Particide in Six Easy Steps: Diligent Democrats Demonstrate Dumbness Daily
Suppose you had a political party you were trying to get rid of. How would you do it?
Would you give it some cement shoes and toss it into the bay? Would you roll it up in a carpet and drag it into the trunk of your car in the middle of the night? Would you put out a contract on it?
If the latter sounds appealing, no need to get your hands dirty messing with any nasty mob guys from Jersey. I know some very upstanding establishment folks who’ve perfected a killer formula (pun intended) for particide. They’re called Democrats, and they know how to get the job done right.
In fact, they’ve demonstrated it again for the umpteenth time just as I’m writing these words. Yesterday, that tough guy Harry Reid laid down the law for congressional Republicans thinking he wouldn’t play hardball on the much-needed economic stimulus package now working its way through Congress. He told them: “Well, I think that if they think this is a bluff, wait until we have this vote and they’ll find out if it’s a bluff. I’m not much of a bluffer.” Then, today, he completely caved into their pressure on the bill, proving - though perhaps not quite in the manner he intended - that he is in fact not much of a bluffer, after all, even if he is from Nevada. Nor, as it turns out, is he much of a negotiator either.
Yep, ladies and gentlemen, if it’s particide you’re after, Reid and his fellow Democrats would be happy to show you how it’s done. It’s pretty simple, really. There are just six easy steps that you need to follow to take out a political party that’s grown a bit, shall we say, inconvenient.
First of all, make sure it does nothing. If you’re looking for a good way to anger voters, here’s the best. Have them send you to Congress to address a host of their urgent concerns. Let them invest their full faith in you to rescue them from all the effects of a country gone completely off the rails. Let them believe and let them hope. Then do nothing. Crush their pedestrian little dreams in your blood-soaked hands by protecting corporate interests instead. Spend two years racking up not a single notable legislative accomplishment, and then go before the voters asking for another term. They’ll remember your name.
A second excellent technique is to fail to block the worst tendencies of the worst president ever, the very mission you were most entrusted with by the voters. If they hate this president’s stinking war, make sure you give him the money for it every time he asks. Send all his reactionary nominees to the Supreme Court after they mock you in bullshit hearings. Yeah, go ahead. Allow a supporter of torture and Constitution-shredding to become the highest law enforcement officer in the land. Etc., etc. Get it? Sure, you can go through the motions of opposition, but at the end of the day, be sure to bungle it so badly that you leave everybody scratching their heads and wondering which party actually controls Congress.
Next, while you’re at it, don’t do anything to make this hated president and his administration accountable for their manifold crimes of the century. Treat them as though they’ve got pictures of you in some airport men’s room somewhere that they’re threatening to release if you dare do anything remotely resembling oversight (or patriotism). Let these guys absolutely run rampant thrashing the republic in every imaginable way, while you sit on top of your congressional majority abdicating any responsibility for protecting the people who sent you there to protect them. Show the public how tough you can be by investigating the use of steroids in baseball, while lies about war and illegal phone-tapping and torture and suspension of habeas corpus go ignored. Keep your priorities straight and you’re guaranteed to score points with the voters, for sure.
Of course, not only must you fail to oppose an insane kleptocratic dictator, but it’s crucial that you also have absolutely no program or ideas of your own to offer. I mean, who can’t never not get no excitement going about nothing? Er, something like that… Anyhow, the point is that a political party without ideas is like a car without wheels. And it will go just about as far, too. If you want to get rid of your party, be sure to be about nothing whatsoever.
And yet, even while trying to be the Seinfeld of political parties, you will no doubt sometimes accidentally advance some sort of popular idea or another, despite yourself. You know, like a million monkeys at a keyboard… When these inadvertently beneficial bills are immediately destroyed by the obstructionist minority party - who continually overuse and abuse parliamentary tactics you (of course) never dreamed of all those years when you were in the minority - make sure that nobody in the voting public knows about it. You could run around screaming about them continually blocking you from doing the people’s business, but that would only increase public sympathy for you. And since you’re trying to kill your party, you surely won’t want to do that. No, like a good Democrat, you want to make sure the other guys never have to pay for their crimes.
Finally, one of the very best things you can do to destroy a political party is to avoid at all costs articulating an alternative narrative. Play ball on their turf! Let the other guys define the issues, frame the discussion, and paint you in the worst possible light - as deviants, traitors, cowards and haters of your own country! Now you’re talkin’, my friend. You want your house robbed right? Hand the door key to the thieves! You want your car crashed properly? Park it on railroad tracks! You want your party rubbed out completely? Let the other guys make the rules, fool! Heck, if you really want to make sure of your party’s demise, you can even encourage them steal elections you’ve actually won! It worked in Florida and Ohio!
