Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiEvery time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they "tried"), the excuse they gave was that they "need 60 votes in the Senate" in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general "60-vote requirement" for everything.
How, then, can this be explained?
The Senate confirmed Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night, approving him despite Democratic criticism that he had failed to take an unequivocal stance against the torture of terrorism detainees.
The 53-to-40 vote made Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, the third person to head the Justice Department during the tenure of President Bush . . . Thirty-nine Democrats and one independent [Bernie Sanders] opposed him.
Beyond that, four Senate Democrats running for President missed the vote, and all four had announced they oppose Mukasey's confirmation. Thus, at least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey's confirmation -- more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn't they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?
Numerous Senate Democrats delivered dramatic speeches from the floor as to why Mukasey's confirmation would be so devastating to the country. The Washington Post said the "vote came after more than four hours of impassioned floor debate."
"Torture should not be what America stands for . . . I do not vote to allow torture," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy. Russ Feingold said: "we need an attorney general who will tell the president that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. And on that fundamental qualification for this office Judge Mukasey falls short." Feingold added: "If Judge Mukasey won't say the simple truth -- that this barbaric practice is torture -- how can we count on him to stand up to the White House on other issues?"
Wow -- it sounds as though there was really a lot at stake in this vote. So why would 44 Democratic Senators make a flamboyant showing of opposing confirmation without actually doing what they could to prevent it? Is it that a filibuster was not possible because a large number of these Democratic Senators were willing to symbolically oppose confirmation so they could say they did -- by casting meaningless votes in opposition knowing that confirmation was guaranteed -- but were unwilling to demonstrate the sincerity of their claimed beliefs by acting on them?
The Post said the vote "reflected an effort by Democrats to register their displeasure with Bush administration policies on torture and the boundaries of presidential power." Apparently, they wanted to oh-so-meaningfully "register their displeasure" but not actually stop confirmation.
[The most amazing quote was from chief Mukasey supporter Chuck Schumer, who, before voting for him, said that Mukasey is "wrong on torture -- dead wrong." Marvel at that phrase: "wrong on torture." Six years ago, there wasn't even any such thing as being "wrong on torture," because "torture" wasn't something we debated. It would have been incoherent to have heard: "Well, he's dead wrong on torture, but . . . "
Now, "torture" is not only something we openly debate, but it's something we do. And the fact that someone is on the wrong side of the "torture debate" doesn't prevent them from becoming the Attorney General of the United States. It's just one issue, like any other issue -- the capital gains tax, employer mandates for health care, the water bill -- and just because someone is "dead wrong" on one little issue (torture) hardly disqualifies them from High Beltway Office.]
Over and over again this year, Republican filibusters were depicted (both by Senate Democrats and the media) as nothing more the routine need to obtain the "60 votes required" for passage of any measure in the Senate. That "requirement" was said to apply to everything, including immigration ("The Senate voted 52-44 for the DREAM Act, but 60 votes were required to end debate"); Iraq withdrawal timetables ("Support is expected to top 50 votes but fall short of the 60 required"); troop leave requirements ("Webb's Iraq bill inches closer to 60 . . . . Winning at least three of those Republicans over could give the Democrats the 60 votes they need"); and warrantless surveillance ("Democratic-sponsored bill failed to reach the 60-vote majority").
As Steve Benen recently documented (emphasis in original):
The Republican minority has created a de facto 60-vote minimum to do anything of substance in the Senate. They'll allow routine up-or-down votes on renaming post offices, or those rare bills that enjoy near-unanimous support, but otherwise, it's filibuster time on the Senate floor. And while the number of filibusters has been going up pretty consistently for 20 years, these Republicans appear to be in a league of their own.
Benen quoted John McCain as explaining: "You can't say that all we're going to do around here in the United States Senate is have us govern by 51 votes -- otherwise we might as well be unicameral, because then we would have the Senate and the House exactly the same."
But it isn't true that there is a "60-vote requirement," because only Republicans are willing to impose it. Democrats won't, even on what they claim are the gravest of matters, such as confirming someone as Attorney General who is "dead wrong on torture" and who won't even "tell the president that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress."
The so-called "60-vote requirement" applies only when it is time to do something to limit the Bush administration. It is merely the excuse Senate Democrats use to explain away their chronic failure/unwillingness to limit the President, and it is what the media uses to depict the GOP filibuster as something normal and benign. There obviously is no "60-vote requirement" when it comes to having the Senate comply with the President's demands, as the 53-vote confirmation of Michael Mukasey amply demonstrates. But as Mukasey is sworn in as the highest law enforcement officer in America, the Democrats want you to know that they most certainly did stand firm and "register their displeasure."
Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.
© Salon.com
95 Comments so far
Show AllI understand your frustration, FreeQuark. Unfortunately, we probably won't have to support Republicans in order to get a crisis significant enough to wake people up. The economy seems headed for disaster, what with a falling dollar, rising energy costs, a national debt that is higher than ever (and calculations often don't include Social Security obligations), bailouts for the banks, and a trillion dollar shortfall in maintenance for infrastructure. In addition to predictable problems from global warming and water shortages, there's the possibility of another Katrina, attack on Iran, pandemic, or actual terrorist attack (it would be nice if we'd done more to secure chemical plants, for instance).
I say, support progressive leaders as much as possible, and hopefully the crash won't hit us quite as hard. Keeping Republicans in power just means we'll get deeper into debt and won't be able to rely on our representatives to make the right decision when tough times come. If it's too much to bear, get involved in local issues. You might be able to make something substantive happen here, and the percentage of resources that is controlled at a local level is still quite high.
FDRdemocrat - "The angry letters advising don't vote for a democrat never explain where or in what a practical alternative rests."
There are two basic trains of thought on the left these days. One side argues that the Democratic Party has turned Republican and the other argues that third parties are a waste of time. The truth is both sides are right, which means of course there is no way to effect political change within the system as it's presently structured. It follows there is nothing progressives can really do except use their vote to hasten the demise of the system and then wait for the inevitable alternative to rise from the ashes. They should therefore support politicians who are most likely to bring about an economic or military disaster - in other words, Republicans.
You might think this idea is crazy, but if you look at the political reality, there's really no other answer for progressives at this point. Most Americans are still living the Reagan fantasy, and they will continue to do so until some crisis forces them to adopt another paradigm. If you're really serious about change in this country, then live up to the courage of your convictions and vote Republican.
