We are witnessing the death of American Democracy.

as usual the wimpy democrats have caved in again...........at least the vets are getting some help ...some democrats are making too much money off the war to stop funding it....

They're all corrupt, including Obama. The "union" doesn't work, hasn't for some time. Accountability is out the window. Now what?

It's pathetic, Pelosi is Hell-bound.
Maybe things would be different if Wellstone had not been murdered...if opposition to AIPAC goals was not political suicide.

It's not just the Democrats; It's the horribly rigged gamed itself, which includes murder and more.

If 9-11 Was An Inside Job? How Silencing, intiminidating and scary would certain knowledge be? Makes anything possible, ask Senator Wellstone.

So hate the Dems, don't forget the game is rigged though, sadly wholly corrupted.

Peace and Blessings

The Founding Fathers literally must be spinning (not rolling) in their graves. Political scientists and historians will note how the Democrats allowed the Bush Administration to violate the Constitution and Geneva Conventions just so they could win more seats in the House and Senate, and maybe the White House. It never astonishes me how to see how the Democrats are asking their constituents to swallow the oversized poison pill of accepting more than 1.2 million Iraqi civilian deaths, and 4,000+ American troops just so more Democrats could get elected. I am not a Democrat, but that is just apalling and unacceptable. What a dirilection of duty! The system has failed and look what it has wrought! It must be embarassing to be a Democrat or Republican right now.

There's the old saying: If you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING! What's so hard to figure out about this?
Pelosi and Feinstein should be pilloried for this farce, is there any hope left?
I predict ultra-low voter turnout this fall, not sure I'm going to bother showing up myself. If it's a choice between voting for more of the same or staying home drinking beer and watching TV, eh..it's a toss-up.

A just war or just a crusade?

"WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

"A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

"In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

"How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

"Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the self-same few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill."

-Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, War Is A Racket

"as usual the wimpy democrats have caved in again……….."

Frankly, so have we, the people.

Its interesting the UN mandate expires at about the same time we are changing presidents.

If Obama (presumptive) is serious about removing troops, then he should drop the colonial demands of the current force "agreement", drop the PSA demands, and develop a flexible timetable with Maliki. They can review the timetable on a monthly basis and make adjustments for insurgencies or other problems.

If the UN says "leave" and the Iraqis say "leave", then lets make like a tree and leave!

the behaviors of these neo-cons and their Donkey-cratic allies! When are we going to create a political party in this country which is not of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich? Maybe after donkey-man disillusions his supporters.

Funny how the House can't vote on impeachment of a criminal president because it would detract from their business, like funding an illegal war the criminal himself started to the tune of $500 dollars for every man woman and child in the country. Hey wait a minute, didn't we already give the pentagon over a trillion dollars ($4000/us citizen) this year?

Heel! Roll over! Good Congress! Now play dead!

And they are not even sure of 60 Senators! If they do not get that number, the majority in the house and the Presidency cannot help them.

I always have to return to a 1990 Supreme Court ruling. Its gist is: allocating funds for a specific war is not just "supporting the troops", it is the equivalence of a congressional declaration of war.

Well, that's what you get for blindly supporting phoney Democrats over true progressives and liberals who just don't happen to have a fucking D next to its name ! And why does CD ban real progressives and liberals all the while giving god damn motherfuckers such as "Daniel David" total leeway?

"With this bill, Congress will have written checks for more than $800 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with most of the money going to Iraq."

$800 billion? I don't think so!

Add to that fugure other expenditures such as "black budget" money, along with the actual cost of supporting tens of thousands of wounded vets over their lifetime, and we are looking at a price tag in the $$Trillions.

I have been reading about the huge military bases we have built in Iraq.The ones you never see or hear about on the major media news networks.

Two of these bases have over 40000 troops stationed there, 40000.Thats a small city. So thats what billions of dollars buys. These are permenent bases.WE Have have been duped by both partys for at least 3 years, and the money keeps flowing with no end in site. As our country goes broke ,these arrogant movers and shakers in Washington are laughing all the way to the bank.
Watch out , don't get in their way , the 80 billion dollar/per year nation wide security network made up of FBI,NSA,CIA,IAFF,CITIZEN CORP,LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT,DHS,Nieghborhood Watch TIPS program and Military spys will destroy you with COPINTELPRO gangstalking techniques. I shit you not.

