Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDuring yesterday's chat with Washington Post Congressional reporter Paul Kane, this extremely revealing exchange occurred, regarding the view of Harry Reid and other anonymous Democrats of Chris Dodd's actions this week, whereby Dodd disrupted their collective desire for quick, smooth, trouble-free passage of Bush's surveillance and immunity bill:
New Hampshire: Hi Paul and thanks for taking my question. I read your article from the 18th about Harry Reid pulling the FISA bill and still am left wondering why "Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the decision had nothing to do with the efforts of Dodd and his allies."
I watched the entire proceedings and remain incredibly moved and thankful for the efforts of Sen. Dodd and his "allies" to protect and defend our Constitution by objecting to retroactive immunity for the telecoms. Can you fathom why this dismissive and seemingly disingenuous statement was made? Was there more to your interview with Manley that you will share?
washingtonpost.com: Telecom Immunity Issue Derails Spy Law Overhaul (Post, Dec. 18)
Paul Kane: Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman, was speaking the truth as Harry Reid viewed things. Reid could have pushed the FISA bill through if he wanted to, over Dodd's objections, but it would have taken time, several days. Reid decided to wait till mid-January.
A little noticed statement Reid made to reporters on Tuesday: he said that by mid-to-late January, when the Senate takes up FISA again, it's likely the presidential campaign will be finished. That was a not-so-subtle dig, I think, at Dodd, who some Democrats believe was grand-standing to try to gain attention for his floundering '08 campaign. Don't yell at me for saying this, this is what some Democrats here on the Hill believe.
Eventually, in a month or two, it's extremely likely the Senate will pass a FISA reauthorization with telecom immunity, so Manley's comment in that regard was accurate. So those of you in the blogosphere attacking Jim should understand, he's channeling Reid when he says that.
Where to begin? In the Beltway world, anyone who aggressively objects to the Bush administration's extremism, and especially its lawbreaking, is always guilty of (at least) one of two sins: they are either fringe, unSerious, overly earnest losers, or -- as in the case with the accusations against Dodd here -- simply pretending to be bothered by such things in order to rouse the rabble and exploit them for cynical political gain. Anyone who disrupts Beltway harmony in order to hold the Bush administration accountable -- anyone who seems actually bothered by the rampant lawbreaking -- is thus easily dismissed as an annoying radical or a self-promoting fraud.
After all, it can't possibly be the case that Dodd actually believes in what he's doing and saying. He can't really care if telecoms are protected from the consequences of their years of deliberate, highly profitable lawbreaking. Clearly, Dodd's just doing all of this to prop up his flagging presidential campaign, just a cynical ploy for attention, not because he has any actual convictions that there is something wrong with granting such an extraordinary and corrupt gift to lawbreaking telecoms. No Serious person would ever actually get riled up about anything like that.
* * * * *
This is what exactly the same people -- Democratic insiders, GOP operatives, and the Establishment pundit-propagandists -- spent all of 2006 doing to Russ Feingold. Feingold was one of the few voices on the national political scene who actually objected meaningfully to the fact that the President was deliberately breaking our laws in how he spied on Americans ever since October, 2001. Feingold spent the year espousing what ought to have been the uncontroversial proposition that for Congress simply to look the other way and to ignore these revelations of illegality would be to reward lawbreaking and eviscerate the rule of law. But his motives were impugned by the Beltway establishment exactly as they are doing now to Dodd.
In March 2006, when Feingold introduced his Resolution to censure the President for breaking our laws, the super-sophisticated punditocracy, GOP Bush apologists, and the highly responsible Betlway Democratic establishment all jointly scoffed at Feingold, oh-so-knowingly dismissing his little outburst as nothing more than a cynical ploy to shore up the "leftist base" as he prepared to run for President. After all, nobody could really take seriously the idea that Bush shouldn't be allowed to break our laws. The only possible motive for pretending to care is that Feingold wanted to scrounge up support for his presidential campaign.
Feingold announced in November, 2006 that he wasn't running for President, yet he continued to pursue these matters with exactly the same tenacity and intensity as before. There he was this week, standing with Dodd against warrantless surveillance and telecom immunity, even though -- as a Senator from a far-from-blue state -- there is little political benefit and some risk in his doing so.
