The Dimocraps deserve to lose.

Odd how the Beltway pundits say

"Democrats better not oppose the President on Iraq, warrantless eavesdropping, presidential powers — otherwise they will look too weak and jeopardize themselves politically. They better repudiate the "inflammatory" statements coming from their angry "left-wing" or else they will alienate voters and it will serve as a "distraction" from all the great and important things they could be doing. They better go along with the eavesdropping and amnesty agreement cooked up by the Serious Jay Rockefeller and the Serious Dick Cheney if they want to win in 2008 because defying the Leader's orders will make them look weak."

when actually the majority of Americans stands in opposition to every one of these issues. The majority of Americans is not just the "angry left wing". Check out the polls.

Actually, the real "angry left wing" (and I'm one of them) is furious with the Democrats for betraying the issue-momentum that got them elected to the majority in 2006 and is now clearly caving in to the fears of the doom-sayer pundits.

What the Democrats don't seem to realize is if they don't oppose the Republican anti-constitutional and warmongering agenda, they're going to lose party members and votes, a lot of them, because they're further contributing to the Constitutional wreckage of America perfected by the GW Bush administration.

That 11% approval rating for Congress is really an 89% disapproval rating. That's because the Democrats have joined the Republican agenda, and now it's that blend in Congress that is earning this disapproval rating. The Democrats have blown the hopes of the majority of Americans who put them in the Congressional majority position.

I still think there's time to turn it around, but it's RIGHT NOW.

Part of the problem is that voters in the South and West still support the Iraq war, or at least refuse to face defeat and hope for some face-saving option. They're the folks that hate war less than they hate war protestors for their sin of "unpatriotism". The Democrats they elected or re-elected last year play to them by "opposing" Bush while "supporting" the troops. Which means keep the war going and doing whatever Bush wants. Worse still, these Bushdog Democrats may share the neo-con/PNAC goal of keeping Iraq as a major base of the American Empire, no matter the cost to the people (or the Iraqis). Not that I excuse Pelosi or other weeny or dishonest Democrats who throw away good cards from their hand.

The real question should be is why do we accept this two party charade to begin with when we don't even nominate the two final candidates (DNC and RNC does). Worse yet we are led to believe that we supposidly choose one with the diebold voting machines for President? I for one am sick of legitimizing a corrupt system.

This is the kind of "spin" created by the corporatocracy to sew fear among opportunist politicians and maintain control of the conversation. The sad part is that even liberals often accept it as "realism"

If more politicans told it like it was, maybe more people would get tuned into reality. I lvoed Pete Stark the other day.

The point of this article is not the politicians, it is the media and it's solid role as as a pure propaganda organ for the powerful - slapping down even the political leaders themselves when they step even one mm to the left.

They know very well that genuine, antiwar, pro-worker, populism would win every time, and a afraid to death of it, so they turn up the propaganda.

Sometimes, it gets ridiculous. A article in todays {Pittsburgh Post-Gazette claims a new 680 MW high-sulfur coal burning power plant under construction near Morgantown will will actually result in cleaner air and water.

Next: the sky is pink - even the New York Times says so - so it HAS to be true!

DOWN WITH THE CORPORATE MEDIA!

Aren't our politicians supposed to be thinking about what is best for the country instead of how best to stay elected? It seems they they care more about their political futures than they do for the future of the country.
Hoa binh

A slight aside here.

The link below is a hilarious spoof on Bush's (and right-wing pundits') response to the Democrats' statements and MoveOn's ad about General Petraeus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiuRhy4CqzU

=====

PJD

Yes, the article was primarily about the press positively covering those who want the Democrats to fail with this opportunity to crush the Republicans' unconstitutional programs. But it was also about how the Democrats ignored those warnings in the 2006 election cycle and went on to win majorities in both houses by doing so.

Greenwald doesn't mention what the Democratic Congress has done since then to weaken their position, and I think it's important for current times and the upcoming elections. He just says that the same tired old fearmongering among Republicans (that the press LOVES to cover) is continuing, without addressing whether the Democrats are listening and being stricken by those fears or not NOW.