IT is going to take a monumental legal battle of epic proportions to unseat these pricks who have been given unconstituional powers by the USA PATRIOT ACT and huge amounts of our tax dollars to build a netowrk of Zombie spys.

In theory , since absolute power corrupts absolutly, these power hungry freaks will start to devour each other for more power and money, but I for one would rather re-instate the constitution and throw them all in jail for commiting torture on innocent Americans.

And I mean All of them. Especialy public law enforcement servants who are supposed protect the constitution , not crap on it.
Its lazy for true patriots to use the excuse that our executive branch, a bunch of lieing greedy bastards , gave them the permision through the patriot act to practice warrantless spying,torture, and other unconstitutinal acts on the American public.

So , I see no possible end in site for the bottomless hole in which we pour money into in Iraq.Unless their is an all out war, including Iran, then we will nuke them and make that whole region uninhabitable.

Maybe thats why Iran wants the bomb, they would rather be dead then slaves to the imperial west.

God help us all.

Few want to admit that they have made mistakes and look into the cesspit. Too deep. An unprincipled lot. Uneducated people would do a far better job than the majority of these wasters in the House and Senate.

Why does the discussion in Congress NEVER (except for Dennis Kucinich some time ago) touch upon the reason for the war: To get control of Iraq's oil? The bases, the obscene embassy, the surge, the attacks by the US and Iraq on Al-Sadr's and other militias who want the US to leave. All for oil. Corporatist fascism in action at the expense of our democracy and Iraq's very existence.

Cheney and his secret Energy Task Force chose the oil companies who would become "suitors" for Iraq's oil in EARLY 2001 -- way before 9/11. The companies would get control of all new drilling for 20-30 years, would not have to invest a penny in Iraq's economy, would not have to hire Iraqi workers (especially oil union members) or purchase goods and services from Iraqi companies. HOW DOES IRAQ BENEFIT FROM THIS DEAL? Our military and mercenaries will stay to "help" them establish their "sovereign" democracy. Wow. Congress must not fund this way for another minute.

At this moment the Red Cross is out of disaster funds to help the flood victims in Iowa and fire victims in California. They are pleading for funds from the local public and are having to borrow money from other sources. Yet the administration and their congressional fuck buddies can fund billions to waste and flush down a sink hole in some foreign desert.

Nothing short of a complete House cleaning this fall will save the US from becoming a major tyranny, it seems that it may already be too late.

Vote for anyone but a democrat or republican! They are bought and payed for and anyone who continues to support them is complicit in murder, theft, torture, and rape.

The Congress has betrayed the United States of America and no longer repsresents it. It has been hijacked by spineless foot soldiers who serve the criminal class and thugs of the New World Order.

I don't know how they can say they are funding the war. Wouldn't it be better if they said that Democrats will go along with the President's proposal to borrow money and increase the federal deficit and the national debt for the war. I hope that when the Democrats get into power they make some effort to try to be fiscally responsible and not live on the credit card as the Republicans have been doing these last 7 years. I am not any more comfortable with Democratic deficit spending that I am with Republican deficit spending.

So what do you expect from war profiteers? Every couple of months the Chimp asks for hundreds of billions of dollars from the so-called opposition, the Democrats, and they give him what he (and they) wants. No surprise there.

The Republicans want to 'stay the course'. The Democrats hope that at some time in the vague future we may 'bring some of the troops home' and Ralph Nader or the Greens want a complete and immediate withdrawal with none of this silly 'permanent base' bullshit. Does anyone really think that either mainstream party really represents our interests?

Richard Cowan says..."Lawmakers are arranging to send Bush $165 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan"

It should read... "Lawmakers squeeze out another $165 billion from the middle class to feed greedy corporations (and the wall street investors) who are making a killing from war".