So perhaps Feingold was sincere all along, maybe he does genuinely believe that the President and the telecom industry shouldn't be permitted to break our laws with impunity. But that thought is beyond the reach of our Establishment guardians. Because they believe in nothing other than their own petty Beltway rituals, they assume everyone else is similarly barren and empty, bereft of any actual convictions about anything.
* * * * *
Notice, too, who is smearing Dodd's motives here. It isn't Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell. Instead, it's Harry Reid and anonymous, cowardly Democrats whispering in Paul Kane's ear about Dodd's manipulative "grandstanding" and proclaiming that Dodd will ultimately fail, dismissing the notion that he achieved anything other than delaying their well-laid plan to ensure that the President has everything he wants.
So here we have one of the very few acts of the last year by a Democrat in Congress which has actually engaged and energized people; made them feel as though someone was listening to them and taking a stand for what they believe; something that enables actual citizens to have some influence on the political process; and, most of all, an effort that at least disrupted the relentless Congressional march to capitulate to all of Bush's demands.
And in response, Harry Reid and his mewling anonymous Democratic allies immediately recruit the Washington Post's Congressional reporter to attack what Dodd has achieved, demean his motives with a ferocity that they never display in opposing George W. Bush, and assure everyone that their will to do the President's bidding will be realized despite Dodd's temporary interference.
It's one thing to watch Congressional Democrats fail to stand up to any of the Bush abuses. It's another thing entirely to watch as they actively enable them. But they've now moved beyond even that to actually perceiving as their Enemy anyone -- such as "Dodd and his allies" -- who seeks to disrupt their Bush-enabling efforts and, worst of all, who infects their rituals with any dirty, outside riff-raff, such as actual citizens.
That is the worst crime there is, Dodd's real sin here, the reason he has to be attacked. He allowed the riff-raff to derail Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller's plan for quick and quiet enactment of telecom immunity. As Digby caught Nancy Pelosi saying recently about Democrats who are dissatisfied with Congress:
Though crediting activists for their "passion," Pelosi called it "a waste of time" for them to target Democrats. "They are advocates," she said. "We are leaders."
Dodd enabled the boisterous, irritating "advocates" to enter the gates just for a moment, allowed them to disrupt the plan of the "leaders." And as a result, the Ultimate Leader made clear yesterday in his Press Conference that he is not happy -- at all -- about the disruption that Harry Reid allowed:
I'm also disappointed that Congress failed to pass legislation to ensure that our intelligence professionals can continue to effectively monitor terrorist communications. . . .
The first priority of Congress when it returns in the new year must be to pass a good bill and get it to my desk promptly. They have a duty to give our professionals the tools necessary to protect the American people. The bill should include liability protection for companies that are facing multi-billion-dollar lawsuits, only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend or nation following the 9/11 attacks. And it must ensure that our intelligence professionals have all the tools they need to keep us safe.
Look at how The President talks to Congressional leaders -- the way a stern teacher addresses slightly misbehaving middle-school students. They didn't complete their assignment he gave them by the deadline he imposed. He is quite "disappointed" by their failures, but he's willing, magnanimously, to restrain himself in the punishment provided they understand that "the first priority of Congress when it returns in the new year must be to pass a good bill and get it to [his] desk promptly" -- and Reid and his scared, hiding allies dutifully run to assure the The Washington Post that they will comply with their orders ("Reid decided to wait till mid-January. . . . Eventually, in a month or two, it's extremely likely the Senate will pass a FISA reauthorization with telecom immunity").
* * * * *
In helping the Bush administration spy on Americans' communications without warrants, the telecoms indisputably broke numerous federal laws (.pdf) for years. Yet Attorney General Michael Mukasey -- supposedly the top law enforcement officer in the country -- gave a speech yesterday devoted almost exclusively to demanding telecom immunity, managing in a matter of weeks to turn himself into a mindless defender of every last Bush talking point in defense of lawbreaking -- a development which led former Mukasey supporter (and Mukasey law partner) Scott Horton at Harper's, in a typically excellent post, to conclude:
To be very specific, [Mukasey] urgently pushed for immunity for telecommunications companies who violated the criminal law by collaborating with the Bush Administration in warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and residences. So for Mukasey the priorities were clear: protecting telecommunications companies who commit crimes is the core function of the Attorney General, requiring his personal attention. . . .
At this point, it's clear that breaking the law is the Justice Department's number one, two and three priority. And law enforcement? That's disappeared from the scene.