Hey Kem, yes, unsubtle, and I thank you for the nice things you say about me.
I don't understand people like Daniel David and SEQUOIABISON. The Democratic Party of today is NOT the Democratic Party of the past. They have lied to us, betrayed us, sold themselves to the corporations, and they fold like jellyfish to the Republicans. They show themselves capable of vicious attacks, but they are all directed toward progressives. They act so helpless they make the Republicans look like the majority party. The Republicans got their way when they were in power and they are getting their way now. They threaten filibuster and the Democrats wilt. The Democrats never even bring up the idea of filibuster.
We're supposed to give these people our allegiance? For what? For more of the same? These people are not my people. I'm willing to support progressive Democrats, but the party machine snuffs their candidacies to bring in more DLC and former Republicans, now known as Blue Dogs, and voting with the Republicans. I'm not supporting anyone who votes with the Republicans.
For those who complain that I'm criticizing the Democrats and not the Republicans, it's because the Republicans are behaving the way I expect them to, they aren't making me any promises to do anything different. But the Democrats! They lie to me when they tell me all the things they will do to take this unfair burden off the middle class, how they will stand up for us. They pretend they are putting up a fight, but it's a sham. Ralph Nader was right years ago when he said the Democratic Party was corrupt beyond redemption. Why should I support a corrupt party? Because they threaten me with something worse? I refuse to be blackmailed. I refuse to throw my vote away on liars who will betray me for money. I just wish enough Americans had the courage to vote their conscience and then this country could be the country of our dreams.
The question behind the question is, "Why don't the Democrats use the filibuster to limit the activities of Bush?"
To this, I can't find an answer. All I know is that in politics there are no accidents so you can't blame this on stupidity or ignorance.
On the one hand, it shouldn't really matter what party the person claims -- we're voting for individuals, not parties. There have been a few who (like Kucinich or Wellstone) squeak into one of the major parties. A vote for Wellstone wasn't a vote for "a Democrat", it was a vote for Wellstone.
But I'm from Minnesota, and as others on CD have pointed out some states require registration in a particular political party. So this may force some people, on election night, to vote party-line in ways that they didn't agree with before the primaries. So it makes sense for progressives to run as Greens, independents, etc.
I would like to see the rise of a progressive populist party. But it would need to take perhaps 100-250 candidates nation-wide, a concerted/coordinated effort, running for various offices simultaneously. If it's just 1-4 of them, they might sort of meet up with an accident. 100+ of them -- candidates in progressive populist solidarity -- and there will be no way to hide monkeybusiness. We need the hundred, not the singular knight in shining armor who'll make everything good again (not going to happen).
Our country lost its way more than once in my long lifetime and found itself again. Roosevelt ended the great depression by making government serve the common man, ordinary justice stopped the McCarthy era, Dr. King brught legal rights to blacks denied, a strong upsurge against the Vietnam war made LBJ bow out, Nixon's plumbers lead their tricky boss to disgrace. It was not always the republicans who had the faults, as there have always been democrats who were republicans in at heart, just as in 2007.
The foolish protest for the common man is not to vote. Our political parties have never been perfect in their goals, which applies twicefold to any candidate. Where does a person get the idea that this political party or that candidate needs perfection, as there is nothing perfect in this world. Can anyone show me political perfection from the past?
Many democrats have left the common man behind nowadays. However in the next election who shall a supporter of the common man vote for? Shall we not vote at all to protest this lack of human perfection?
The angry letters advising don't vote for a democrat never explain where or in what a practical alternative rests. May we have a plan explaining how democrats can vote for the common interest, shorn of impatient baby boomer needs for instant gratification? I fear that many impatient political writers have become their own worst enemy.
Yuugal---So well put. I have the feeling that Daniel David's broken record, has been determined to be insufficient to keep the loyal troops inline and now they are sending in the bad cops. DD definitely fits into the good cop role. In any case, like you, I find such rants as you responded to, not only so predictable but so lacking in real critical thought.
Lets see, the scary situation in SCOTUS. Hmmmm. Seems that Dems have had a double hand in this development. Refusing to fight to the end for the people's right to make their voices heard on election day, 2000 and especially 2004, the latter with ample proof of theft, and enough suspicious evidence on election day to delay premature capitulation by Kerry. By the way, he admitted in a conference call the morning he capitulated that he knew the vote in new Mexico was fraudulant. This is the man who promised every vote would be counted---yeah, right, Kerry. We held our nose and voted, and you actually won, but I guess you really didn't want to serve. Let your Skull and Cross Bones brother continue on, right?
As for Alito and Roberts, how is it that a retired 61 year old farmer in Wisconsin knew those two were rightwing idealogues who would turn back the clock and ignore precedent? yet the Dems in the Senate could not muster the courage to mount a fillibuster, in spite of many of us begging them to??
Don't insult my intelligence that now because of this godawful prospect of more of the same, we are supposed to vote out of fear and trust that they (Dems) will somehow hold the line. They collaborated in creating the imbalance in the first place.
Gotta wonder if it isn't part of the plan to hold us hostage now. Sorry, just because I'm alittle paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get me. Ha!
I refuse to bow to any form of extortion---and I am sick of being talked down to by Dem Party faithfuls who are already name calling and looking for someone to blame if the Dems by their refusal to be an Opposition Party, get beat again.
Buy hey! Don't worry because win or lose, they will still be feeding at the same trough, as lobbyists.
SEQUOIABISON....
"What a pathetic bunch of misguided angry fools.
Why allow logic and reason to interfere with stupidity and irrationality."
You know what it comes down to for this pathetic, misguided, angry, stupid, irrational person devoid of all logic and reason? I'm tired of being talked down to by enablers. The reality I've been sold for my 42 years is that unless I keep voting dem the reps will get everything they ever wanted and the world will explode in a fiery, puss-filled death. Welp, the reps have gotten everything theyve wanted for a long time now(my whole adult life) and it didnt matter which side held the presidency or congress. Every single steaming congressional turd that comes down the tube is stamped by both parties. Always.
The continued dem strategy of "I will keep my powder dry while burying you in blank checks" has been a failure. If you want to keep supporting the status quo I understand. For my part I'll continue to do my best to take myself off the grid in every way possible and to vote with the one thing the people in power actually care about: my dollars.
