear signal that Finkelstein was fair game who could not count on the support even on the left fringes of the mainstream.

And indeed, there was one organ of progressive opinion which was silent on the Finkelstein case this week.
Rothschild is fond of citing Martin Niemoller's adage of what happens when we don't speak up when they come for others.

Like too many liberals, both now and in the Weimar Republic, one can always count on Rothschild and the Progressive for a howl of outrage.

Except when it matters.

John Halle is Director of Studies in Music Theory and Practice at Bard College. He can be reached at: halle@bard.edu

I am going to dog Feinstein's steps while she's having her summer recess and ask her every chance I get why she ceded the last of my fourth amendment rights to Alberto Gonzalez and the worst preznit in history.