If these six steps seem like a ridiculously reliable way to destroy a political party, that’s because they are. Still, they may not be entirely infallible. This year will be the acid test.
The good folks running the Democratic Party have assiduously followed the above formula to the letter, carefully dotting every ‘i’ and crossing every ‘t’. But damned if the recalcitrant right isn’t failing to play ball! What’s up with that? Have Republicans become so intractable nowadays that they’re even blocking the Democrats’ own self-induced demise? Is destruction obstruction the latest GOP game?
Or are Republicans just following their own particide formula, which - needless to say, like everything they do - is more disciplined and effective than even this fine blueprint belonging to Dumb Dems’? It kinda looks like it, after all. Consider their prescription: Take the biggest surplus in the history of the federal government and turn it into the biggest deficit. Fight a hugely unpopular war. Get caught lying about the rationale for it. Block efforts to save the planet from a looming environmental crisis, while pretending it isn’t real. Allow religious crazies to deny effective medical treatment to suffering humans in order to protect about-to-be-destroyed blastocysts. Get caught in all manner of corruption and sexual ‘deviancy’ while interminably preaching your own holier-than-thou sanctimonious purity. Shred the Constitution in every way imaginable. Load the government up with every incompetent low-wattage political hack you can find stuck behind a church pew somewhere. Make the whole world hate us. Use the federal government to prosecute people on the basis of their party affiliation. Stand by and watch one of the country’s major cities drown. Destroy a foreign country. Destroy the middle class of your own country. Be asleep at the wheel (at best) when the country is attacked. Fail to come even close to winning a war against the people you blame for that attack. And so on…
Quite a litany, eh? Yet, for all their best efforts, Republicans still can’t seem to get the Democrats to put the GOP out of its stinking misery. Still can’t get them to investigate. Still can’t get them to impeach. Still can’t get them to win. So now Republicans have brought out the big guns, engineering what looks like a massive economic recession on top of everything else. And they’re throwing people out of their homes in droves so that Wall Street can profit even more. Right before an election, too!
Yes, indeed. These guys aren’t messing around. Democrats seeking to kill their party are going to have to work extra hard in 2008, that’s for sure! Six steps may not be enough. If Democrats want to rub themselves out this year, they may need a seventh.
Get on their knees and beg the public not to vote for them? Nah. Too subtle.
Change their name to the Socialist Party? Nah. It might actually increase their share of votes.
Have their own sex scandals? Nah. Been there, done that.
Something else is going to be required to kill the party off for sure this year.
Oh, I know! They could nominate Hillary Clinton!
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers’ reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.
But it’s just that those nasty Republicans are just SO mean and they LIED! It wasn’t the Dems fault that they believed Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey when he said he couldn’t say what was torture until he was SWORN IN and could get a real INSIDERS peek at the details. Anybody would have believed a Bush appointee given the Deciders-picks track record of truthiness.
Oh wait, maybe it’s not just the Repubs that lie…after all, it was Sen. Schumer who said of nominee Mukasey ‘(he is) “legally excellent, ideologically moderate,” and “has shown a commitment to the rule of law.”
And re ‘Have their own sex scandals?’ But with who? When? Where? That would actually require a decision and even a desire on their part.
Democratic Party
(nee Democratic-Republican Party)
b. 1792 … d. 2007
R.I.P.
Epitaph on tombstone: “Impeachment is off the table” (as is the Constitution)
I await Double-D’s defense.
‘Something else is going to be required to kill the party off for sure this year.
Oh, I know! They could nominate Hillary Clinton!’
Even better, make sure it’s a Clinton nomination decided by SuperDelegates, not the electorate. That’s what us Democrats need after getting Bush by Supreme Court Decision in 2000 after losing the popular vote.
I know they want to kill us off, but does it have to hurt so much. Ouch!
The author is still thinking inside the box. He actually believes that there are two political parties in D.C. What’s going on in D.C. is better understood if you think of just one political party, with two right wings. The Uncle Buck Party. Its members are D.C. politicians and lobbyists, and corporate America. They use mainstream corporate media as their Public Relations Department. The result is that America is hated all over the world for its hypocrisy and criminality. We need a change of kingdom not just a new king.
Hoa binh
The dems need to get together and come up with a clear-cut agenda of the party,take some super calcium to develop spines to stand up to the other side; some super glue-laced kool-aid for more stick togetherness, and an over-all make-over.
They could certainly take lessons, at least in these areas, from the other side.
Well, when you put it THAT way …
On the mark from word one until the end. Given all that, you’d think it would be hard to KEEP a viable third party from rising. So, where is it?