Since I disagree with you, logic and reason are of course foreign to me, but my twisted mind tells me its better to be on the right side and lose than on the wrong side.
Dems dont want to impeach? Cant find the energy to oppose the war? Cant seem to block the evil ones from making rich people obscenely richer every year while my family struggles? No problem at all, I just wont vote dem anymore.
"OH MY!" you cry, "but then the reps will get everything they want!"
As someone once said...... "Fool me once.......shame on....shame on you..................(painful pause and smell of wood burning)..........fool me..you cant get fooled again."
dkitching,
Support an enabler Dem or throw your vote away on your conscience. The very fact that the decision has come down to this is the crux of the problem.
Some of us favor single-payer health care, shutting down nuclear power, withdrawal from Iraq, Range/IRV, electoral reform, etc. If it's not Kucinich on the ballot, why should we vote for Hillary?
DLC, Vichy, crypto-neocon and enabling Democrats are just there to keep popular momentum stalling, gummed up as usual.
Sure, we need to be united. As I indicated elsewhere, if Kucinich is on the ballot he'll probably unite a winning number of progressives and Democrats. If it's Hillary, expect progressives to vote their conscience instead.
It's laughable that some people call this "throwing away". On the contrary, I say to the war=peace crowd. Throwing away your vote is to NOT vote your conscience.
Oh, by the way: those who divide us go under the moniker "DLC."
If it wasn't for the immoral valueless corporate suckups that comprise this Republican infiltration of our party, there'd be no division. May I remind you that upwards of 70% of Americans want us out of this war, and over half favor impeachment.
So lectures of loyalty need to be addressed to Terry McAuliffe, Mark Penn, Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ben Nelson, Tom Carper, Mary Landrieu, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of these patsies for the most criminal administration in modern history if not ever. These are the people who are abandoning, not so-called liberal values, but mainstream principles for which the Democrats once stood, all to curry favor with corporate campaign donors to whom they are then beholden.
This complete failure of leadership can be explained in two words, and two words only:
Harry Reid.
In case anyone wonders why millions of Democrats have come to despise Pelosi & Co. almost as much as Bush & Co., this episode provides a vivid answer. Not only have the Democratic leaders in Congress done nothing to put a stop to Bush's many abuses of power, but they actively oppose those who attempt to do so. And all the while they send up a smokescreen of excuses, the most laughable being that impeachment would distract Congress from more important business. Someone should ask Pelosi to name a single piece of legislation in the last 10 months that has been passed by Congress and signed into law by the President that is more important than restoring Congress's constitutionally mandated role as a check on the executive. Can she truly be so dense that she does not understand that no policy issue can, in the long run, trump restoring true democracy? Well, can she?
SEQUOIABISON,
The best post other than mine on Supreme court Judges to date that I have read. Excellent review of the true situation. The Progressives that are so sour on the Dems need to realize that the agenda we want must come in slow methodical steps to bring along the independents as well. If we totally alienate them we get Rudy, (Bush on Steroids). This is a great chance to move forward with a progressive agenda. Let us not blow it even if Hillay is the nominee. She is still infinitely better than any of the Repugnants. Let us not blow it by either not voting or supporting a 3rd party candidate. This election is too important. I am voting For Dennis Kucinich in the primaries but I will vote for any Dem in the General. Of the Dems that have a chance at the nomination, I believe that John Edwards is the best. I will repost my post on Supreme Court Justices in hope people will read and heed.
The Supreme court is on the verge and one more conservative on it can undo everything that is still intact. And that will last for another 20 years. I don't contend this is more important than lives being lost isn't the most pressing issue, but it is important to realize that one more wingnut judge and they will overturn not just Roe v. Wade, but Social security, medicare, most large social programs. Remember Social Security only survived by a 5 to 4 vote in the 30s despite a court that at that time was liberal. Think of the damage that could be done, millions of seniors in poverty, no healthcare for them. Medicaid, Schip. If you don't think that the right wingers won't push for all of this as they become more and more emboldened, you are wrong. If you listen to right wing talk, their overall objective is to totally overturn the new deal of FDR, the new society of the 60s and 70s of the war on poverty, medicare, etc.
The electorate in the last 7 years has made the Dems extremely gun shy and the constant lies from prez and repugnets do echo across the land and it is unfortunate that this still resonates in the red states. I live in Georgia and hear the wingnuts exicited that this can occur in our lifetime; Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia are licking their chops for just one more wingnut Supreme court judge and we can begin. Justice Breyer, liberal is 87, Ginsberg, Stevens, and Souter in their 70s DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, just licking their chops for one more wingnut
We must support the Dems and nurse them along no matter what!!! Don't vote for any 3rd party candidates, don't sign any petitions to get other candidates on the ballot in any state. THIS COMING ELECTION IS THAT IMPORTANT.
REMEMBER DIVIDE US AND THEY WIN!!!!!!.
Welcome to the new Blog, it is no longer Common Dreams it will henceforth be referred to as: (Condemn Democrats). For simplification I wanted to retain the CD acronym.
What a pathetic bunch of misguided angry fools.
Why allow logic and reason to interfere with stupidity and irrationality.
Just keep whining and complaining about how the Dems refused to stop a Republican appointee and how the dems are unable to stop a Republican war.
Let us all abandon any hope of fielding an acceptable mainstream democratic candidate and instead throw our votes away in a trash bin and support a third party candidate. Wow what a great idea.
Lets see, the Green Party will offer us the absolute most perfect, most popular candidate imaginable, only they have not told us yet who that will be??
I must agree with most of you that the dems really disappointed the progressives with their refusal to block Mukasey. Admittedly this was a major frustration.
But we continue to blame the dems for not mustering enough votes to block a Republican flunky.
Lets not criticize the Republicans who put this clown up for approval, we do not want to appear unpatriotic and offend the Republican warmongers and torturers.
Lets direct our anger at the democrats and hope that this will help Rudy bring the country together and stop the war, oh wait Rudy agrees with W.
Well then lets direct our anger at the dems and hope that McCain will win the election, oh wait Big Bad John wants to escalate the war.
Okay then lets direct our anger at the dems so Huckabee can win, oh wait the lunatic governor wholeheartedly supports the war and also intelligent design over evolution.