But Harry Reid, Senate Democratic leaders, and most of our very Serious Beltway press aren't the slightest bit interested in any of that, except to the extent they can help suppress, justify and bolster it. And anyone -- such as "Dodd and his allies" -- who does think that this is problematic, anyone who objects to allowing our government and large corporations to break our laws continuously with impunity, is the only enemy they recognize.
Reid and friends aren't merely refusing to stand with Dodd. They're not even merely impeding what he's doing. They're actually attacking him, impugning his motives, dismissing his efforts as insincere and worthless.
It's just undeniably true that the most important allies which the Bush/Cheney machine have now are Congressional Democratic leaders. Hence, the motives of Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold and their allies are highly suspect ("grandstanding"), but the good faith of the President and the telecoms in illegally spying on Americans is above and beyond reproach. That's the Harry-Reid-led Democratic Senate speaking.
UPDATE: In Comments, El Cid adds a good point:
What's most funny about the apparent Reid view is not just the classic establishmentarian's suggestion that any anti-hawkish political stance (Dodd's throwdown against telecom immunity) which appears to be based on principle is really just cynical manipulation of the rubes' passions for some political or other non-principled goal.
What's really funny is that Reid & co. actually view that presumed cynical manipulation as saner than an actual dedication to anti-hawkish, Constitution-defending principles.
If Reid & co. thought Dodd was doing all this crazy oppositional stuff because of real dedication to principle, then he would appear truly frightening to them.
It might be okay to manipulate the rubes every now & then by vowing to filibuster to save Constitutional principles. Hey, we all do it, right, sayeth the courtiers and gossips of Versailles.
But heaven forfend anyone actually mean it. Now that would simply be mad.
All one can do now is speculate -- only time will tell -- but I'm quite convinced that Dodd actually means it. It will be interesting to see the reaction it provokes when he continues to impede these efforts even once his presidential campaign has come to an end.
UPDATE II: More omnipotent Holds from the All-Powerful Super-Senator Tom Coburn:
Congress on Wednesday passed a long-stalled bill inspired by the Virginia Tech shootings that would more easily flag prospective gun buyers who have documented mental health problems. The measure also would help states with the cost.
Passage by voice votes in the House and Senate came after months of negotiations between Senate Democrats and the lone Republican, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who had objected and delayed passage. . . .
Despite the combined superpowers of bill's supporters, Coburn held it up for months because he worried that millions of dollars in new spending would not be paid for by cuts in other programs.
The bill could pass only once "Just before midnight Tuesday, Coburn and the Democratic supporters of the bill struck a deal." Seriously, is there anyone who can explain why it is that, in Harry Reid's Senate, Tom Coburn's holds possess impenetrable omnipotence while Chris Dodd's (and other Democrats') are treated like mosquitos to be swatted away?
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
40 Comments so far
Show AllAre you going to come off your wire to do that?
How about a million of us storm the Congress the night of the State of the Union speech.
Whatever happened to the good old days when a Senator was SUPPOSED to uphold the Constitution? Now it's GRANDSTANDING?. This is ridiculous.
Now the Dems are fighting about whether or not to DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS!
Voting is a smokescreen allowed by our government to make us "We the People" believe we really have a say in our government. I have often said voting is like when you put the toddler in the back seat with the fake steering wheel he turns and thinks he's helping dad steer the car! It all kind of cute but in our case its really sad and pitiful I no longer vote!
I've said before--I don't know how a milquetoast like Harry Reid got to be leader. I thought Durbin should have gotten it.
There is a struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party underway--well not quite. The progressives have its soul, but the DLC sell-outs hold the political power.
The GOP is going through the same thing; the real Republicans are trying to wrest control from the neo-con criminal cabal.
So what's playing out is that the career hacks of both parties, in bed with big business, are trying to beat back a serious challenge from the populists of both the left and right--the Walter Karp thesis as mentioned above.
If the pro-business party wins again, we will be treated to Clinton vs. Romney; if we the people prevail, we will get something like Edwards vs. Huckabee. Actually, if we could REALLY prevail, we would see Kucinich vs. Paul, but these candidates are already getting the hook from the corporate media.
Did anyone here ever hear of such a thing as the "Green Party?"