Unfortunately, until another option is available, the only reasonable choice is to keep the Republicans out of power. Bumbling Democrats over homicidal Republicans any day …
While I like the CD articles, I find I’m having a much harder time recently going through these comments sections. Honest, constructive criticism is one thing, but despair is the enemy of all progress.
Yes, our system is broken. Corrupt. Heinous, even. But I can only help but think of the words of Gandhi, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” While I believe the majority of us on this site are doing things in the political arena, perhaps we should take an inventory of our activity.. am I writing to and calling my elected officials? Am I contributing, by money or labor, to the candidates who share my values? Am I empowering others to do the same? Maybe I should run for office myself?
I guess my point is this: if you want to abandon the Democrats, fine. That’s your call. I may end up voting third-party myself this year. But ultimately, WE ARE THE PARTY, whichever party that is. We’re seeing that happen with the conservatives who are raising absolute hell on the other side of the aisle and Obama, who by all standard measures of ability, should have been creamed months ago. When we put the nail in the coffin of any political group, we seal ourselves inside.
I think we over-analyse this. It’s nothing more than a bully and a normal kid on a playground. The normal kid’s been taught to play fair, respect others, resolve things by discussion. The bully’s been taught that the way you settle things is through deception, fights, etc. whatever it takes. At some point the normal kid’s gonna have to either take a bat to the bully’s knees or get so many of his friends together that the bully runs away.
Perhaps we can hope that this article by David Michael Greene will only be read mostly by the cynic choir at CD. Because it has no useful purpose in wider media.
KaneJeeves is right above that “the normal kid needs to get so many of his friends together that the bully runs away.” Obama is knocking himself out to build just such a movement and author Greene is doing his best here to diminish the effort. It’s as though he was standing with the bully to taunt the “normal kid” (who, by the way is you, the citizen).
A good question would be why. Author’s ego trip that satire and fun-poking is somehow better than helping anything?
It isn’t just the party leadership being self destructive. I read a poll of Democrats favoring Clinton over Obama by 48% to 42% even though in a general election Obama beats McCain by 48% to 41% while Clinton is tied with McCain at 46%. It’s the most uninformed part of the electorate going for Clinton. No one’s telling the truth about Clinton, and Obama is being gagged by the threat of being taken down like Edwards. Send him money, the more he’s seen the more people like him. I’m about to do that myself.
jcarleski, there’s more to him than I think you realize. He’s deftly traversing a razor thin tight rope. And he’s far more progressive than Clinton, even if not perceived so.
kathyodat
Daniel David, I think David Michael Green is right on the money. Anyone thinking the Democratic Party is normal doesn’t have their head screwed on straight (maybe from having spent too many years being screwed by the Democrats). Obama is the only viable candidate representing normal kids - working people who have to struggle to pay bills and whose kids have to take out horrendous loans to go to college.
kathyodat
jcarleski February 8th, 2008 1:23 pm:
“While I like the CD articles, I find I’m having a much harder time recently going through these comments sections. Honest, constructive criticism is one thing, but despair is the enemy of all progress.”
I agree. It is indicative of America’s dire situation that after the Democrats’ taking control of congress and on the eve of the end of Bush, the spirits of progressives are so low.
I don’t pretend to understand your nightmarish electoral system. In your corporate media, I don’t ever hear the kind of opinions expressed by anyone I’ve ever known. If it were not for web sites like this one and some of the Americans I have met, I would have to conclude that the US is a lost cause.
So, we must conclude, “progressives” (we often use the term “liberals” but I understand it’s a dirty word in the US) are a tiny minority. So be it. Isn’t there a song that goes: “keep your eyes on the prize”. If you stand up for what you feel is right, you may find that you are not so alone after all. For what it is worth, there are a whole bunch of us out in the world that are cheering for you folks.
kathyodat–”No one’s telling the truth about Clinton, and Obama is being gagged by the threat of being taken down like Edwards.” You’ve got to be kidding! The MSM has favored Obama like crazy, and that’s pretty suspicious. Don’t you wonder why, considering that they obliterated Edwards because he was against corporations? Clinton has gotten tons of critical coverage, Obama virtually none, and since he’s not saying much on the issues, that’s why we know little that is real about him on which to make a decision. And I refuse to vote on the basis of fluffy emotion, times are too dire.
I honestly feel despair quite often, looking at the situation around me.
I think this article reaffirms my gloom.
I feel powerless, and unable to effect this juggernaut steamrolling and perforating the reasons for my moving to this country.
Laws seem to be made for the few, and the wealthy, and so do the taxes.
Attitudes seem to be getting shittier as wallets get tighter.
I hear the number of progressives is growing. But I will know that when there is real change in the next five years.