I think they are listening and are stricken with fear, too. It's either that, or that they want what the Republicans have, in toto...

Maybe politicians ought to listen to their constituents and not the press, huh?

pjd is correct,the corporate media is motivated by a desire to maintain the status quo.the rich stay rich,the powerful stay in power,and everyone else can just fuck off and die

While we are talking about media spin, in case you have not heard, on college and university campuses nationwide, the Republicans are directing conservative students to get the word out that this week is "Islamofascism Awareness Week." As you might guess, David Horowitz is sponsoring it.

claudius October 21st, 2007 1:05 pm wrote

"This week is 'Islamofascism Awareness Week.' As you might guess, David Horowitz is sponsoring it."

I am generally wary of things that polarize our world. However it is very difficult not to want to polarize against David Horowitz.
So can anyone suggest non polarizing ways of countering people like David Horowitz?
.

The issue here is people read or hear these pundits and think they have the pulse of the country. They are so far removed from reality and yet there opinions are regarded as fact. An vast majority want this war to end,period. These pundits if you really look at what they say or write, preach about nothing! Look again and you'll see. Everything is hear say and mashed up points that lead now where. Ignore them and don't get caught up in assumptions about other parts of the country and their races for office, this sort of logic is put out there to divide and confused, create a hopeless feeling that only where you live are people truly understanding whats going on.

The "weak" are the fear filled conservatives, reactionaries, chickenhawks, war profiteers and testosterone ignoramuses that think killing and stealing to dispel their demons and allay their fears is the permanent solution.

Where do these so called experts come from who claim to know the pulse of the country? I thought the last election showed that the majority of the country wants to end this war now. Not tomorrow or next week or next month or next year. Right now. Yes, I know it will take some time to remove our troops. But declare the war ended now. Surely we can find enough planes to get our soldiers out both safely and quickly.

Of course there are plenty of people who do not feel that way. But didn't the last election show that they are in the minority?

Where do these political geniuses get the theory that if they oppose the war in Iraq they will be perceived as weak on defense. The Iraq war is not a defensive war. We invaded Iraq without any legitimate reason, against the United Nations, and against the majority of people in the entire Western World. We attacked Iraq in the same way that Hitler attacked Poland. Of course there are some differences. Hitler was trying to expand his territory whereas we are trying to expand our oil reserves. So?

Yes, everyone wants a government that is able to protect them from outside attacks. But Iraq is not an outside attack. And besides, there are plenty of people like me who believe that it is America's very acts of aggressive war on innocent nations that is actually risking our safety by making it more and more likely that the outside world will out of frustration unite and retaliate against us.

What can possibly be the sense behind a political party saying to those who oppose immoral, aggressive wars like Iraq that they oppose them (to get their votes) but then never criticize the war in Iraq out of fear that you will lose the support of those who want to win the war. Even if by some remote chance (not because of their flawed campaign) they ever do get elected, how can they satisfy their electorate who is split on this issue. They will simply continue this charade of an unpopular government who lacks the commitment to end the war. I say the best strategy is to go with the majority, those who oppose the war. Trying to play both sides loses votes from people like me who see you as just another bunch of liars.

I say Bravo to John Dean for saying that the Iraq war cannot be won. The democratic party should rally behind him for being willing to speak the truth. The democratic party should follow the will of the people who elected them and work immediately to end the war. Not win the war. End the war. Retreat. Admit defeat. Admit that our republican government lied to its own people to justify an unprovoked attack against an innocent country, and impeach the politicians who are responsible for it. America needs to admit that is has committed a grievous crime against humanity. Otherwise, what's to stop them from doing it again and again and again.

And what about the opinion of since1492, who states:

Aren't our politicians supposed to be thinking about what is best for the country instead of how best to stay elected?

