Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiPoliticians, legal experts and progressive activists grappled with Republican abuses of power at the third annual netroots convention on Friday, debating how an Obama Administration might restore the rule of law. Cass Sunstein, an adviser to Barack Obama from the University of Chicago Law School, cautioned against prosecuting criminal conduct from the current Administration. Prosecuting government officials risks a "cycle" of criminalizing public service, he argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton--or even the "slight appearance" of it.
"Give me a break," responded former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, when told about Sunstein's advice during an interview with The Nation. Siegelman took a court-sanctioned trip to tell attendees about his conviction for corruption, currently on appeal, which he says was motivated by a malicious Republican effort to destroy his career. Discussing alleged White House abuse of the Justice Department, which led to Alberto Gonzales' resignation, Siegelman said "what Karl Rove has been accused of doing would make Watergate look like child's play." The former governor also urged activists to press Congress to hold Rove in contempt for defying a House subpoena in a related investigation. His supporters have launched an Internet campaign, ContemptforRove.org, to advance the cause. Noting that Rove's potential testimony "could not impact" his appeal, Siegelman said he was still pressing the issue because it was fundamental to "restoring justice and preserving our democracy." He learned how blogs were scrutinizing the Republican corruption at the Justice Department when supporters sent him print-outs from TalkingPointsMemo while he was serving the first 9 months of his prison sentence.
Attendees and bloggers are disappointed with the emerging, bipartisan consensus in Washington that the lawlessness of the Bush era can largely go unpunished. After emphasizing more investigations over actual accountability, Sunstein and Nixon-era White House Counsel John Dean faced pointed questioning at a packed panel on "The Next President and the Law." Mike Stark, a blogger who helped organize the spying protests within Obama's social network, asked why politicians should ever be above the law. And Hunter, a popular "front-page poster" on DailyKos, captured the mood in a long post kicking off the conference:
It seems evident, at this point, that there will be no comeuppance as a result of the excesses of the Bush administration. There will be investigations; they will investigate. There will be subpoenas; they will simply be refused...We know misrepresentations were made that led us, apparently inexorably, into war. In the end, we are as a nation (public, press, and government) not particularly interested in hearing the particulars of how or why; the truth is that we were aching for a good war, and the rationale was an afterthought not just for the Bush administration, but for most of their audience.
We know the rule of law itself was politicized, made into an apparatus of partisan advantage, a weapon for the ruling party to use against opponents. We know who did it, and we know it was not just unethical, but illegal. But to push it farther than that would require taking the last step -- from investigation, to prosecution -- and that step seems illusory, at best.... There will be reconciliation, and reconciliation will be defined by the conservative punditry as letting bygones be bygones -- anything but that will be unacceptable and partisan, in itself.
The conference continues through Sunday, with addresses by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Chairman Howard Dean, netroots favorite Donna Edwards, columnist Paul Krugman, DLC head Harold Ford, blogger Markos Moulitsas and a host of writers and policy wonks. (I'm moderating a panel on "War Pundits.") Barack Obama, who attended last year's conference, sent several aides in his place this time. Campaign spokesperson Hari Sevugan told The Nation that the "netroots community is an important voice in our public discourse" that can impact policy and "help keep people involved after the election."
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
54 Comments so far
Show AllCanuckchuck and H2O, Wouldn't it make more sense to pluck Nancy Pelosi from her lofty position as Speaker of the House and replace her with Cindy Sheehan or a Republican to send a message to all of them? While we can't afford a Bush III, we can afford to give up a Dem seat in the House if we can't get Cindy in, as we already have a significant majority there that is likely to increase after the elections.
Cummings almost hit the nail on the head, and then he went and missed it. I am referring to his critique of MoveOn, that it is very effective in drawing in people, but fails to give them a voice. Contrast this top down approach with Obama's campaign web sites, where each logon can search for and email those with common interests and within meeting distances. It is horizontal, and it is participatory. That is why they worked so well, some here might say too well, to propel Obama's candidacy.