BeForKids,
I was relieved to discover here and in other posts that you are supporting Obama. You’re right to do so. But he’s not an “independent” of some sort or other. He’s a Democrat and cannot somehow win better by having his supporters trash the party he’s trying to improve and pull together.
Some people refuse to admit that the party is over and never go home. They wake up in the morning on the floor, hung over, with a headache, wondering what happened.
Since this is now an ad hoc Obama forum, I will throw in my two cents.
I just can’t quite figure the man out. He has satisfactory (for now) policies listed on his site, but I don’t hear them really directly addressed outside of the debates the way I’d like. He’s sort of a mirror; whatever your “hope” is, that’s what he’s for.
On the other hand his organizational skills are top-notch, he’s able to reach to his opponents without surrendering his position and he seems not yet tainted by Capitol Hill. Yet.
If he picks Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd or Gravel as his running mate, he has my vote. If he picks Hillary.. n’eh… maybe not. Others would be on a case-by-case basis.
Excellent article by Prof. Green. // Note that our favorite Dem-bot Daniel David (1:45) can’t stand it — it speaks too much of the truth. DD can’t bear anything but mindless cheerleading.
KaneJeeves (1:29) writes, “I think we over-analyse this. It’s nothing more than a bully and a normal kid on a playground….”
- I disagree on both counts. First of all, we don’t “over-analyse” it. The subject demands analysis. It can’t be properly understood without considerable knowledge of history & political theory — things that Dem-bots lack.
Secondly, the situation is not at all comparable to a bully and a “normal kid.” It’s more like a bully (R), and a snotty little rich kid (D) who has some dirty deal worked out with the bully, so that together, they can cheat all the other normal kids out of their lunch money.
The Democratic Party is behaving exactly the way the Democratic voters want it to. How do I know? Because Democratic Voters keep voting for the same kind of politician over and over again.
Until voters change their voting behavior, the Democratic Party is in no danger of killing itself. And the voters won’t change their voting behavior. If you don’t understand why Daniel David can explain it to you. I admit it doesn’t make sense to me, but I think it involves abandoning all hope and yet voting anyway.
Barry
jcarleski (2:43) - You’re right that people see in Obama whatever they want to see.
There is precisely zero chance that he would pick Kucinich, Gravel or Edwards for his running mate. // Dodd, on the other hand, is a status-quo Democrat. He deserves a bit of credit for his recent principled stand against telecom immunity; but otherwise offers virtually nothing, from a progressive viewpoint.
This article really hits the nail on the head. I am horrified that my party mates are thinking that turning the election into a dive into the Clinton past. Not only will that be an excruciating fight we would be lucky to win, but look at what we would have a slim chance of winning; more betrayal from Hillary.
A Clinton nomination would be party suicide, but sadly, could also be global suicide. Could the Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory a third time? Yes they can! Her name is Hillary.
I like the bully analogy and there is a certain degree of fit.
Thing is, its long past time to take the bat to the Republicans’ knees. They’ve been playing this game since the “Contract on America” class.
Plus, it doesn’t quite explain why Reid and Pelosi were soooo quick to take impeachment off the table or why they seem intent on giving the telecoms immunity. They didn’t even have to get bullied into those positions. (I’m pulling for Obama over Clinton now that my choices are gone but I’d feel a whole lot more comfortable about him if he’d take a strong position on telecom immunity.)
Hopefully, there will be enough new Democrats after November to establish clear control of both the Executive and Legislative branches. Then, if they continue to ignore the mandate given them to reverse Bush, they won’t have any excuses to hide behind.
I sincerely hope they’ll come through but, one way or another, let’s get the cards on the table …
You have to view the upper levels of our Federal Government (the Sentate, the Presidency, the leadership in the House, the Federal Reserve and to some degree, but more servant to really, the Supreme Court) for what it is - an Oligarchy. It’s the natural result of the maturation of our form of Republic/Democracy. It won’t be reversed by any election or political party but the Oligarchy will not last and we’ll slide towards a brief period facism or a kind of everyman for himself barely controlled chaos, followed by another violent revolution that will lead to god only knows what. The slide to a complete Oligarchy was completed years ago. What we’ve been seeing for the last 25 years or so is an attempt by the now failing Oligarchy to maintain the myth of a functioning Republic. But predictably, the Oligarchy has begun to believe its own myths. So you have this state of disconnect from reality that bewilders your average and at the moment powerless citizen or journalist. But the Oligarchy wants what it wants so it can’t resist its own worst tendencies so the disconnect from reality grows steeper and the acts become more and more overt and crazy (crazy to one who isn’t party to the morality destroying wealth of the Oligarchy that is). Finally, desperation sets in as the Oligarchy itself begins to feel the results of it’s own failed policies and years of neglecting good governance. Then, the Oligarchy unconsiously switches from trying to maintain the myth of a functioning Republic via some level of self-control and some policy consideration for the masses to trying to passify the masses with circus and beer (another rebate check anyone?). But this act of desperation only buys the Oligarchy more time. But time for what? It has no ability for “change” as it is not a functioning governing body with the tools for introspection and discipline (not a coincidence that this word “change” is being thrown around this election year in such vague terms). Finally, the last chapter is written when a number of the Oligarchy’s failed “policies” come home to roost at the same time, destroying the Nations economy or worse. This destiny for all democractically organized governments is spelled out by Plato in “The Republic” and it’s the reason why we all know that name thousands of years later even if we don’t all know or understand his work. It’s the reason the founding fathers drafted the Constitution to be a living, changing document. If you were diligent and careful you could constantly update and re-invent Democracy so that the “decline” was never allowed to begin. But we have not been diligent and careful with it, consumerism and fossil fuels drove us all to distraction. The end.