We'll have to see exactly who among the Democrats votes against funding. While many of the corporate Democrats will try to get domestic items put into the funding bill and will vote, therefore, for funding the occupation, I believe that many of the Congressional Progressive Caucus members will not support more funding for the occupation under any circumstances. There is some chance in the House that the domestic spending items will make the Republicans vote against the bill, while the progressive Democrats will vote against it due to its funding the occupation. On that basis, it is possible that it will not pass. That would be good.

what looks like an ineffectual congress is actually one that is bought and paid for by the Bush Crime Family. They arent doing anything because that is what they have been paid to do. Get it straight people. This particular group of people are on the payroll of GWB. That is why term limits are no longer even discussed. They want that gravy train to keep on rollin along. Term limits would settle everything. There shouldnt be any career politicians. There should be two term limits for representatives and one term limit for the senate. Its that simple. It is supposed to be public service. You are there to carry out the demands of your constituents. Not be in the pocket of lobbyists or the President. Outlaw lobbyists and mandate term limits. Theres the fix.

Note to Reuters: The United States of America is not presently in an official state of War with any nation on planet Earth.

Unless there is a nation called "The Peoples Republic of Terrorism" somewhere we don't know about yet, that is.

Reuters is a news organization, correct? Then stop using the erroneous Rove-created perpetual-war-means-perpetual-Commander-In-Chief frame and start using the right words to describe the present circumstances: occupation, or illegal occupation, of Iraq; illegal military incursion in Afghanistan.

Don't miss the stories that get censored by domestic American news- you have to read international sources.

1. A few months ago, the army made a historic change to it's rules- service members may now take theirs wives with them to Iraq. Ofcourse they say it increases moral and retainment. I say, colonization.

2. Recently Bush pushed hard for NATO membership of Georgia and Ukrain. How insane is that? To form North Atlantic Treaties for mutual self defense with FORMER SOVIET STATES?!? The existing 'sane' european NATO members were having none of it... and neither was Putin.

3. Missile defense is being planted in Czech, Poland and don't forget Britian. Meanwhile, Russia has resumed nuclear bomber patrols directed at western nations.

4. RFK assisination... if you go straight to the source of the investigation, you'll learn much more then our media is letting on. We now have conclusive proof of two gunmen at the Ambassador. And AND AND!! the investigators have a MAIN SUSPECT. They've uncovered a photograph taken in the front lobby preceding the assisination. Nothing but a couple of CIA boys from the anti-Castro mileu who were supposed to be stationed down in the Florida Keys at that time. Los Angeles is a long way from Florida. I wont mention who's daddy was head of the CIA post JFK and RFK. And I won't mention who's family had alot of money invested in Cuban sugar plantations... who were particularly upset when JFK didn't try harder to invade Cuba and take back the businesses that Castro nationalized. You can do your own research on that one.

While it is good that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people protested the illegal occupation of Iraq, and demanded the Bush Administration go to jail, maybe we need to concentrate the largest number among us to conduct information sessions and peaceful protests against the majority of members of Congress. In other words, instead of chopping of the rotten head of the fish, start at the tail and move forward. Expose members of Congress for being complicit in illegal activities worthy of classifcation as war crimes. If you get any resistence from the public, tell them they have been duped and show them the irrefutable evidence. Threaten to vote all members of Congress (except Kucinich and McKinney) out of office. Tell them they have disgraced their country and are fired! Folks, we need a plan. It is time to stop preaching to the choir and collectively work together to do some SWEEPING and dusting in the House and Senate.

There is a Senate Resolution 356 going around up on the hill: the resolution affirming that any offensive military action taken against Iran, or any other sovereign nation must be explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated.

Yet, in a speech given on 06 June 2008, in Reston, Virginia, congressman Ron Paul, tells how speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi (D-Israel), 'deliberately' pulled a supplemental bill requiring congressional approval for attacking Iran on orders of Israel and AIPAC. This is treasonous. Is Nancy Pelosi an Israeli or an American?

And by SWEEPING I do not mean installing more Republicans and Democrats.

Oh, My God! The lousy, cowardly, Dems CAN'T be doing this to us AGAIN! Oh, the pathos, the suffering, the pain in my head! The stench from the chamber is overpowering! Stop the world, I want to get off!

frank1569,

"Unless there is a nation called "The Peoples Republic of Terrorism" somewhere we don't know about yet, that is."