It isn't on TV. It isn't in the newspapers. It isn't in favor of government of the people by the ass-monkeys for the ass-monkeys. It seems to be right about all the issues that commenters on Common Dreams care about, while the Republicans are all wrong, and the Democrats are just ass-monkeys with no convictions either way.
Is there really any such thing as the "Green Party?" And if there is such a thing, why don't we hear a little more about it?
Maybe it would be more interesting to hear a little more about the "Green Party," if such a thing exists, and a little less about ass-monkeys like Reid and Pelosi, especially since every single commenter on Common Dreams already knows that Reid and Pelosi are total ass-monkeys, and all of us have known it for a very long time.
Wonder if a few got nailed sooner than later would the others repent and change their ways?
Does anyone out there know if there is a statue of limitations on treason....for if not, it may take us a while, and the line may be a long one....but Justice may be served before the great by & by. When you don't stand your constitutional duty and oathe no matter your party you are guilty and I'm sure there must be room in one of our prisons.
Just remember, folks, we DO NOT have a two-party system of a so-called "Democracy." We have a one-party system, the Business Party with (except for a few mavericks a la Dodd, Feingold, et al) two wings, one called Republican, the other Democratic. They might bicker among themselves, just as children will do, but they are fundamentally only for themselves and their Business Party, and short of revolution, we can just settle down and enjoy being raped, repeatedly. They sit there comforably ensconced in their little pig wallows, doing what they do and ignoring us, the hoi polli, until they need our votes, but only until they have them and then it's back to their Business Party business as usual and to hell with the vox populi. That is, until they need us again. Remember, impeachment is off the table (meaning for all of them, since once started, God knows where it stops), so without impeachement, the only thing left (if we ever get serious) is armed rebellion. Not much option there, either, folks, so relax and enjoy.
Reid is pathetic. When does he come up for re-election?
I really like the "hack" v "reformer" concept. The problem is not just the collusion of the hacks in both parties, it's also the fact that there are so few reformers. That seems to be a function of only hacks being nominated for election. So we the people get to vote for the lessor of two evils (or hacks) instead of a candidate we can actually vote FOR.
By the way, it's also time to reward those senators that stood with Dodd. Give them some love. Call their offices toll free at 800-828-0498. Give them a holiday gift of support. And when they get back to "work" in January, call and email all of your senators, D and R, and tell them what you think about amnesty for the telcos and spying on Americans. I made that call to my senator (Wyden) BEFORE Dodd took to the floor on Friday. And Wyden stood with Dodd. Did my call make a difference? Don't know, but I feel good that MAYBE it did.
Good luck
I watched the News Hour on PBS last night, and they had Harry Reid on for a segment. Unbelievably, he praised Joe Liarman(Lieberman), calling him a GOOD DEMOCRAT! And this after Liarman endorsed John McCain.
Harry Reid being interviewed on PBS last night---what a SNORE-FEST. "I hope so" was his timid little answer every time he was asked if the Dims were going to be able to do ANYthing....No articulation of issues, of process, no hint of creative energy, no indignation at BushCo---just a complete milktoast. VOTE OUT YOUR INCUMBENTS, whatever it takes. They have insulted us for the LAST TIME....
With the democrats apparently ready to nominate Mrs. Clinton we can expect this type of garbage will become the norm and another corrupt regime will be installed in Washington. Every establishment democrat is supporting Mrs. Clinton and we can all anticipate more crimes against the constitution and more cynicism. Her filthy campaign is a warning of what kind of government we will have.
I just hope a few more Democrats will stand with Dodd when the bill is brought before the Senate next year.
The late Walter Karp, in "Indispensable Enemies" divided the political world into "hacks" and "reformers". Hacks being self interested and reformers being morally driven.
Karp says both parties are made up of a coalition of hacks and reformers. But the hacks of both parties have more in common with each other than with the reformers of their own party.
The primary goal of the party hack is to keep reformers of either party out of power. And the hacks will work together to keep reformers out of power. Remember the hacks of both parties working together to keep Nader and Perot out of the debates.
Many of us are sorta this far along. Karp blows past us to show new political tools available to the hacks such as dummy candidates (Dole, Mondale, Dukakis) and thrown elections.
Too bad Karp died in 1989.
Karp explains all the available information and allows us to make verifiable predictions which then become true. Not just new political information but rather a whole new framework for understanding politics.