It's as if they don't really hold any genuine opinion of their own about war. Well, what will it take to convince them that war, especially immoral, aggressive wars like America's Iraq and Hitler's Poland, is murder? What is it about murder that they don't understand? Think about being at your home with your family and suddenly a so-called smart bomb comes through the ceiling and blows your family to bits, leaving your wife's intestines dangling from the Christmas tree. Get the picture? That is the kind of atrocity that America routinely commits in Iraq to innocent people. We blow them to bits. There are legitimate estimates that say we have done that to 1.2 million people in Iraq alone. When are people in the Democratic Party going to start giving some thought to the morality of that? And exactly how is it that blowing innocent people to bits in their homes protects our freedom?

I encourage everyone to not vote for any politician, regardless of party affiliation, who supports immoral, unjustified wars like Iraq. We should not only immediately and completely retreat from Iraq, but we should apologize to the world for our crimes against humanity. Perhaps that is the kind of aggressive peace policy that this country needs to convince the war supporters that we have gone too far on this issue of war. You want oil? Fine. Buy it like everyone else. Stop invading countries for it. Ironically, in addition to the unacceptable loss of life that such war causes, the region usually becomes unstable and the price of oil goes up higher that it would have if you had just bought it in the first place. Hmmm. Could it be that that is what certain individuals wanted all along?

What planet are these people living on?

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/10/21/self_censorship_or_lobby_intimidation

AOL users, please note.

Here's how to end the war. Blockade America. No supplies to the troops in the field. When they run out of ammo and food, they can do the 'Stalingrad March' across Syria to Israel to find shelter.

Yeah, a pipe dream, I know.

At least I know the difference between fantasy and reality. Unlike the Money Party that seems to think they can have war after war without cost or consequence...

First, let's start spreading a new frame: instead of reporting Cheneybush's "approval" rating, all headlines should read:

"Bush's Disapproval Rating Hits Historic High" Washington, DC: A new Zogby poll released today shows that over 75% of Americans now DISAPPROVE of (or, if you prefer, loathe,) Loonitary Decider Bush, while Fourth Branch Executive Cheney is now DISAPPROVED of by 99% of United States Citizens, and an unprecedented 127% of the rest of Earth...

The words "approve" and "Bush" should never be used in the same sentence, unless that sentence is: The House has approved an Impeachment indictment against President Bush and 4BE Cheney...

Second, the Dems spent "the entire year doing everything the Beltway geniuses warned them not to do" only because it was the safe play - they knew the GOPathologicals would shoot down everything in their sights, including irrelevant "censure" measures. That gave them the hole card: "See? We tried! We really really tried! It's not our fault! Waaaa!" It worked, they regained enough power to alter events and then dropped the masks and revealed their true colors:

So let Bush say it, so let it be done.

Frank1569

Yeah, I've wondered why poll reports don't say, for instance, "89% of Americans disapprove of the direction Congress is taking us" instead of the other way around. Congress couldn't avoid reality then. Or Bush's disapproval rates, not his approval percentages. When the lower percentage is publicized, it's all too easy to miss the meaning and impact of the unspotlighted larger percentage. Actually, if it were up to me, I'd put the larger percentage of whatever issue is being polled as the headline.

This is an excerpt taken from "Without a Doubt"
By RON SUSKIND

"The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

I think there are some good ideas here. A blockade against America sounds cool.

I wonder if it would have been better to locate the United Nations in The Hague or Geneva rather than New York. Perhaps then America would not have such a dominating influence and the UN would have the guts to be more objective when comparing the behavior of America with that of other nations. The UN should declare sanctions against America for it's unjustified, preemptive wars and resulting crimes against humanity. It seems to me that a lot of other countries who are currently under UN sanctions are guilty of far lesser crimes than America is. Indeed, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what Iran has done to deserve UN sanctions. To date I haven't heard anything that deserves such treatment.

A complete trade embargo against America would be cool. Hopefully all countries will have the moral character to participate. America would be left totally on its own to contemplate the consequences of its own behavior. We would no longer have to give our children toys with lead paint on them or feed our pets contaminated food. And best of all, because we would then have to make those products ourselves, I might be able to find a job again. Wow!!!!!!! Imagine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A Job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And yes, the words "approval" and "Bush" should never be used together in the same conversation ever.