I got it, lets come down hard on the dems so Fred Thompson can surge ahead and continue a policy of endless war.
It is just so wonderful to hear all you bright intelligent people abandon all reason and support anybody but a democrat.
Now lets all sent a big donation to that incredible outstanding, can do no wrong third party candidate, just refresh my brain a little, who was that candidate again?
Why not try using your writing skills to drop a line to the war advocating Republican congress members and ask them to stop supporting an unethical war instead of continually hammering the dems. Yes that's right go to the source of the problem, which is the Republican Party.
For the most part I really enjoy reading comments on Common Dreams, this blog more than any other liberal website is most compatible with my socialist ideals.
However, it is very disconcerting and boring to read about your constant frustration with the Democratic Party and to just ignore the real enemy of the republic, the Republican Party.
Yes I too have many disagreements with the Democratic Party as I do with my loving wife, but this does not mean I will leave them in pursuit of something more "perfect" no it means I will stay and fight to improve the only hope of changing America, which is voting democratic all the way. In my opinion the worst democrat is much better than the best republican.
Now lets stop fighting amongst ourselves and go out and support DENNIS KUCINICH.
We have less than 2 months to go before we know who the candidates will be, this is our only chance for years to come to make our voices heard, lets not waste time and energy on a third party unless they have a chance of winning and show some popular support in the polls.
Paul Bramscher November 9th, 2007 11:49 am
"The Democrats are a disgraceful batch of enablers and crypto-neocons. If we have only neocons to chose from in '08, the election for all practical purposes has been cancelled."
It's difficult for many people to grasp or accept that the ruthless power-seeking elites in our "one-party" system will continue to destroy the Constitution and the American Dream. Unlimited and unaccountable corporate power conflicts with a "constitutional" government; a government where both parties are manipulated with never-ending campaign contributions from a group of unscrupulous, immoral, unethical and power-hungry psychopaths who want to control every aspect of our lives.
As Edmund Burke stated: "The greater the power the more dangerous the abuse."
brasscupcakes November 9th, 2007 8:45 pm
"But I'll almost certainly be voting for a Dem this time — there's just too much loss of life and limb in Iraq, and potentially Iran, for me to sleep easy voting for a third party candidate."
I would sincerely urge you to reconsider. Continuing to enable the enablers by returning them to office won't effect any change because;
A. They will spin it as "the majority must approve of what we are doing because they keep returning us to 'represent' them."
or;
B. They will keep doing what they are doing because they will believe that you believe you have no other choice so they have nothing to fear if they keep ignoring you.
Lobo Gris
abbybwood November 9th, 2007 4:56 pm
"Hey! Independent third party? Where do I sign up?! How do we get this show on the road???? The sooner the Democrats feel all their loyal Progressive base jumping ship, the better. And we need to make it a PUBLIC SHIP JUMPING!!"
Contact whoever in your state handles voter registration and request a new voter registration card. In the block that asks what party you are registering as a member of, enter Independent.
Your other choices would be to re-register as a member of the Green Party, the Libertarian party, or whatever other third party choices that are available in your state.
Lobo Gris
The Senate isn't the only one with a major problem witness this exchange between Nancy Pelosi and Russel Mokhiber on ending the war in Iraq.
By RUSSELL MOKHIBER
Tuesday, November 6, 2007, 1:30 p.m.
Capitol Building Room H-210
"Question: Isn't it true Madam Speaker that you single handedly could end the war in Iraq by not allowing the Iraq funding bill to go to the floor of the House?
Pelosi: No, that is not true. But thank you for making your point--
Question: Why isn't it true?
Pelosi: It isn't true because there are other parliamentary opportunities available to the minority in the Congress--for example, a motion to recommit which probably could prevail without condition."
A motion to recommit is a motion to return a bill to committee that has been introduced on the House floor, essentially killing it. In other words her answer had absolutely nothing to do with the question being asked.
Lobo Gris
#
drwu November 9th, 2007 2:00 pm
"How do I hate thee? Let me list the ways…
No spines,chickenshit, backbone of a chocolate eclair, wimps,republican enablers, wine-drinking, hedge-funded surrender rabbits, toads."
Chocolate eclairs everywhere are offended. They believe they have more spine than the Democrats. :-)
Lobo Gris
You're the one who brought it up Daniel. I just wondered if you ever wonderd why? I wasn't attacking you and don't care what you post. I do notice many disagree with you, on almost every subject.
Remember when Rep. David Obey berated that Iraqi soldier mom about how only he knew how to stop the war last spring? Well, now we know who was right in that confrontation don't we?
Hey, Obey: wake up!
All those years in Congress and you still don't get it.
Stop being part of the problem and start actually doing your job!
Glenn G is of the Tom Paine mold. Truth for the ages.
On 10/17/07 via Common Dreams I commented (on an
article by Weinstein & Nakashima) re "fellow travelers,
Pelosi & her ilk" concluding with "It is time to
parachute out of what once the Party of the People".
Unless you are a damn fool the hypocracy of the Dems
is accepted as commonplace. But Schummer voting to
OK Mukasey had me adjusting my hearing aid. Who is
NEXT for Chuck to embrace -------Bernie the Bagman??
Happily, I'm reading more & more about the Green Party.
Try it. Keeps the blood pressure down.
KEM PATRICK,
"DANIEL DAVID, you are correct about one thing, you get a lot of flak for your inane comments. ___ Ever wonder why?"
No, I don't wonder about that at all. Nor do I try to adjust my comments to please those of other views. Nor do I attack other people's posts. I just keep writing what I hope for, and why.
Why should anyone be surprised at the 60 vote problem? The Repugs can outfox the Dumbs every time mostly because they are just meaner and won`t give up. It only makes sense as the Dems stand for fairness and correct administration, while the Pubs stand for getting what they want any way that works. One has to admire their tenacity, but their principles are a disgrace.
Chicanery says "The only even remotely intelligent excuse I've seen given for the Dem's failure to block the confirmation is the fact that Bush would use a recess appointment to give us an A.G. who's even worse."
Yes, this was Schumer's rationale. He said there would be "no check" on the AG if the AG were appointed. The appointed AG, Schumer argued, could just continue the torture policy, the spying policy, the rendition policy, the gitmo policy, etc.