Wubba wubba wubba NADER!!! argle bargle buzz buzz THIRD PARTY snort foam cough cough hack hack hack ptoo.
Snick snick nerble bada ELECTABILITY hunna bunna wunna gunna, LESSER OF TWO EVILS. And furthermore, woot narf poit troz PRAGMATISM honk honk.
And that’s why you are obligated to vote for a corporate thrall (D) who opposes the things you want.
Perhaps we liberals aren’t so different from Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram and Glenn Beck after all. They have a frontrunner now in McCain, and it seems all they can do is criticize him. We hope we get Obama, but we might get Mrs. Clinton. Shall we then we be against the ultra-right? Or like unto it?
we need to stay aware of the fact that Clinton and Obama are what big business has chosen for us.
Rash Limbaugh and Anise Coulter are bashing Jim MacCain only cuz the corporate overlords have decreed that the republick cannot survive another fur years of fascist sledgehammer - they need a reprieve - to rebuild the slave muscle. You give them a neocon in drag - Ms. Clintok, or a neocon in chains - Mr. O’Bama, and let them rebuild.
Mr. Green’s hyperbole wears me out. So pessimaistic, so silly and often so far off the mark, it amazes me how anyone could take him seriously. The Democratic Party is so much bigger than the prominent players on the stage at the moment. The party has survived Truman, JFK, RFK, LB Johnson, Jimmy Carter, McGovern, Dukasis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Lieberman and the yellow dog Democrats of the South; the party will survive Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, either singulary or as a mixed pair. Each candidate has supporters from all ages, races, genders, creeds and walks of life. The party has suffered more from talk-abouts like Mr. Green, Ms. Flanders, Mr. Corn, et al. These folks never met anyone they couldn’t screw over, verbally abuse and denigrade just for sport; most, I dare say none, have never run or held public office and haven’t got a clue all what is involved. I really think they delight in promoting discord and disenchantment as I have found little enlightenment for their writings. Go get a life and leave the rest of us alone.
daniel david (1:45), a “fun-poking” article?? it seems rather fact-filled to me. every point made by mr. green is based on fact, if not history. again, the old truth pill is just so goddamned hard to swallow at times. at least the “author’s ego trip” is a reality based trip.
richm, perhaps it should be the snotty little rich bully (r) vs. the little kid crybaby (d). at least in my world, there are many more snotty rich bully dumb republicans than not. but hey, they’re rich, they can’t be that dumb.
come november, the dems will be fighting for their spineless lives, against, no less, an old gray haired goat whose political campaign, just six months ago, was in such financial straits he couldn’t even afford to fly his hypocritical ass along the campaign trail, opting instead, to ride a bus. not even a fish out of the water, but a shark. reporters couldn’t stand to be around such a loser. next thing you know, they’re all sucking on his left tit. he just showed us his capabilities on the mccain/huckabee end-around against romney. and he’s not even in office yet. dems, all they’re saying is “mommy, he pulled my hair”.
get ready for the second coming of evil.
rockerbabe 1, see truth pill above.
Attaway David Michael Green. You should apply and be immediately made tenured Professor Emeritus at Wabash College, a superb college which is at least a little bit more open minded than years ago. Why can’t anyone running for the presidency or serving in Congress listen to the public? The vast majority want the war to end immediately, single payer health insurance and prohibition of lobbying. C’mon Obama. Make that statement on the next debate and Hillary will dissolve like the Wicked Witch of the West. There is no rebuttal to that statesmanlike proposal.
dakotalin and the rest of you Obama bashers: I received this information this morning on the Senate records of Clinton and Obama. I’ve been around tooo long to be swayed by charisma and empty fluff. My choice to support Obama was based on research, and also, I admit, the fact that our disaffected young people are energized by him. We need their involvement. Daniel David, someone pointed out that Hillary is a closet Republican. Her voting record shows he is right, and contradicts her rhetoric.