Just heard a report on CNN with Lou Dobbs, Jeffrey Tubin and Bill Schneider. They're opining that as of this weekend Bush Republicans have made a huge and surprising comeback, that Bush is no longer a "lame duck" president, but is likely to finish his term of office winning on his agenda all the way, even though he's failed at almost everything. The attribute this to the Democrats' failure to fight him on the unconstitutional unitary executive principle. They warned about Mukasey's support of the unitary executive principles.

These pundits blame the Democrats' failure in Congress on "the slow political process and 500+ egomaniacs" there. They think all this Republican success-Democratic failure may adversely affect the Democrats in the upcoming elections -- in all polls, Giuliani is running neck-neck with Hillary Clinton, since he continually identifies himself with 911 and not the war in Iraq that all Americans want out of.

It's going to be an interesting 13 months ahead.

"So can anyone suggest non polarizing ways of countering people like David Horowitz?"

Cyanide? LOL
.

Rick, I'm reading The One Percent Doctrine right now by him. Pretty deep reading but interesting...

Script is the right word for it. We have an entrenched semi-permanent group who have come to see themselves as 'government' rather than as representatives of the public. This status quo beltway elite play the game together and close ranks rather than risk their 'place' in the game. People are surprised when our representatives do not represent us but seem mostly to represent lobbyists and corporate donors. The status quo does not rock the boat willingly.

Some suggest not voting for dems. That is applauded by republicans who drool at the idea that so many votes will be lost to their opposition. Yes the dems aren't much of an opposition but geeze look at what the repubs have done to us. Try to remember that please. The mainstream media continually tries to resusitate the republicans' chances despite the fiasco the repubs have brought us to. It is an owned media don't forget not a free press any longer. An owned press and much a part of the status quo.

Rather than encouraging progressive people not to vote, we need to encourage the election of as many NEW people to Congress as possible in 08. The status quo is as we see it and that is why nothing is done. An anti-incumbent attitude will pressure the do nothing dems more than anything else will. They will be forced to compete with the threat from new people with new ideas and so will DO more of what we wish them to than now when they simply sit back and play the game. If they felt their reelection threatened then they will act. They are politicians and will do what it takes to get elected. Even if that means doing what the public wants.

Apparently with this fossilized crowd in Congress, doing what the public wants is a worst case scenario and only fear of not being elected or reelected would motivate them to resort to such an unfamiliar and unusual tactic.

Don't say don't vote for dems because it only helps the repubs who are far worse. But do make it know NOW when it counts that Americans want change or we'll change our representatives.

In the end ...yes it may still be voting for the lesser of two weasels... but would you rather help elect the worst of the two?

We need new weasels to be elected...um...ahem...representatives to be elected into Congress. They'd be better than the status quo we have now.

BugsBBunny III makes a good point (above):

"Rather than encouraging progressive people not to vote, we need to encourage the election of as many NEW people to Congress as possible in 08."

If we're unhappy with certain Democrats, there is nothing in the world wrong with replacing them in the primaries with other, better Democrats, providing those people are of the stature to actually win in a general election.

It would be a fine thing to emerge 1/20/09 with a Democratic president, a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, and few to none of them incumbents.
This is a dream too far, of course, but it's not a dream to see some of the center-right Democrats be replaced with some way farther to the left. Though some of the new ones sent there in 2006 were very anti-war and progressive, some of the more tenured ones already there were, as we know, "business-as-usual." Would be great to change out some of these, as long as the effort does not backfire and give control back to Republicans.

When a Democrat actually has the guts to spit out a few words of truth the bully media whips them to pieces. When a Democrat actually has the guts to spit out a few words of truth I cheer them and would consider voting for them again. They certainly are not hurt for chances to win again. On the contrary they are showing a little backbone and deserve a round of applause. Backbone is not readily apparent these days, and when it does raise up it jolly well better be taken seriously.