But if that's the only check, then why couldn't the officially nominated-and-approved AG do the same thing?
Thus the real absurdity is NOT Schumer's head-spinning claim that he must give up his prerogative to deliver the "no" vote of his conscience because it is only by voting "yes" that he can exercise his "check" on the AG.
Instead, the real absurdity is the idea that the nominee approval process is the only check Congress has on the justice of US policies. They can investigate! They can impeach! They can pass a resolution condemning torture! I would bet any sum of money that dozens of Senators (as well as newspapers) have intelligence from whistleblowers that could bring down this government by means of lawsuits from victims of spying and rendition. You think there are no Daniel Ellsbergs any more? Think again. Ellsberg himself first gave the Pentagon Papers to politicians, and they sat on this vital information. How many in Congress today have been leaked the "secret" memos justifying torture, but refuse to disclose them to the public for fear of being labelled a traitor?
They could have impeached Gonzo. He resigned under pressure , of course, but for all the wrong reasons. Congress hated him, not because he advocates torture, but because he dissed them and he was too stupid to play the game convincingly. Rumsfeld is a worse villain but he could talk your pants off. Rummy could turn a sow's ear into a silk purse right before your eyes. Gonzo tried to play the game of plausible deniability, but he failed miserably. We knew he knew he was lying. He also failed to make torture, rendition, and spying on Americans seem patriotic. Even the bumbling Arlen Spector made torture sound patriotic in his Mukasy speech. This is what Congrees needs the AG to do-- justify fascist policies with clever legal obscurantism and appeals to patriotism.
Sorry, I'm ranting and being too cynical. My point is that we need to stop asking whether the Dems are selling out. Its not about personalities, its not about loyalty, its not about good intentions. If there is a big sign that says "turn right" next to a pot of gold, they will all turn right. This applies to democrats and republicans. We need to change the dynamics so that there are tangible rewards for bringing down this government, and tangible penalties for enabling it. I'm not sure what this takes. All I'm saying is that we have to be practical and stop focusing on personalities and judging whether people are good or not, and stop fixating on the democrats. And stop looking for a savior. Cindy Sheehan is not going to save us, no more than Cynthia McKinney saved us.
You're funny, Kem Patrick, and unsubtle.
Petain, Quisling and Chamberlain must be smiling.
Sophomoric rants and high school cheerleading aside, it has been proven over and over that the Democratic Party is, as is the Republican Party, merely an illusion of representation for the people of the United States of America.
What has happened is that both parties have abrogated their responsibilities both to the Constitution and to their constituents. They have broken the faith to our country and to us.
Now, should we continue to follow them where they are leading us (knowing full well that they should be _representing_ us), then the final fault lies with us - We the People. We will have betrayed what the founders and so many others have fought and died for. We will be traitors to their cause.
Not something I'm willing to do.
brasscupcakes,
Why do you think the Dems will offer less bloodshed? Since '68 at least they've been run by hawks (LBJ probably knew that Tonkin was a false flag), Pelosi & Co. doesn't think going to war on false pretense or torture are sufficient cause for impeachment, they're onboard with AIPAC and the m.i.c., and they've handed over all sorts of authority to Bush (wiretapping, his AG choice, etc.).
If anything, the Dems have been a stepping stone to Bush policies, not a barrier.
Eerily, the media spun war funding bills as "not enough votes to override a veto" rather than "they didn't have to write it in the first place, but they did."
Isn't it somewhat an exercise in mythology to grasp onto the notion that they're an anti-war party? Since when?
ABBYWOOD thank you for that link. We may see some action on this impeachment after all.
DANIEL DAVID, you are correct about one thing, you get a lot of flak for your inane comments. ___ Ever wonder why?
I notice we have a new blogger here, BeForKids. A welcome to you, excellent posts, they remind me of our one time favored blogger Kathyodat.
It used to be that the difference between Republicans and Democrats was that the Democrats used vaseline. Ahhhhh, the good old days.
The Mukasey acceptance and other dreadful appointments under Bush 2 are only continuations of the moral bankruptcy that the republican senate have demonstrated since 1992, when they approved the Bush 1 nomination the Clerance Thomas to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court with only two republicans voting against him (one was Jim Jeffords who finally left the party in 2001 because of Bush's abusesive policies).
Until the voters become more astute and better informed, and force the democrat senators to overcome their paranoia about being labeled as obstructionists and being subjected to character assinations by the Bush team, this costly erosion to our demecrotic processes can only continue.
We desperately need a constituional amendment that would require 2/3 senate majority to approve all presidential appointments. This would resolve or at least impede this dreadful impairment to our democracy.
Dear Bill from Saginaw,
Thank you sincerely for addressing my question about litigation, although I'm sorry to hear it's not a viable option.
I was among those who voted for Ralph Nader. For years, I've considered myself a reformed Democrat -- never vote for a one again, not without a serious commitment to campaign finance reform. I even switched to the GOP momentarily in order to vote for McCain in the primaries.
But I'll almost certainly be voting for a Dem this time -- there's just too much loss of life and limb in Iraq, and potentially Iran, for me to sleep easy voting for a third party candidate.
Not that I expect the Democrats, in hock as they are to the military-corporate complex, will be any less warmongering. But I'll grasp at any straw at this point.
Quit the party!
Go to http://www.thiscantbehappening.net for Dave Lindorff's quite logical argument for leaving and his explanation of how it isn't an irreversible move, (though it ought to get the attention of the local party leaders). Look on the upper left of the page: the link "I Quit This Party" is just below the midpoint.
GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
NON-VIOLENCE
DECENTRALIZATION (of wealth and power)
COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
http://www.gp.org/
http://switch2green.org/
http://www.gp.org/
http://switch2green.org/
GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
NON-VIOLENCE
DECENTRALIZATION (of wealth and power)
COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
http://www.gp.org/
http://switch2green.org/
I've been asking this question for a long time now. The Dems have never had fewer than 40 Senate seats in my lifetime, and I'm 57. So why don't they stop Bush in his tracks? The Reps sure would if the roles were reversed. The Dems have the votes to stop Bush and force some policy changes, but they don't. The only explanation I can see is that they don't much disagree with Bush and Republican positions on most issues.
Think about that the next time you rejoice at Dem electoral victories. What are we really getting when they win?