Grassroots Netroots Alliance's 'five points' never addressed this need for a state-of-the-art netroots web design. Without it, Grassroots Netroots Alliance is dead on arrival. (By the way, not to nitpick, but the name is a mouthful, and tediously repeats a suffix, followed by the so-old-leftwing 'Alliance'. I was drawn to this ariticle by its title, Netroots Nation. Now that is a refreshing and youthful sounding name.)
any state or local authorities or federal agencies involved in constitutionally illegal spying on INNOCENT american citizens are TRAITORS and CRIMINALS and they deserve full prosecution and to be sentenced to long terms in jail, up and down the line of command. to posture lawful american citizens as anti-war "terrorists" is to brand 1/2 of americans terrorists. anyone who gives an order to spy on americans against our constitutional freedoms is a SCUMBAG, and anyone who follows an order to rob america and americans of their freedoms is a scumbag and terrorist.
unlike COINTELPRO, this time the american people arent going to let the criminals walk away. politics and lawenforcement is NOT above the law. THIS TIME THE SCUM ARE GOING TO JAIL, and they'll be needing large concentration camp type facilities to hold all the traitors in government who thought it was fun to ignore the law and harrass americans.
these politicians need to stop figuring out how to find immunity for their crimes; they also need to stop perpetrating crimes. lastly, they need to massage their rectum, loosen it up..jus to get ready for the long jail terms they'll be serving.
MikeBin:
Precisely my point - until Progressives have as much courage in pursuing the just cause as Lady MacBeth did in pursuing her unjust cause, we will keep losing.
Oh, and, in my book, refusing to "destroy the village to save it" means refusing to support policies or candidates that make a mockery of, undermine, or shred the best interests of we the people. It is the mainstream candidate you appear to support that is participating in the destruction of our village, not the fellow/gal I support.
"The ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law." -Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunals
"Prosecuting criminal conduct from the Bush Administration risks a cycle of criminalizing public service" - Cass Sunstein, Shiteating Scumbag Lawyer from Chicago
I'm with H20...Obama and his corporate advisors will ignore the progressives and do the politically expedient thing, unless they take your vote, and your threat to remove it, seriously.
Really, better 4 years of McBrainless, than 8 years of Obama, the Black Bush.
Didn't Pelosi's craven refusal to investigate Bush teach you anything? 4 years of continued pain would be better than an eternity of corporately directed "dumbocracy"
"Cass Sunstein, an adviser to Barack Obama from the University of Chicago Law School, cautioned against prosecuting criminal conduct from the current Administration. Prosecuting government officials risks a "cycle" of criminalizing public service,"
Translation: Obamma doesn't want to be charged when HE does exactly the same thing as Bush.
what a load of shit...it is not criminalizing public service..it is merely criminalizing blantantly criminal behavior..if Bush had done his "public service" within the law, he would be in the clear.. The minute he intentionally and with malice of forthought, knowingly gave illegal orders to invade a peaceful nation, spy on american citizens, torture people randomly pick up of foreign soils, he became a criminal..PERIOD.
To NOT investigate and prosecute would be criminal, and would condem the USA to further and more erroneous crimes in the future.
H2O, Lady MacBeth was a really nasty person, like Condi, with only courage to do evil.
douglasb,
Glad to see someone else is thinking along the same lines. This, from a post on another article yesterday:
For all the condemnation of the Hillary supporters who threaten to support McCain, Obama is, apparently, paying attention. Unlike the support of the left, it appears that Obama may just be a bit afraid that he might actually lose Hillary supporters unless he meets some particular demands, whatever they may be. Unlike, apparently, too many on the left, those Hill fans have some credibility.
I am continually puzzled by those who don't seem to understand that without actually and CREDIBLY threatening the Dems with a loss, they WILL NOT take a stand that threatens their corp. piggy banks. Is that what the Progressive movement has come to - a group of people who, no matter how intelligent or well informed or rational or compassionate or etc.,etc., will not, after all the blood, sweat, tears and ink that has been shed in the name of their cause, take that last step, without which all the previous steps don't amount to a hill of beans - and just say NO! We seem to be amazingly stubborn in refusing to learn what the Right has learned, what apparently the Hill supporters have learned and what any movement that has ever succeeded has learned. To whit: "Power concedes nothing without a Demand" - not a "hope" but a demand. And no demand is taken seriously unless those making the demand demonstrate serious consequences for failure to meet it. The sad part of it is, if we had credibly threatened 12, 8, or even 4 years ago, we might have gotten a decent candidate this time, but now we have so obviously been so toothless for so long that we must do more than threaten - we must deny the vote. If that means 4 years of McCain, so be it because guess what folks, even if Obama wins, we lose. And we will be having this same discussion all over again. The longer it takes to make it clear that not only will we not be silent, but we will NOT BE MOVED, the longer it will take to get what we need, and time, for so many things, is running out.