With so much dissent towards our congress, maybe we the people should call for a re-writing of or Constitution whereby we the people become the legislative branch of government and rid ourselves of these backstabbers. Why do we need representatives when we have this PC, with instant communication, right in front of us? Mike Gravel has the right idea with the 'National Initiative' .

Everyone loved Pete Stark for saying in the halls of Congress what everyone knows, the Smirk is a mofo sociopath who gets a kick out of being a 'wartime president'. Only No-Votes-Pelosi and the cocktail-party shites of the Murder Stream Media ever get their diapers in a twist over the attacks made on these ratfinks.

The Democrats' real problem has been cowardice--not in opposition to war, but in confronting the most corrupt, incompetent, warmongering, lawless and arrogant administration and erstwhile congressional majority in history. Had Gore challenged the smears against him and spotlighted Bush's sordid past, had he more resolutely challenged the Florida fix, had Kerry responded to the Swift Boat attacks by contrasting his heroic service record with Bush's draft dodging and wartime desertion, we wouldn't be in this mess. This administration needs to be shamed by public hearings and punished as a deterrent to future would-be tyrants. Are some Democrats afraid that their complicity will also become evident? Are they being blackmailed?

anney,

"Just heard a report on CNN with Lou Dobbs, Jeffrey Tubin and Bill Schneider. They're opining that as of this weekend Bush Republicans have made a huge and surprising comeback"

These bathetic pricks have no shame. This was the script handed to them by their boss Walter Isaacson who probably looks to pick up newspapers if the FCC slips us another mickey.

We need another Pete Stark every day in Congress telling the truth. What he said is exactly true, Bush does seem not to be bothered about killing people, as shown in the people executed under his governance in Texas, where he made not one pardon, it is said. Why should Stark apologize for truth when Bush and Cheny will not admit one mistake for their misdeeds? I don`t remember the swiftboaters apologizing for their lies about decorated servicemen, which was about as low as you can get.

I just hope the common voter wakes up to the fact that what the corporations, who OWN both parties, want, they get. Please vote for candidates who want what is for the good of the people.
Both parties put on a great show of "the other side will lead us to ruin." But the same candidates have been bought through contributions by the corporations. Whoever wins the elections serve not the Peoples needs, but the corporations needs.
Vote for someone who will serve the PEOPLE, not the corporations.

Hoping doesn't cut it.

People need to stop just talking and typing. They need to start DOING.

Fixing DC:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D266C9A7CBAE7812

http://Citizens4.us

Disgusting...absolutely disgusting. Millions Die - they talk of Politics. Perverse in the extreme. A Pox of both their Houses.

These pundits are in fact simply protecting their own base in the right wing of the Democratic Party. If you don't publicly and forcefully oppose Bushite strategy, then you leave the right wing an open field to frame the debate. They would rather lose the election than lose their own control of the Democratic Party. It is a self-fullfilling prophesy. If you remember back to the McGovern campaign years ago, as soon as George won the nomination, the whole right wing of the party deserted him. John Connelly even defected to the Republicans. Then when McGovern lost they blamed him for being too far to the left. It is an old story. If the left doesn't make the case for its own position then the only case that is made comes from the right, and guess what? The public, with only one point of view broadcast at them night and day, naturally tends to believe what they hear. If you don't bring your point of view into the public arena, then you have unilaterally forfeited the debate.

Wow, our mainstream media is full of propaganda? Say it isn't so! ;)

Dems lose in part because they say they want higher taxes that nobody really wants. Incorporating We the People would mean NO TAXES, no bought politicians, no minority controlled courts, no theft of our public resources and corporate governance that works for The People Inc. instead of for the Halliburtons of the world. A corporation that at yearly stockholders meetings could hire and fire their management according to their performance, just as all corporations do.

Each American citizen would own equal shares of non-transferable stock in our trillions of dollars worth of public property and receive dividends from their lease to other corporations. This would make us all rich economically, socially and environmentally.