Who not only talks a strong game, but backs it up with action?
On Legislative Experience:
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I’ll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O’Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton ’s bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
There you have it, the fact’s straight from the Senate Record.
________________________________________________________________________
Obama…Now, I would post all of Obama’s, but the list is too substantive, so I’ll mainly categorize.
During the first (8) eight years of his elected service (in the Illinois state Senate) he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.
In all since entering public office, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to the spin meisters and mindless twits.
kathyodat
By the way, I’m sending Obama’s campaign money.
kathyodat
I am puzzled by too many comments on Common Dreams! Why this hatred for Hillary? Her husband was the first President in 75 years to pay a Penney off the deficit thus extending the life of the Social Security trust fund for years. How in the world do some so called progressives quote right wing twisting of facts? My neighbor brought an E mail missive that substituted Al Gore whatever it should have quoted GGW Bush. Change? Only a headon fight with “right wing” operators (remember Carl Rove) We will build a permanent Republican majority. And finally, please understand you cannot change the US Senate overnight, it is designed to to be Conservative.
katyodat,
are you seriously suggesting we should have lef those buildings nameless? How callous!
Jess raises a very reasonable question (4:51). He writes, “Why can’t anyone running for the presidency or serving in Congress listen to the public? The vast majority want the war to end immediately, single payer health insurance and prohibition of lobbying. C’mon Obama. Make that statement on the next debate and Hillary will dissolve like the Wicked Witch of the West. There is no rebuttal to that statesmanlike proposal…
- You’re right about what the public wants, & you’re right that Hillary would dissolve like the witch she is, if Obama dared to say anything like what you suggest. But he won’t suggest anything of the sort, because he knows how the game is played. He’s only gotten as far as he has by obeying the rules — which means, by not challenging the interests of his big corporate contributors. He knows perfectly well what he’s allowed to say, & not allowed to say. The very fact that they have given him all this money proves that they are 110% confident that he will not double-cross them in any way.
This was an entertaining article, David Michael Green hit the nail right on the head, drove it down, down, down, and then, on the final swing, he missed and hit his thumb! Oooouuucccchhhh.
A perfectly good rant, wasted! And for what… More Hillary Clinton Bashing, get over it already!
The fact is that Hillary Clinton is the best shot the Dems have left, and in fact will most likely be the next president of the good ole’ USA. Of course the Dems in congress have assured that She will be elected president with the republicans holding at least the Senate.
And Change, well change will go riding off into the sunset…..
Personally I wish the Democrats would commit patricide, kill them selves off so we can get a real opposition party in place. That ain’t gonna happen though, because the fact is that we do not have a two party system, we have a one party system, and the two sides of this corrupt system are working hand in hand toward the same goal. Corporate Fascism. It’s already here, it crept up on you while you were distracted, by American Idol, and false patriotism, and the absolute need to have a bigger house and a newer car.
Thanks RichM. Let’s see if the timid Democrats stand up against this. I heard Ambassador Wilson speak in Boulder last year and the truth on all that is still buried…
Is Ombudsman Already in Jeopardy?
Bush Proposes Moving Post From Archives to Justice Dept.
By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 6, 2008; A17
Hours before the new year, open-government groups won a key victory in their years-long fight to force government agencies to release documents without months, and sometimes years, of delay. The moment came when President Bush reluctantly signed a law enforcing better compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.
But in his budget request this week, Bush proposed shifting a newly created ombudsman’s position from the National Archives and Records Administration to the Department of Justice. Because the ombudsman would be the chief monitor of compliance with the new law, that move is akin to killing the critical function, some members of Congress and watchdog groups say.
“Justice represents the agencies when they’re sued over FOIA. . . . It doesn’t make a lot of sense for them to be the mediator,” said Kristin Adair, staff counsel at the National Security Archive, which is suing the White House to force it to preserve e-mails the administration says it may have lost.
“Once again, the White House has shown they intend to act contrary to the intent of Congress,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “I will continue to work through the appropriations process to make sure that the National Archives and Records Administration has the necessary resources and funds to comply with the OPEN Government Act, and we will continue to work in Congress to make necessary reforms to the Freedom of Information Act.”
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that the Bush administration strongly supports “the timely and fair resolution of FOIA requests” but that “only the Department of Justice, as the government’s lead on FOIA issues and mediation in legal matters, is properly situated and empowered to mediate issues between requestors and the federal government.”
Fratto said various government agencies are making “measurable progress” toward responding more quickly to FOIA requests.