That's Blackwater. We do know about that.

Dems never "backed down." Seriously, some are blind. Dems are simply on the very same team as GOP; they both work for the FR bankers, and their bedfellows, and they are all pro war. It has nothing to do with the dems "backing down." They are bought and paid for just like gop. No difference

All our war scams are war crimes. Is it not time to raise our elected officials above the common man (held to a higher standard) to slowly twist in the wind?

I am shocked, shocked, to find cowardice and log rolling going on here!

American Democracy is only dead as long as we keep voting Democrat in the mistaken belief (or outright lie) that they are an opposition.

If you want opposition, vote for a real opposition.

But if you keep voting Democrat, they keep clearly saying that they will not end the war. The Dem leadership hasn't hidden this. If you read the interviews that Pelosi and Reid gave right after the 2006 elections, they gave the clear and direct promise that war funding would not be cut. And that's exactly what they've done.

Naturally, with a party that's built on deceit and fraud like the Democrats, they only made this clear announcement the day AFTER the election. But even then if you listened closely the Dems were very careful in their talk about the war in 2006. They were willing to be very critical of Bush's CONDUCT of the war and to claim he made mistakes, but they were also very careful not to say that they opposed the war on principle and very careful not to promise to end the war. They are subtle, so they used their criticism of the conduct of the war to create the misleading impression that they opposed the war in general.

And the Obama campaign is much the same. You won't hear any broad criticism of the war. Instead you hear criticism of Bush's conduct of the war. Sen. Obama has promised to keep troops in Iraq through 2013. When he talks of withdrawal the fine print says he's keeping somewhere between 30,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq to "fight terrorism" and other things the military says they are doing right now. Also, Obama has consistently used language of saying that Iraq is the 'wrong war', and he promises not to bring troops home but to move them to the 'right battlefield' which includes invading the sovereign territory of Pakistan.

So, don't be fooled into thinking a vote for either Obama or the Congressional Democrats is a vote to end this war. It is not. A vote for the Democrats is a vote to keep fighting in Iraq for the next four years. There are other candidates on the ballot that are a vote to end the war. The choice is clear.

The interesting thing is the way the Dem leadership has to go out and make sure this happens.

Awhile back, a bill for war funding was defeated in the House. No, the Democrats didn't suddenly become less evil. Instead the Republicans voted against it because they didn't like way Pelosi was acting and excluding them. So it was the Republicans and the small handful of truly anti-war Democrats who voted the bill down.

Now, one thing to remember is that the leadership in the House as a great deal of control over the House schedule. So, if the Dem leadership was really against the war (they aren't), this was a golden opportunity. They could have just said "The bill was defeated, and we don't have time to readdress this. There are critical issues facing the American people including a growing recessions, waves of foreclosures, growing unemployment, and increasing inflation. Those will be the issues this Congress will be addressing."

But, instead the Dems worked hard to make sure this got back on the agenda for another vote. They had the perfect shield against the bogus claim that they 'didn't support the troops' as it was the REPULBICANS who had defeated the bill. If the Dems were really against the war, that was a golden opportunity. What we see instead is the Dem leadership working hard to make sure this gets back on the agenda and is passed.

This reveals a lot about the true nature of the Democrats. And if you are opposed to this war, its clear that voting Democrat is not the answer.

This farce is just getting started. As congress imposes more suffering on people families and society will splinter. There's no money for foreclosure mitigation, health care, flood assistance, or food assistance but plenty of money for Iraq. In the eyes of Congress, you and I no longer exist. In my eyes, neither do they.

"How many things have to happen to you before something occurs to you?" -- Robert Frost

This is something a friend of mine wrote in response to the Dems caving into giving immunity to telecomms...