The People Inc. would care for our infrastructure with earnings and dividends we accrue from the income of the sale or lease of our products, like other companies do. But The People Inc. would only deal with socially and environmentally responsible companies and demand a fair price with no giveaways, bailouts or handouts to other companies as we have now with a government that does not represent We the People, but other corporations that steal the people's resources.

The People Inc., the largest and most powerful corporation, would be the world's best example of direct democracy.

Feedback would be appreciated.

The only good news seems to be that, in spite of the warhawk propaganda of the Big Media, the GOP, and the DLC Dems, all of the polls say a majority of Americans are against Bush, his Iraq debacle, and any future war with Iran. The whole neocon Republican agenda, right down the line, has lost favor with the majority.

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, she'll rule center-right as did Bill, but that will be an improvement over the nutcase Christopublican neocons that have been inhabiting the White House for the past six years. And, while the Dems may be slow on the uptake, the country is becoming more progressive after seeing the results of the conservative 'paradise' the Bushites have imposed, and politicians will follow along to get elected.

It's telling that the lobbyists for corporate America --except the oil companies -- are funneling their campaign contributions to Democrats by a wide margin for the first time in years. While the DNCC is flush with cash, their Republican counterparts are broke.

"Just heard a report on CNN with Lou Dobbs, Jeffrey Tubin and Bill Schneider. They're opining that as of this weekend Bush Republicans have made a huge and surprising comeback..."

Anney, look at the pedigree of these three: Lou Dobbs is an old Wall Street warhorse, even though he makes noises like a populist now and then; Toobin is a corporate tool who will provide whatever opinion is good for his employers at Time Warner, parent company of CNN; and Bill Schneider is a Senior Fellow at the far right-wing American Enterprise Institute that still supports Bush, the Iraq War, and further Middle East invasions, so what do you expect?

Still, programs like The Daily Show and Keith Olbermann continue to gain in popularity while the right-wing is losing audience -- AAR's Randi Rhodes is beating Rush Limbaugh's ratings in some cities, and Bill O'Reilly has lost over a million viewers since 2004!

The media is moving to the left, if for no other reason than that's where the money is.

"So can anyone suggest non polarizing ways of countering people like David Horowitz?"

Jan, I wish I could think of one but, sometimes, when confronted with frauds and liars like Horowitz and the other crazy neocons, all you can do is ridicule them for their stupidity (which is very effective). Trying to counter them with a reasonable argument just doesn't work.

Center-right isn't an improvement over Bush: it's the door that led to Bush.

RSJ

I posted what I could remember of that segment that I'd just seen because it was exactly what the author of the article above was talking about but got caught up in imagining how this kind of perspective will fuel the upcoming campaign in the MSM. So my last comment was hanging on THAT thought, not what they were saying.

I must say that if anyone is "helping" the Republican party, you've got to put some Democrats on the list with their tea-party approach to dealing with them.

In one way, the CNN trio was correct. I think Republicans are a lot stronger going into the campaign (except for their ghastly candidate choices) than they would have been if the Democrats had drawn a line in the sand. Instead, the Democrats look like a bunch of addlepated ninnies giving Bush everything he wants. (I am very angry about their refusal to fight the White House and Republican unconstitutional intentions with every tool and strategy available to them.) Sure, the Bush administration and it supporters look worse every day. But I can't block out the Democrats' wimpy response to them since the 2006 election, sort of a sit back and let's watch them screw America attitude. I think it's going to cost them votes.

Paul, you wrote: "Center-right isn't an improvement over Bush: it's the door that led to Bush."

I agree that's it's not ideal, but Clintonism is better than being on the 'Bush brink' and may usher in a more progressive era in spite of Hillary Clinton's center-right governing style.

"Instead, the Democrats look like a bunch of addlepated ninnies giving Bush everything he wants. (I am very angry about their refusal to fight the White House and Republican unconstitutional intentions with every tool and strategy available to them.) Sure, the Bush administration and it supporters look worse every day. But I can't block out the Democrats' wimpy response to them since the 2006 election, sort of a sit back and let's watch them screw America attitude. I think it's going to cost them votes."