Bush is no fan of the Open Government Act of 2007, which takes aim at his administration’s secretive ways by requiring government agencies to cough up the information Americans request within 20 days, or face monetary penalties. After months of fighting it, and faced with bipartisan support that included many of his allies in Congress, Bush quietly signed the bill on New Year’s Eve at his Texas ranch.
The law establishes the ombudsman’s office to hear disputes over unmet FOIA requests, monitor agencies and foster best practices. The ombudsman would be part of the National Archives and Records Administration, the non-partisan repository where most of the nation’s important documents eventually wind up, and from which they are distributed.
The Justice Department has hardly shown itself to be a strong supporter of public information requests: After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft issued a memo urging agencies to use all legal means to refuse public document requests.
A recent review of overdue FOIA requests by the National Security Archive criticizes Justice for holding up public records releases. In at least four cases, the delay was for more than 15 years.
More than 30 open-government groups have signed a letter they will deliver this week to Capitol Hill, “to highlight for congressional appropriators the executive branch’s attempt to re-write the law — signed only five weeks ago by the President,” Chris Green, program associate at OpenTheGovernment.org said in an e-mailed request for signatures.
By law, agencies must respond within 20 days to FOIA requests, but in practice the process can take months or years. Delays grew after the terrorist attacks in 2001 as agencies began to favor nondisclosure in the name of national security.
Under the new law, requests will be assigned public tracking numbers. Agencies that exceed the 20-day deadline for responses will be denied the right to charge requesters for research or copying costs.
Hey Everyone, if we are so damn smart, why did we vote Bush in for a second term. I suggest we take a look at the general public.
Dumb Dodos all of you! Don’t you know there’s only a majority in the SENATE? 51 to 49! When they vote, against the objections of the other party in the HOUSE, they must be prepared to produce 60 - that’s sixty - votes to have a majority! So far, on most bills they’ve been able to get only three or four Republicans to go along with them - short of the 60 needed you see– and the bill doesn’t pass! You nitwits continually say the Dems are in the majority - but you don’t understand the filibuster or the pressure needed to get just a few Repugs to go along! THAT’S THE BIG REASON WE NEED TO ELECT MORE DEMOCRATS TO BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE THIS FALL! Do it, or things will continue as they are!
kathodat that comparative list of legislation between Obama and Clinton speaks volumes.
Obama will end torture, Clinton will keep it. Obama will give relief on the payroll tax to low-end earners; Clinton will not. Obama’s health care plan will go most of the way toward the goal of universal coverage and be accomplished and historic; Hillary’s plan with mandates will at best be watered down and at worst will be a second big-time failure in its execution. Obama will talk with the leaders of Iran and choose to accomplish a negotiated settlement. Clinton has attacked Obama for planning to personally talk with leaders of Iran if elected, and Clinton (I believe) may be headed for a war of choice with Iran. Obama is the candidate of African-Americans, independents, youth, the entire Democratic base, and the goodwill of the world. Clinton is the candidate of defense contractors and lobbyists. Last but not least, Obama is better positioned to win in November than Clinton, and then to accomplish core agenda following victory. Latest Time poll: Obama 48%, McCain 41%. Clinton 46%, McCain 46%. Do the deciders in the Democratic Party (the superdelegates and powerbrokers in back rooms) not see that Obama is the stronger candidate? What a shame if the Democratic Party snatches defeat from the jaws of victory this time.
Roskerbabe1__ Good post. You brought out the fact that the Dems have customarily worked for a country with opportunity for all while the Repubs take care of themselves and their rich cronies. Either Obama or Hillary will be a tremendous improvement over what we have now and do not deserve constant abuse here as thre Repubs will be glad to take care of that.
As for Sirota`s deprressing sermon on what the Dems failed to do, remember that Bushco took advantage of 9-11 to bully everyone into giving his gang dictator powers or be branded traitors and not supporting the troops. They still rule by the fear factor which is the peoples own fault for not realizing what he was doing to them.
In last post, I was referring to David Green instead of Sirota.
Oldsalt3 (7:26) - No, that’s wrong. It’s true that it takes 60 Senate votes to defeat a filibuster. But not every measure passed by the Senate is filibustered. If there’s no filibuster, it takes only a simple majority (51 votes) to pass an ordinary measure. A simple majority can also defeat any given measure.
So for example, when Bush requests money to fund the war, the majority party could make sure that this NEVER passes, simply by getting 51 of its senators to block it. That would effectively stop the war, but the Democrats never do it. That’s because they’re weasels & traitors, and not really “against the war.”
Also, even when the Republicans had a Senate majority, the Democrats never filibustered anything the R’s did. That’s also because they are weasels & traitors. They could have filibustered — but chose not to.