>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 16, 2008, at 3:16 PM, "Dave Robinson" wrote:
>
>> Spying on Americans: Democrats Ready to Gut the Constitution
>> To Protect Their "Constituents" -- The Telecoms
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone voting or working for any Democrat,
>> or giving any of them a dime,
>> is part of the problem, not the solution.
>>
>> The impeachment and peace communities have been 100% sold down the river by the Democratic party. Many of you are working way too hard for people who don't deserve your support. You are smarter than they are. Don't take options off your table because you don't like the odds. Don't let your fears stop you from working to make another world truly possible.
>>
>> "Progressive Democrat" is now an oxymoron. Any Democrat who is truly progressive is facing a choice:
>>
>> * Continue lying to yourself as you lie to others. Ignorance of your own lies is no excuse. By their fruit ye shall know them. See below for the latest crop from the Democrats.
>> * Soul crushing depression when we find ourselves exactly where we are now - but worse - a year from now/two years from now, under a Democratic administration. If you think Nancy & Barack are going to bring our soldiers home, hold Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice et al accountable, and truly work for a more peaceful world free of corporate corruption, you are on crack.

Or you can break free - now. Before you believe one more self-serving lie because you want to believe, because the other guys are so much worse. Before you make one more call on their behalf. Before you do one more fundraiser for these bastards. Certainly before you cast one more vote for this complicity party. Quit the Democrats now and then vote your conscience in November, but not on their party line. The world needs you to get back to work as a clear thinking active citizen without illusions.
>>
>> I challenge you to tell me right now why anyone who still believes they can reform this party from the inside is not dangerously deluded. I don't give a damn about anyone's good intentions anymore. It is time for us to choose sides - the Democrats abandoned the interests of peace and lawful government long ago. If you think your activism under the aegis of any aspect of the Democratic party is furthering those goals, you need to face the at this point pretty obvious facts: you are only enabling a different brand of corporate empire by continuing to call and think of yourself as a Democrat. If that were not true, your party would be impeaching Bush right now instead of offering immunity to the telecoms.
>>
>> Start thinking, living and working like the independent citizen you are. Supporting independent candidates never made more sense than it does now.
>>
>> Dave R
>> Brooklyn NY
>>
>>www.CindyforCongress.org
>>

Reid and Pelosi OUT! Goddamn it! When are we going to have representative government?

House of Mafia Representatives, Senate Mafia, and the Executive Mafia. Are those the three branches of, Mafia?

If one wants to see how America *might have* evolved had its presidential history been different, get hold of a DVD documentary entitled "One Bright Shining Moment: The Forgotten Summer of George McGovern." (I got it from my local public library).

This was the election that pitted George McGovern against the incumbent, Richard Nixon. As Norman Mailer put it: "St. George versus The Godfather."

"One Bright Shining Moment" dramatically underscores the political price paid for more than three decades of "voting for the lesser of the two evils."

Think the price for voting for the lesser of the two evils hasn't been high? Consider the following:

-- In 1970, Democratic Senator George McGovern, along with Republican Senator Mark Hatfield, introduced a bill to end the war in Vietnam. With 94 senators voting, the bill was defeated 55 to 39. Still, *39 senators* voted to end the War.

Contrast this with the fact that after five years of war a bill to end the Iraq slaughter HASN'T EVEN BEEN VOTED ON by either the Senate or the House of Representatives!

Moreover, several weeks ago, the Senate assured George Bush that if he wants to invade Iran he may do so at his discretion, they won't interfere.

-- Consider, too, that during the six-year administration of Richard Nixon, more progressive legislation was passed than in the eight years Clinton and Gore were in office.

-- Also, in 1974, articles of impeachment against President Nixon were introduced into the House of Representatives. Had Nixon not resigned, he most certainly would have been impeached and, in turn, convicted.

By comparison, Bush, whose transgressions are *far worse* than Nixon's, has been assured by the Democratic leadership of both houses of Congress that "impeachment is off the table."

-- Also, in 1972, when George McGovern was running for president, the Democratic Party platform was truly progressive: … against the Vietnam War … pro consumer rights
… pro gay rights … pro abortion rights … pro environmental protection … pro labor protection. Indeed, on the heels of the 1968 convention, the 1972 Democratic Party was *transformed* by the McGovern phenomenon into a party of pluralistic diversity -- as seen by the "rainbow composition" of the delegates to the 1972 convention!