I am so weary of those who claim that those of us who make this argument are "purists". When this self proclaimed hope of mankind throws one principle, one cause after another under the bus in his quest to get elected, this "purist" taunt becomes none other than advocacy for another Pyrrhic victory. How can we convince others not in the choir of the validity of our beliefs when, apparently, we can't even convince ourselves. We rant and rave at the "spinelessness" of the Dems. - how stiff is our own? Is it only those of the Lady Macbeth ilk who can urge "Screw your courage to the sticking place and we shall not fail."?
The PUMA philosophy is not progressive, and their conviction is real. Why do their goals (Hillary in 2012) inspire such enthusiasm and dedication in them, while the progressive goals (social justice, end to the war on terror, a healthy environment, the rule of law) inspire such tepid behavior in progressives?
I think it is that PUMAs have a simple strategy with a reasonable degree of success. Progressives have no strategy except capitulation; they have no influence in the Democratic Party and in the wider public arena.
Sadly, this is a perfectly reasonable state of affairs. Progressives do not take a stand. Thus, they cannot make the Democratic Party come to them. The Democratic Party, sure of progressive support, ignores the progressive agenda. And so does the general public. If you don't believe in your own convictions, why should someone else? So the spiral continues.
The PUMA phenomenon is new this time. It might be the wake up call for progressives, or it might scare them and bind them all the more to the Democratic Party. Time will tell.
Hi MariusP
My comments on your comments of July 19th, 2008 6:49 pm
"If you agree with someones principles, you should support them." Right on, but progressives do not do that. 'Electable' Obama got the progressive vote, not Gravel or Kucinich or even Edwards.
"But, as opposed to progressives - who'd ACCEPT McCain as Prez over Obama to build a better future …" I don't agree. Judging from past experience, progressives will not try for a better future and will vote for the lesser of two evils.
"…- these folks seem to PREFER a McCain presidency over Obama - simply to allow Hillary another shot in 2012. Reading their statements was downright frightening." Some of that is PUMA bluster; like the rest of us, they demonize their opponents to bolster their unity. But the adverb "simply" does not do them justice. They want Hillary in 2012. Because she's a woman, because she got cheated this time, because she's a scrappy inspirational fighter, because Obama's black, because Obama's aman, because he's too lefty, too progressive. Any number of reasons, and you don't have to agree with those reasons, but they do. They want Hillary in 2012. They start from that foundation and they'll do what needs to be done to make it happen. Progressives just don't have that conviction, and that is what's really frightening.
Why don't we take the anti-semitism and the filthy language somewhere else. It becoming really tiresome.
Noam Chomsky summarized it ia a nutshell: "US public is irrelevant"
The major difference between Al Capone and the current gangsters that own our government is that Capone's reach was limited in geography and he did not have nuclear weapons. Today's gangsters own everything and force us to finance their criminality against us and the rest of the world.
God help us because nobody else can.
Peter Montana
It's hard to sort out all the agendas posted right now. One thing is clear, the Green party doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting more than local or state officeholders, which is all good. The party needs to raise money, disseminate more information about their views, and build build build, if they want to be a real third party. I agree with all who said that our current two party system is totally broken and corrupt; as is our government in itself. But I'd simply rather see a Democratic plurality in all 3 branches of govt than see Republicans dominating, which is why I vote Dem. When a true progressive party is built, and I contribute to the Green party, and has a chance at national elections, I'll gladly switch.
Some good points here. But I still don't understand why some would choose the party of the monster oligarchy over the party of Kucinich, Dodd and Feingold. The party that today has the best chance of winning and appointing more progressives to office.
Progressives can be Dems, Greens, Independents or others. Don't we deserve some relief from eight years of fascist berserking in the hands of the Republicans?
What's to prevent us from voting for Greens and Progressive Dems to acquire a progressive majority? With a Dem Administration, conservative Dems can't use the excuse that Repugs are blocking progressive laws.
Are progressives so angry at ALL Dems, including progressive ones, that they would prefer concentration camps, torture and nuclear annihilation to a chance for hope and change? That they would die by the bromide "the lesser of two evils is still evil"?