The only even remotely intelligent excuse I've seen given for the Dem's failure to block the confirmation is the fact that Bush would use a recess appointment to give us an A.G. who's even worse. (Anyone remember John Bolton?) To me, though, that is a sign that the recess appointment process should be reformed so that a recess appointment is considered temporary, subject to Senate approval when Congress is back in session.
Barnyard lowdown from a former Iowa Democrat.
Becoming total asses over the decades, the donkeys were already in a buggered bed with the elephants by the time 9/11 happened.
Donkeys sensing loss of their identity at a time that called for it, they invited the elephants to rape them in hopes of producing a child with at least some donkey traits.
The invitation was joyfully obliged.
Big surprise. The political child born out of wedlock wasn't what the donkeys had hoped for. It was an elephant with an asshole in its rear and another asshole at the front of its trunk.
Not a kind of animal I want to be close to.
I beg your pardon for my crude graphics.
One could read most of the comments above in the Republican forum. They hate Democrats as much as you do. Why keep complaining? Join the party of action, the party that gets things done: The GOP. They have a big tent. They have gay members and pro-life members. Great party discipline. Principled positions. Strong faith community presence. Check it out.
Daniel David November 9th, 2007 5:46 pm
With the Democrats that we have now, it seems that we lose more with them in power than when they are out of power. Unless you are rich, the Democrats will do nothing to help you. Lip service is all that the Democrats do.
Pelosi on trade, Clinton on the war and the working people of the US of A are still underwater in debt both personally and as the "full faith and credit" that backs the government debt.
"Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth"
from John Lennon
The Democratic convention ought to bring out the anti-war and anti-poverty movement to let the Democrats know that it is better to have a Republican than a Two-Faced Democrat. Clinton the husband fooled us and now the wife wants to fool us again.
We are tired of being lied to and having our pockets picked by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Daniel David, your short sighted strategy of win the battle will only lose the war. Wake up. We are in a war for our country, and the Democratic Party is on the wrong side. As COMarc pointed out earlier, stop listening to what they say and look at what they do.
That's right Daniel David, but you didn't finish the statement. Perhaps you're not so sure that if the Dems win, we, the people win, and maybe, just maybe, corporations won't keep calling the shots.
Well, at least you're not promising something that it's clear already, the Dems won't deliver. Instead, you are putting up the smokescreen that the Rethugs FOR SURE will rob you blind. Maybe we'll get lucky with the Dems. Some choice.
And by the way, my man, when are you going to address my issue of the Dems responsibility for the sorry fix were in? And spare me the we-didn't-have-the-votes bull. What was lacking was the will.
I have recently become an Independent...for whatever good that will do.
The goal is to be getting a Democratic AG appointment on 1/20/09. The fact that Democrats in the Senate are disappointing to some for not staging the knock-down, drag-out over Mukasey DOES NOT CHANGE the goal.
Some will raise heck with me for that (as they often do), and try to convince you the DEMS deserve to lose 2008. Only problem with that is that YOU as a citizen don't necessarily deserve to lose along with them. Yet that's what happens when Repubs win, you (citizens) lose some things and corporations gain them.
Just found a little hint of good news:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18697.htm
It's all show biz.
To the Democrats:"Kiss me."
Democrats: "What?"
To the Democrats:"Kiss me. When I'm being fucked, I like to get kissed a lot."
above quoted lines come from the movie "Dog Day Afternoon' (1975)
Brasscupcakes -
Much as our law firm could use your financial contribution to help float our loyal staff through the traditional fourth quarter economic downturn/holiday season, and much as I'd love to enlist your volunteer efforts to "bring a class action suit against the Democratic Party and/or Nancy Pelosi to enforce the law of the land", alas I must concede that in my humble opinion, it can't be done.
The closest thing to what you're suggesting was a suit brought against the Democratic Party of Texas back in the early 60's, when the Democratic primary was the de facto general election because there basically was no Republican Party, or second party, in existence in Texas. The plaintiffs in that class action were African and Hispanic Texans who were prohibited from taking part because of their race, since back then only white people were allowed to register as Democrats and vote in the Democratic primary. Passage of the Voting Rights Act eventually put an end to that form of widespread, blatant race discrimination, even when it was practiced by a private, nongovernmental entity like a political party.
Litigation is not the answer here.
Turning to the heavy theme of this thread, the vast majority of the savage invective being leveled against the current beltway Democratic leadership by many Common Dreamers (see above) is indistinguishable in tone and content from from the rantings of Rush, Coulter, Hannity, and the other right wingers inhabitating the hate radio end of my AM dial. Wussy, inept, treasonous, hypocritical liars - whores who've been bought out by the big special interests - all totally lacking in principle, who'll say anything just to seize and hold on to their personal political power.
Sound familiar? Karl Rove is laughing all the way to the bank already.
It's apparent to me that the same DC insider fools who advised the Kerry campaign how to steer their message away from the angry grassroots and pander for the elusive moderate/center/right/independent vote have now worked the same black magic on Pelosi, Reid, and most of the Democratic Presidential candidates.
Given the choice of at least four more years of war in Iraq regardless of which of the two major parties prevail in 2008, a disheartened public eventually will probably opt to keep the GOP in charge of the executive branch for four more years, figuring if we can't end the US mmilitary occupation, then we might as well let the folks who believe in the bloodshed run the show.
Thus, we have one political party (the GOP) that has rigid ideological orthodoxy up the wazoo, and tight internal discipline. We have another political party (the Dems) that has no coherent ideological principles at all anymore, and abysmal internal discipline.
Small wonder every time the Republicans run parliamentary circles around the hapless Democrats on issues like torture, warrantless wiretapping, ballot integrity, and even life and death, the percentage of the population that tunes out in weary disgust just keeps growing.
Bill from Saginaw
I think there is a reason for the House and Senate's lack of interest in curbing Cheney/Bush's excesses and it is pretty well explained here.
http://www.populistamerica.com/whatever_happened_to_we_the_people
Whoever wins the next round in 2008, We the People are going to be in for one hell of a shock, but I imagine it will be way past too late.
Another part of the problem is explained here.
http://www.populistamerica.com/the_black_hole_theory_of_government
Ah well, as HAL asked Dave, "Will I dream?"