(Continued)

Today, by contrast, the political consensus has moved so far to the right as to allow for the existence *and flourishing* of anti-democratic, militaristic forces such as: Fox News ... Pat Robertson ... Rush Limbaugh ... "Mo Joe" Lieberman ... Hillary "I'll-Obliterate-Iran" Clinton ... The American Enterprise Institute (whose members swear to God that Corporate America "isn't that powerful," honest!) ... John "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Iran" McCain ... *Governor* George Bush (now president by virtue of absolutely no objection whatsoever from Al Gore and the rest of the Democratic leadership) ... Donald Rumsfeld (characterized shortly after 9/11 by that crusading liberal journalist, Tim Russert, as "America's stud") ... Dick Cheney ... Trent "I-Love-Strom-Thurmond" Lott.

As well as the following quaint little practices practices -- practices that are, evidently, quite alright with the Democratic Party -- torture, extraordinary rendition, illegal wiretapping, ther systematic shredding of the Constitution, the three-time rape of Iraq (Gulf War I, the economic sanctions and Gulf War II -- total dead: over 2.5 million) ... and on and on and on and on.

This, dear weak-knee liberals, is the price that's been paid for your sage advice to "vote for the lesser of the two evils."

Thanks an awful lot!

Ironically, even George McGovern, in recent elections, has been offering the same counterproductive advice. (Et tu, George?")

Some liberals, in year 2008 (if you can believe it) actually look back fondly on Ronald Reagan's administration! I kid you not. I read an article on it recently, in fact, it may have been here at CD.org).

Other liberals are convinced that Barack Obama is an antiwar candidate -- though he's now retreated to the position that he'll leave it to the generals in the field to decide what to do in Iraq -- a position virtually the same as that of George Bush and John McCain. (Now all we have to do is to wait for a general to descend from the heavens who's against war.)

Wake up, "lesser of the two evils" liberals. Obama is going to betray you just your boy-wunderkind JFK did … Just like LBJ did (recall his 1964 election promise not to "send American boys halfway around the world to fight battles for Asian boys.") … Just Richard Nixon did when he convinced God knows how many Democrats that his 1968 "secret plan" would end the Vietnam War.… Just like 1976 Jimmy "I'll-Clean-Up_Washington" Carter did … Just like 1988 Jesse Jackson did (the *2008* Rev. Jesse now madly in love with Corporate America) … just like 1992 "liberal" Bill Clinton did (Bill Clinton, the best Republican president the Democrats ever ran!)… Just like the "antiwar" Howard Yahoooooo Dean did (now neatly co-opted by the Democratic Party and quiet as a church mouse when it comes to dissent).

Thanks for the wonderful advice, cruise missile liberals! Keep up the right's work and soon you'll be swooning for the "good ole Bush days."

Its worse than this.

This is just half of it. If you pay attention, you'll also know the Dems are getting ready to pass a bill that both expands FISA out to what Bush wants and sets up a process that pretty much guarantees immunity for the telecoms for their illegal acts they committed in concert with the Bush administration.

First off, between these two acts the Democrats are speaking loudly and clearly about who's important to them and who isn't. Their contributors are important to them, the American citizens are not.

Even worse, in passing the telecom immunity and increased warrantless domestic spying bill, they are shredding more holes in the Constitution. They are essentially forfeiting their part in the process of making the law of this nation. The Dems are basically just agreeing that the President can essentially make whatever law he wants by fiat. And by giving he telecoms immunity on what's really just the basis of 'we had a note from the President', they are saying that the laws of the country do not apply if the President wants to disobey them, and that he can extend that immunity to anyone he wants.

We lose another chunk of the bill of rights by yet another expansion of the powers to spy on Americans. And we lose the whole system of checks and balances as the Congress essentially just cedes all law-making authority to the President.

How long do you think it will take before you hear this ability to do whatever he wants cited as a precedent by a President? How long do you think it will take before we hear yet another loss of our rights being argued by citing the warrantless spying on Americans as an example to emulate for some other reason?

And take very close note that all of this is happening with the full support of the Democrats. How many times do they have to do this before more people start to wake up? A lot of people here get it. Seemingly a lot more than did a few years ago, from pure anecdotal and aging memory. But is it enough for people to get the message that voting Democrat does not change anything. The Democrats are not an opposition. Unindicted co-conspirators is probably a better term.