Anney, it would cost them votes if we had a viable third party, but we don't at the moment. I've read that the Dem strategy, such as it is, is very cynical -- they want to give Bush everything he wants so that they can claim it's all the Republicans' fault and, since they know eveything Bush touches turns to failure, it only helps them in 2008. I think this stinks and am angry about it too, but, as I mention above, I think the country is becoming more progressive in spite of the Dems and they'll have to change if they want to continue being elected. As in 1932, I think we're looking at the sort of seismic political shift that changes things for a couple of generations.

RSJ

An honest question: why do you think the Democrats will change if they win the elections in 2008? What will they change?

My comment: I don't think the "progressive" element of the American population has had much impact on the Democrats to date so am wondering why you think it will in the future.

You think we're looking at a seismic political shift that changes things for a couple of generations.

I think the REAL seismic shift has already occurred -- precedents have been set on an ongoing basis for the last seven years in all kinds of unconstitutional matters with the support of the Democrats.

I was sure the US was pretty much down the tubes when the Supreme Court refused to rule on the Khaled El-Masri case on the basis of Bush's "state secrets" blocking of that lawsuit, thus setting a precedent for "unitary executive" privilege on all matters that may be unconstitutional.

Anyway, given all this, I'm curious about why you think the Democrats will change if they're elected. What constitutional issues will they address? Nobody's even mentioned the constitutional crisis we're in the midst of as they campaign.

Here's why, Anney: The Big Media and Washington politicians live in a bubble isolated and insulated from the rest of the country -- their thinking of what the rest of us are thinking is, necessarily, behind the times.

Both groups are controlled by corporate money but, if corporations believe it is profitable for them to be more progressive, the media and politicians will follow along. Right now, some corporations -- even big oil companies -- ar trying to figure out how to make a buck from being environmentally friendly, for example. Along with that we have hybrid cars as the fastest-selling auto on the market. We also have most Americans increasingly soured on cheap imported products that poison their food and children, and sacrificing their standard of living to an amorphous 'free market' that really isn't free at all.

Corporations adapt or die and, if they see it is in their best interest to change, they will, and so will their employees in the media and political worlds.

I've talked to people who were alive during the beginning of the Great Depression and many of them have expressed the same sorts of ideas I've read here: The country is going down the drain, the politicians don't care, the rich own everything, the laws count for nothing, and it's not going to get any better. That was the thinking before Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in 1932. (For that matter, even when FDR was elected, some were skeptical that a wealthy New York blueblood would ever do anything to help the average guy.)

Yet the US entered a period of social liberalism that lasted until Richard Nixon -- and even Nixon supported such things as environmental laws. (He started the EPA.) While it's true that there were some dark periods -- the McCarthy witch hunts, the blacklist, the Vietnam War -- we survived them and legislation was passed to curtail some of the worst excesses of the 40s and 50s.

What I hear from folks out in Flyover Country both right and left, the kind of people who don't talk to pollsters, is that they're sick and tired of the Bush neocon experiment, just as they were sick and tired of Herbert Hoover and the Republicans in the early 30s.

Hillary Clinton isn't my first choice as president, but even she might turn out to be better than we give her credit, and she'd be a tremendous improvement over Junior and his gang. She's no FDR but, then, neither was FDR before he took office.

As far as the cowardly Dems, this might turn out to be an asset; if they have a large majority in both houses of Congress in 2009, they will more likely sway to the wind from the progressive majority -- as the saying goes, you can either have a government scared of the people, or the people scared of the government. The Dems have proven they are more likely to be scared of the people, which is exactly what our founders intended and would push them to restore our Constitution and our standing in the world.

RSJ

What about restoring the Constitution to governmental actions?

I asked specifically about it because all else is meaningless unless Constitutional integrity in governing is restored. No candidate has mentioned it.

RSJ

Sorry, I overlooked your mention of the Constitution in your last sentence.