How dare Greenwald suggest that 'our' Democrats aren't fighting to the death on these issues?
"Welcome ladies and gentlemen to the WWF '08 tag-team grudge match of the universe between — in the red corner, just tagging out we have 'killer' Bush, and tagging in his partner, Rudi 'the ripper' — and in the blue corner, just tagging out the exhausted and bruised Nancy 'the mat' Pelosi who fought so hard in the preliminary bout, and now tagging in is her partner Hillary 'heroic' Clinton [cheers, applause, screaming fans] who will undoubtedly use all her strength and positive powers against this nasty red team.
Boy folks, tonight you are really going to see a knock-down, drag-out battle royal with all the marbles on the line. Someone will come out of this ferocious match the new champion, and nothing will ever be the same!!!" —————–
Nothing, that is. except the next phony match.
The registered vote is an old political trick. A sufficient number of Democratic senators wanted Mukasey appointed AG, including those who did not vote for him. Assured that Mukasey would be confirmed permitted Democrats to speak out in opposition and vote no. That's called posturing and it's done at all levels of government. Clearly, Mukasey is the preferred choice over available alternatives. Schumer can take the heat for one of his fellow New Yorkers. Feinstein must have negotiated a trade for one of her issues, perhaps the Senate outcry over dismissal of two federal attorneys in CA. resulting in the ultimate resignation of Alberto Gonzalez. It's all a game and the world's a stage!
I found it to be very interesting that none of the Democratic candidates running for president could be bothered to vote last night on the Mukasey Attorney General confirmation. I believe the vote passed by only 3 votes. 53-40 I think. And all this is supposedly where the Senate has been running on a rule of "60" to win any major legislation for several years. Neither Sen. Biden, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama nor Sen. Dodd, all of whom had publicly said they opposed Mukasey showed up to vote or debate.
My friend is actually so cynical that he believes they all agreed to not vote so no one would be able to throw it in anyones face during a debate. Now that's politics at it's ugliest.
The fact that not one of them showed up to speak against Mukasey, a Zionist shill for AIPAC and Israel, is so disgusting. Between Bush, Cheney, Mukasey, Chertoff and the Congress....well, you can all just finish the sentence I think on your own.
The only good thing I can see coming out of all this is that Kucinich will be able to smear them all on the fact that they are cowards who will not even speak up against a man who is an obvious liar (I'm sure he really didn't understand what "waterboarding" was) and also who appears to already be acting as the President's private attorney to protect Bush from prosecution on the issue.
It's all revolting! (In my dreams....)
Then the House has the audacity to pass the "thought crimes legislation". Hello?! By like 404-30 or something! It says that to discuss any transformation of the United States government or it's basic social foundations is a FELONY!! Thought crimes!!
Just Google it.
I think the Senate hasn't passed it yet, but they will. The Congress and the Executive are building their fascist prison for all of us one piece of legislation at a time.
The saddest part of all of this is that when I mention anything of a political nature at a bar or restaurant or Starbucks, people look at me like I'm a Vulcan or something.
Hey! Independent third party? Where do I sign up?! How do we get this show on the road???? The sooner the Democrats feel all their loyal Progressive base jumping ship, the better. And we need to make it a PUBLIC SHIP JUMPING!!
Are there any lawyers in here who know if there is any feasible way for Democrats to start a class action suit against the Democratic Party and / or Nancy Pelosi for failure to enforce the law of the land?
There must be some legal recourse. I would certainly support such a suit with a financial contribution and as a volunteer.
Judith..That is exactly my plan. Dennis deserves all the help we can muster. He's the only member/candidate showing any courage, integrity and INTELLIGENCE for that matter.
Speaking of Feinstein's capitulation to the continued crimes of the Bush administration, she now backs immunity for the gross violations of U.S. law by telecom corporations.
Somebody explain to me how anyone still thinks these traitors actually represent the American people?
Get over it GG and stop pretending like you're clueless. The loyalbushieDems did what they've been doing all along - WHAT THEY'VE BEEN TOLD TO DO.
Seven years of Blue ballessness and, still, so many have "hope" that Dems will "do the right thing" and then they act all shocked and surprised that the Blue balls are owned and operated by New America, Inc.
Maybe y'all will accept the truth after another seven years of ballessness. Or not - I hear hope and $1.89 gets ya a grande at Starbucks.
This week, Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a seeming lament, described the democratic party as "officially centrist." But he then went on to say that "...it is not representitive of the Middle Class;" observing further that the party has lacked a genuine progressive agenda for years.
Being one the few, real progressives in congress, I wondered how Sanders could define as Centrist, a Party that doesn't even represent the middle and lower economic strata --the overwhelming numerical balance -- of the country?
The bigger [begged] question that Sanders did not elaborate on, is whether the Dems' so-called Centrism reflects the actual absence of a wish for progressive representation among voters? Or instead, just the unfortunate absence of a new political Party that could represent the widespread progressive wishes that are actually 'out there?'
It's obvious why Bernie Sanders doesn't label himself as a Democrat. Not clear is: why he and others who see the truth about the duopoly, don't even try to organize a new, progressive Party.
Some will say: Sanders, et al, are waiting for the Democrats to re-center Lefward in 2008, and that will be good enought for them. But I can't believe Sanders, et al, are that politically naive about the present, pseudo 2-Party system.
How about an answer, Bernie?
Glen Greenwald is excellent. Now if only his voice could get a bit more amplification.
I'm not holding my breath.
crypto-neocons I like that. It describes the democriters very well. we need to get together on this: We need to vote for a third party candidate or a write in candidate in 08. I have no intention of voting for either branch of the Corporate war Party. I will write in Mickey Mouse but it would be better if we could all get together and vote for or write in the same candidate. Nader? Kucinich? If they get a decent percentage it will scare the shit out of both parties at the very least. Let me know what you think about this.
I'm not sure I buy Feinstein's excuse. But even if true, politicians who operate out of fear rather than principle cannot technically be called leaders.
We're reaching one of these interesting tipping points in which title/authority/power do not mesh with one another.
Real leaders of the people are the activists out there. I don't know what the people in the beltway are -- their job is to keep the people at bay while the ueber-elite gouges them?
Feinstein said she voted for Mukasey because if they didn't confirm him, Bush said he would not put up another person for consideration, thus letting him put in place an interim AG without any input from the Senate. And that one could be worse because they would have no control over confirming him.