The Democrats don't stop stuff like this. They fully fund it and sheppard the bills through Congress and make sure Bush gets what he wants. The Democrats don't impeach a President that breaks the law. Instead they grant him retro-active immunity and instead they shred our protections under the Bill of Rights to give Bush whatever he wants.

Please stop voting Democrat!

Stop funding our government comes to mind.

to wsws.org

... and the first thing the Democrats did after the McGovern elections was to change the rules to try to make sure it never happened again.

We just learned a lot about the 'super-delegates' in the undemocratic Democratic Party. But in this case they were basically just splitting between two corporate-approved candidates. Their real purpose is to stop another McGovern or Kucinich from ever getting the nomination. In a race of an outsider versus a pro-corporate candidate, all the party hacks who are super-delegates are sure to back the pro-corporate candidate. That means someone like Kucinich has to get about 60% of the other delegates to win.

So, yes its good to look at the McGovern era. But the key thing to realize is that it was a very short era. In 1964 the Dems wouldn't seat Fanny Lou Hamer and her challenge to the racist delegates from MS. In 1968 Johnson and then Humphrey ran supporting the war the Dems launched in Vietnam. So, 1972 was the one brief shining moment when the Dems were actually anti-war and progressive. In 1976 this was gone, as Jimmy Carter ran as a southern conservative with 'values'. It turned out Jimmy was a pretty decent guy, but that's more an accident than anything else. And Jimmy Carter is nearly as large a pariah in the Dem party circles as McGovern his.

The key thing to realize is that the McGovern era is the exception. On the issue of wars, its the only time in the long history of the Dem party that they've been anti-war. Well, back to the US Civil War which they opposed as the pro-slavery party that was strong in the South.

In the 1850's, there was a growing anti-slavery movement in this country. The people started to realize en masse that slavery was immoral and should be ended. But neither the Whigs nor the Democrats would take that position. Much like today. But then the log-jam was broken by the formation of a 3rd party, and the Republican party was formed and it swept to power on this popular emancipation movement that led to the election of Lincoln.

I'm sure then there were Whigs that complained that people were wasting their votes and that people needed to understand how the process worked and how people needed to compromise. But, people had enough sense to follow their moral compass and stand up and say that slavery was wrong. We need to do the same today. If the Democrats won't end this war, we need to elect people who will.

Well that there 110th Congress, Session 2 was a bit looney for 2 hours. I had Cspan on and at 7:30 pm, the House Minority while using Thomas Jefferson as their example to make their point, bad choice, by abusing the intent of the First Amendment each GOP member by previously reserving their minutes to allow the kooks to amass went one by one to the Floor and in a quite odd way by twisting the meaning of the Constitution while exhalting its greatness starting Praing the Lord, hallelujah, AMEN because this is their right under the first Amendment then each presented Resolution 888, I suppose its a bill that says that as long as you're christian Jefferson and the Constitution gave you the right to Sing it out loud from the House Floor, Very Twilight Zone like. Earlier they were ranting about a bill referencing monkey bites, literally being bitten by a Primate, huh???? I do know tomorrow is a Full Moon yet....

Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer and the rest if the weaklings who control the Democratic Party continue their appeasement of the Bush administration's policy of death in Iraq. Even after they obtained control of the Congress with the understanding that voters wanted an end to the endless war in the Middle East, they refused to stand up to that strutting Mussolini who occupies the oval office. I wonder what Bush and his gang of criminals have on these people? What issues has the administration dug up on the Democratic leadership to make them sell out their constituents? Have they been bought off by the corporations that fund their reelection? One can only guess. One thing is for sure, however. Until this cancer is cut out of the government, things will only get worse. Come November VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT!!!

Anyone voting for Obama has got to be kidding.

Change? What a joke.

The Democrats clearly aim to deceive the American people. They, along with the Republicans, will be opposed.

Dear PissantNobody
It wasn't me, I was copying what a friend of mine wrote.
My new grandson's parents aren't married, even though they are a loving committed couple. Trust me, I do not foster the "nuclear" family option over any other. I know better than most, it's only one option and not always the healthiest.
xo
Cindy