Americans on the hole are still too stupid and TV mezmerized to tell sh*t from shinola.
It may take another 4 years of Republican rule -- (which by the way is STILL what we have with stinkers like Ried and Pelosi) -- for enough people to wake up and elect real change - if elections are possible any more.
If the presidential election is even close or, god forbid, the GOP prevails, you must place much blame on Reid and Pelosi because their Neville Chamberlain like behavior is causing independents and progressive democrats to look to alterntive candidates or certainly away from Clinton. It is why Nader was so successful in the 2000 election and why the opening is there again. Mainstream democrats will blame anything or anyone but themselves for the revolt within the party. I'm fed up. I'd rather vote for someone with conviction and someone that walks the walk, like Dodd or Kucinich even though they cannot win the nomination. Hell, I'd vote for Nader again.
"That was a not-so-subtle dig, I think, at Dodd, who some Democrats believe was grand-standing to try to gain attention for his floundering ‘08 campaign. Don’t yell at me for saying this, this is what some Democrats here on the Hill believe."
You know what? I don't care.
I really don't care what Dodd's motives are as long as he's doing the right thing. That's the kind of man who deserves to be President: a man who treats the electorate as a "special interest."
The Democrats saying this are the ones who will do nothing, and for precisely the same reasons: don't make waves because 2008 is coming. Show me a politician who doesn't do things because of an election and I'll show you a shoe salesman.
We all know that nearly every politician in the USI has the credentials of god fearing Christian. But they would be crazy if they actually meant it. And the press are all reporting objectively for the good of the USI. But they would be crazy if they believed it. And Wall street investors are ethical people who stand personally and honestly behind their market announcements and bond recommendations. They would be crazy if they believed it. The USI administration is wanting the goodness of democrazy to spread to major oil producing nations, to have those nations people share in the profits. They'd be crazy if they believed that too. Climate change is going to bypass the USI because George W Bush is going to save them with "New technology". Wow, do you really believe that? How about the one where the people with real power and money in the USI want to have more of it or hold on to it all costs. Now thats where my money's going.
I was watching the News Hour on PBS a little while ago, and they had Harry Reid on for a segment. Unbelievably, he praised Joe Liarman(Lieberman), calling him a GOOD DEMOCRAT! And this after Liarman endorsed John McCain.
There must be a movenment to hold complicit Democrats like Pelosi, Reid and their allies In Contempt Of The Constituton and The Nation and The People.
Chris Dodd threw all of us tax payers to the wolves when he and Einstein Schumer begged, pleaded and GOT their mandate to off-load more bank and wall street debt into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...... The both need to get what they deserve.
There is so much ego-driven infighting in DC that nothing good can come of it.
A lot of that is the blowback from the Iraq war. We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Instead, we fight each other.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be accomplished in the US until that stupid war is finished.
It seems like any words I might add to this melee are useless.
Nothing has been right since that SOB was handed the Presidency. How heavily the nation will pay is yet to be seen.
Someday maybe an intelligent soul will land in the White House, instead of everybody's idea of a cool beer buddy.
You have to dream even if it flies in the tender face of reality.
OF COURSE WE ALL KNOW THE THE US CONGRESS, WITH FEINSTEIN, PELOSI AND REID ARE IN THE EMPLOY OF THE SPECIAL INTERESTS, AS IS SO MUCH OF THE CONGRESS. THIS IS THE CANCER OF AMERICA.!
"It’s one thing to watch Congressional Democrats fail to stand up to any of the Bush abuses. It’s another thing entirely to watch as they actively enable them."
We've been watching the enablers since Bush took office in January, 2001.
Disgusting!
to #1 aye, but reverse the order of preference.
Impeachment yes, assination no.
it's a common ruling-class ploy, this latest attempt to discredit the message by demeaning the messenger. dodd's motive must be selfish, he couldn't be acting out of principle; my friend the housing activist doesn't really care about injustice, she only wants to see her name in the paper; and ralph nader, possibly the least self-aggrandizing man of his generation, only ran for president to feed his ego.
Don't vote for people who break their oath of office!
If you vote for someone who you know has broken his or her oath to uphold the constitution, or if you vote for someone who you doubt will honor that oath, then you clearly consider something else more important than the constitution. For example, beating the Republican candidate.
So, if you have more important priorities than preserving the constitution, is it any surprise that the person you elect does as well?