The only time a filibuster matters, is when the majority passes it, and the minority filibusters it. In that case, it would take 60 votes to defeat the filibuster. But since the Dems won the majority, this has rarely happened. In other words, the Republicans are still getting their way on every single legislative battle — sometimes by filibustering, but usually without having to filibuster, because the Dems usually cave in before things go that far. // Your description applies only to those few occasions when the Dems try to pass something, the Repubs filibuster it, then the Dems fail to amass the 60 votes needed for cloture (ie, defeating the filibuster). As I said, that hasn’t happened very much. So it’s no excuse for the Dems still allowing the Republicans to control virtually everything that happens.
Thanks scroller. Unfortunately Obama doesn’t have the full support of the Democratic electorate. Demographic polls show Hillary has the support of less educated and Hispanic Democrats. Many super delegates are of the DLC. Good for Hillary, not good for Obama. Obama has to play a cautious game and can’t point out Hillary’s weaknesses because Hillary and Bill are threatening him with the race card, and yes, he needs corporate money to compete. What will he do if he wins? I think if he wins, he can change how politics is financed, which he’s been trying to do and won’t need corporate money again. He’s smart and careful and he knows how the system works.
scroller, those polls you quoted reflect his electoral strengths. Many disaffected Republicans like his message and he attracts far more independents than Hillary. He also doesn’t galvanize the dispirited right wing as Hillary does to get out and vote. The Republicans will empty a dump truck of crap on any Democratic candidate and Karl Rove is planning his usual theft of votes. But a larger spread makes it harder to steal. Do you think Hillary cares? No. For her, it’s all about her. There is no way she would do what is best for the Democratic party or the bottom 90% of Americans.
Oldsalt, the Democrats had the same procedural tactics available to them when the Republicans had a slim majority but rolled over. Now they have a slim majority and are still rolling over. NO EXCUSES!
profradar, Bill Clinton did more damage to the middle class than Reagan. And not because he lost Democratic control of Congress by breaking his pledge not to sign NAFTA, but because he had other priorities - currying corporate favor and vastly increasing upward migration of national wealth. BTW, I don’t know what the Clinton’s personal wealth was entering the White House (I do recall them asking for donations to pay their Whitewater legal fees back them), but now it is between $10 and $50 million dollars - they aren’t saying exactly where. They haven’t done too badly either. How about you?
Hillary really is a closet Republican and my son was right when he said only the Democrats could lose a slam dunk election. He, by the way, has never voted for a Democrat but is seriously considering Obama. And he wouldn’t even consider Kucinich unless he left the party. I almost fell over when he told me about considering Obama. Obama makes us feel like we can take our country back and he will stand with us to do it. And he’s not confrontational and combative, unlike Hillary. He wants to bring people together to work out solutions to common problems. He is highly regarded in the Illinois state Senate, which is a political jungle. But he needs all his political skills against Hillary who is like a barracuda with claws and no morals.
After trumpeting for three days that Hillary leads in Super Tuesday delegate count, the latest headline reads “Obama leads Clinton by only 2 delegates”. so whose side is the MSM on?
kathyodat
RichM, thanks for your consistantly informative posts. If you happen to teach anywhere, sign me up.
You’d think people would know better than to have sex with a politician, of either party. The thought that they might actually re-produce should be pretty much of a mood-killer. Political contraception! But alas, somehow they continue to procreate, and multiply…..
The better (or is that the lesser-of-evil) Democratic presidential candidates have dropped out. Now we’re down to Republican-lite. i’m reverting to my previous policy of
“Don’t vote, it only encourages them!”
We can bitch and moan about the politics in America and the hack political parties all we want, but until we take the Caterpillar bull-dozers that we send to Isreal for flattening Palestinian homes( and and humans that get in the way), ship them back to the US, and bull-doze the Pentagon into the Potomac, then nothing will really change.
This all started when we became a National Security State under Harry Truman, and where it will end, nobody knows, because nobody in power is addressing the issue except Cynthia Mckinney.
DMG is either God or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
I applaud your continous, joyous clarity in the midst of a raging river of S—.
jcarleski, I think if I were Obama and I really wanted to get elected President, I would, if I got the democratic nod, ask Al Gore to be my running mate.
Seems to me that, if Gore accepted, this would really be a way to rock the political world. And it would totally flatten the repubs. Whether or not Obama and Gore are really interested in the good of the people is a bit problematical, though, but everything in politics is problematical.
Reality shows it’s ugly head. Does anyone really believe that just because someone running for office shouts how they’ll end the war, that they actually have any idea how to do such without leaving a disaster in it’s place. That would be political suicide. So many politians talk a good talk when campaigning, but face reality checks when they hit D.C. Don’t believe for one moment that whoever is elected is going to end this war in any short matter.