So let me get this straight. `The Dems gave up control of the confirmation process because they were afraid of losing control of the confirmation process.
I'm dumbfounded.
BeForKids--- Good question about abuse, but then how many self described victims lament their victimization but somehow manage to defend their perpetrators claiming they really will (or want to) change. It's a powerful and sticky relationship and what needs to happen to break its bonds is to become empowered. Many here seem to forget that they do have the power to change the system they so decry. But they refuse to embrace their power because they can't be insured of a winning outcome. What all of us continually fail to realize is that by taking charge of our own choices---by refusing to accept the tyranny of limitation that is being foisted on us, we have already prevailed.
BeForKids has it exactly right.
The vote to send impeachment to the Judiciary committee was a vote to kill the resolution. John Conyers has been being a good Democrat and keeping impeachment off the table for the last year. He'll do the same to Kucinich's resolution. The 140 some odd votes for that motion were all votes to PROTECT Cheney from impeachment.
Nader2000 very surrealistically let the truth of the Democrats slip in.
just go back to your jobs. watch tv. don't pay attention to what we are doing. if you vent your anger, we aren't listening. just make sure you go back to work and make more money for the corporate bosses behind both parties. bunch of idiot liberals. go back to sleep.
Or, you can get active in a independent party that can easily destroy the political hacks in the Democratic Party by denying them the majorities they need to win. They need to win to survive. They need to win to attract money. And we can force their constant defeat by simply withdrawing our support. They need us, we don't need them.
And, you can come to Denver next year to tell the Democrats to their faces what you really think of them. I'd love to see a few million people here telling the sell-out Democrats and their corporate backers just what scum we think they are. A few million voices raised together can make a lot of noise!
mastershake, don't misinterpret that impeachment vote. It wasn't really for impeachment, it was against a debate on impeachment. By sending it directly to the Judiciary committee without a debate, it was being consigned to languish. Conyers won't dare bring it forward, for Pelosi would have his head on a plate if he did.
And it's true, the Democratic leadership isn't spineless, they are doing exactly what they want to do. COMarc is right. Watch their actions, not their words. What shocks me is how many of you are still Democrats after all your howling about betrayal. How much abuse do you want to take?
As soon as I vote for Dennis in the primary, I am changing my registration back to "No Party". I am ashamed to be registered as a member of a party that is so weak and obtuse and Repub light!! Geesh!!
RichM - Sorry, but I am still chuckling from Nader2000's post. His intent was not to present or analyze evidence etc., as it wasn't about a lot of other things. He's just suggesting that we lighten up a bit. This chorus of betrayed liberals (of which I am a member) does sound a bit strident if you get some perspective on it. A conservative looking in on us would take satisfaction in our general consternation.
Don't waste your time and energies voting. It does nothing.
Democrat = war = Republican
Democrat = liar = Republican
Democrat = torture = Republican
Democrat = corporate government = Republican
If you oppose Republican policies, and you truly want to waste your vote, then vote Democrat. If you want something different, then don't vote Democrat.
If you aren't a lying, war loving, torturer in the service of corporate power, get out of the Democratic Party.
Nader2000, you can stay right where you are.
Silly rabbits! Debates of Democrats vs. Republicans are meaningless. Both parties are owned by AIPAC, contractors, and big business in general. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, and the artificial differences between the parties makes people believe there's a real choice. There isn't.
OK, so you're bummed the Dems didn't step up to the plate, right? Did it occur to you that they won't take a stand against oppressive measures because one day they'll regain power, and would like to have those same oppressive tools available to them?
Paul B,
"Politics is a no holds-barred match, and it's okay to take a punch at your opponent when he's down. Indeed, that's the best time to do so."
Leaping to my feet & punching the air -- EXACTLY. The only reason Republicans moderated after Hoover was that they kept getting smacked across the teeth; in fact, they're still smarting from remembrance of being smacked in the teeth, it fuels their resentment to this day. They should be pushed back into the gutter they rose up from -- and never permitted to get up again.
the senate has its efficient saboteurs such as senator lieberman schummer feinstein undsoweiter.Third party?
first we need a second one that stands for justice and its power.
democrats + republicans are spinners of same deception. a shameful historic complicity.
How do I hate thee? Let me list the ways...
No spines,chickenshit, backbone of a chocolate eclair, wimps,republican enablers, wine-drinking, hedge-funded surrender rabbits, toads.
I should have mentioned I've since moved to CT's 1st district, represented by Republican Centrist Christopher Shays. For a republican, he actually has a decent record of opposing Bush... but it won't save him this time around. I think the CT Dems will nominate a solid progressive Dem in this district as well.
You really have to pick and choose with the Senate and Congress. Not all the dems are bad, remember 142 out of 233 voted for impeachment.
As far as the Presidency goes, neither Obama nor Hillary really represent the progressive party- they represent imperial and corperate interests. John Edwards and Kucinich have my vote, but once again, you see how the media ignores them (Edwards) and marginalized them (Kucinich).
We have no hope for the executive, but I really think we can make a difference if we can get the congress finally going.
Btw... our state is collectively full of morons for voting in Lieberman for 6 more years. I personally voted for Lamont, and can't believe Lieberman won.
Nader2000 (1:23 pm) -- if you have nothing of substance to say, please refrain from wasting bandwidth.
"Substance" includes, for example, discussing the incontrovertible evidence that Democrats are loathesome two-faced sellouts. Your merely typing the phrase "SPINELESS SELLOUTS" in caps, in order to wave away the evidence without discussing it, is entirely empty. // The point is not whether you personally are happy that people are increasingly starting to despise Democrats. It's whether they deserve to be despised -- and your post doesn't speak to that.
For example, suppose I was a Republican, & wished to ridicule those who rightly loathe Republicans. Suppose I posted, as you did, "HATE, HATE, REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL, HATE!!" Other than venting, what value would such a post have?
I've been following my freshman congressman from CT Chris Murphy (D) quite closely since he's been elected. He has like a 95% voting record for voting against the Bush administration, and the neo-con policies. He's 33 years old btw.
I think it's time to throw the old democrats, baby boomers from both eisles, and elect new progressive democrats to lead us into the new century, and (unfortunately) clean up the mess that