The Serious Washington Democrat message is that this awfulness will continue until you elect enough Democrats so that they "have the votes."
So let me get this straight. How many people who won't protect and defend the constitution does it take to protect and defend the constitution?
Cynicism starts at home. If you want our constitution to have meaning, then you have to vote like you mean it. I know having principles makes winning harder, but filling the seats with anyone who will put a D after their name is clearly not working.
Barry
Why don't the Democrats ever fight the Republicans with the same zeal and dedication with which they fight Ralph Nader, the Green party or, any of their own (like Dodd and Feingold) who show the slightest bit of principle?
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, both given their positions of authority by Democrats in congress, and BOTH rushing to do the bidding of an empirical president, who retains the approval of less than a quarter of the people? Something is VERY wrong with this picture!
They are either totally complicit with the Neo-Fascists who have siezed control of our government, or somebody is holding something over their heads, and over the heads of many other dems in congress.
And by the way, while the article doesn’t mention it, and I have to wonder why, BushCo began ramping up programs for spying on Americans well before 9/11. It’s almost like they did what Hoover did when he was head of the FBI, keeping files on everybody in government and anybody else who might be a threat to him.
In any event, WE THE PEOPLE have a very serious problem that requires a major shake-up of our government, and a major shaking-awake and slap-in-the-face of the apathetic sheeple.
This situation begs for the Constitutional Remedy to this problem -
A VERY PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT OF ALL THESE CRIMINALS!
As Noam Chomsky points out, the US view of democracy in other countries is whether they go along with the US corporate agenda or not. When the Turkey legislature listened to the views of 90% of its citizens and refused to allow the US to attack Iraq from Turkey, they were accused of being undemocratic. When Blair refused to listen to the majority of Britons and joined the US in the invasion, he was hailed as a great leader.
This discussion is the same. Playing to the rubes is derided. But playing to the rubes is the same thing as representing the wishes of the American people! This is what a democracy should look like.
The federal government is out of the control of the people. We need to stop-immediately- all corporate money going to the politicians- before or after their elections.
Harry is a sissy! Go clean out your purse,Reid.
HANG JANE!
Retire Reid. Your not fit for the job. Go away.
We've been shooting the messengers for 40 years. Whyever would Master's Overseers stop now?
The Overseer animals exist for one reason, to transfer wealth from us to the Richfilth by any means necessary. "The profits must Flow."
War, lies, assassination, false flag operations, ritual defamation, the enslavement of our entire population - No Problemo. Master only follows the Law when it is convenient to Master or makes him money. Right now, it isn't convenient. Sorry plebs. Check with us on this. Maybe later in the century.
Of course, no one is making themselves a major opponent to the Bush Crime Family because in the universe of Patriot and MCA that puts a target on their back and gets them laid out on slab, or perhaps a bomb on their airplane. Dangerous world we live in. Terrible accidents happen to just about anyone, just about anywhere. Even young people can have a mysterious fatal heart attack in the middle of the night, courtesy of our beloved, patriotic, Aryan CIA (yes, they will hire brown-skins and even a few black-skinned humans for lower level positions or to provide a token face).
These are the patterns of chickens come home to roost. We never cared when others were on the spit. We turned our collective faces away like Pavlov's dogs, on command. Now its our turn on the spit. Just keep repeating to yourself: Master loves me. Master loves me. Master loves me. Medium well with earthworms in aspic.
Pieces of 8.
Assassination? Martial law is not something I look forwards to.
Again, it shows how the Democrats and Republicans are one side of the same coin. They are political factions of one group under a corporatocracy. We need to encourage third and even fourth party candidates to come forth and run for political office. I think COMarc hit it right on the head by starting at the local level and working our way up. It seriously is time to overhaul the traditional political system in this country. And let's start by doing away with the political-factions-under-one-party-system.
If the Dems were to remove Reid and replace him with Dodd, I would dance for joy (and I can't even dance).
Christopher Dodd is a patriot who, like Feingold, would put the Constitution and the common good above reaching "compromises" or avoiding filibusters or vetos.
The right-wing agenda being pushed by many, but not all, Republicans has goals that can only be described as evil whether or not those politicians consider them as such. To compromise, in many but of course not all situations, IS to capitulate.
Thank God Fo CHris Dodd
all those in favor of impeachment or assassination, say aye