I think some progressives are not convinced that these things could soon happen in America. They may think they will survive another Republican administration and ensuing nuclear and environmental holocausts. That they will still be able to form a government to their liking in the resulting wasteland.
Or worse, some progressives may have given up on humankind and morbidly welcome its demise.
It's up to us who want to survive.
Such crap I've never heard in my life. Bygones? Clinton let bygones be bygones by not prosecuting George 41 for the October Surprise and Iran-Contra scandal among other things, and then they impeached him for something that harmed no one! While the Bush 43 administration has harmed millions -- murdered tens of thousands, precipitated flight by millions of refugees and murder of hundreds of thousands more -- and prosecution of that, and consummating accountability with punishment is partisan? Reducing our WMD counterproliferation capabilities by ruining Valerie Plame's career should just be let go? By that rationale, the whole idea of the rule of law was misguided on the part of our founders and oligarchy is a grand thing! And maybe imprisoning rapists is a bad idea, too. Shouldn't it be enough that they get humiliated in public when 12 of their peers tell them they are wrong to ruin a woman's life? And as far as global standard of living is concerned -- you know, it's just too difficult to remedy disparity by bringing the global standard of living up -- it really is a much better idea to bring the U.S. and European standards down -- and then everyone can live in the dirt together -- except the few of us, of course, who need an ultra rich lifestyle just to keep our heads clear and make sure the dirt dwellers are orderly in their activities.
I demand impeachment proceedings now, and if we don't get it, I demand criminal proceedings after terms end. Period!
In case anybody wasn't looking. Chicago School of Law is famous I believe for two professors, professors many esteemed Dims studied with as well as Repugs. The profs were/are named Easterbrook and Eischler (sp??). Since 1975, to maximize shareholder position, they taught their corporate lawyers to: "Do the CRIME. Pay the fine. TAKE THE PROFITS."
AND HERE THEY ARE. Telling you not to prosecute High Crimes and Misdemeanors, War Crimes, & Crimes Against Humanity. Like the Ford Pinto was Premeditated Murder. So was Iraq. No prosecution.
These people are FILTH. And these FILTH don't think anyone in POWER should ever be prosecuted for their crimes. NEVER.
Are you going to listen to these animals? They would fuck your children to death for POWER, then suck the marrow from their bones.
FUCK THESE ANIMALS. PUT THEM IN A ROOM, SUCK OUT ALL THE OXYGEN UNTIL THEY'RE DEAD. As they're dying, tell them it's OK, "This is just a Market Correction, and they got in the way."
KC 10:43 pm - The old DD is a 'factotum'. This is an old word, loosely translated it means, "Lying piece of shit for someone else." DD is here to patronize you. He is here to talk down at you. He is here to endlessly repeat the Dim Mantra - "Vote for us or DIE!!!" He is also here to tell you in his own inimitable way, "SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH, KEEP YOUR FUCKING HEAD DOWN, AND OBEY."
He's no different from any repug thug or fundamentalist. He does not listen to or care what you say, he has nothing but his agenda. BHO BETRAYS US over, and over, and over again. Ole DD takes a powder for a couple days, shakes it off, comes back the same old patronizing DD, telling the children to stop thinking and OBEY YOUR MASTERS.
Just scroll through. He's not here.
Enough allready !
CD readers and posters havn't you noticed that
DANIEL DAVID is the names of two jewish biblical heros,but this Daniel David is nothing more than a ZIONIST GANGSTER SHILL like Judus leading you to the slaughter.
His arguments are ridicluse and only for sheeple and the brain dead,certainly not for anyone with an ounce of self estime or any moral fortitude.
So, curmudgeon, what do you propose we do?
Random thughts after reading all the previous.
1. A lot of deep thinking has gone into the positions stated.
2. What difference to the average voter will REALLY take place if Obama or McCain is elected? IMHO - none.
3. Will a 3rd party presidential candidate make any difference this time around? no
4. Will the liberties, such as habeas corpus, freedom of assembly, privacy, removed by current administration fiats, the MCA, and other like minded perversities too numerous to tally, ever be restored? no -
We can talk all we want in these CD spaces, but nothing will come of it that I can see.
Hank Fur: "Support a true and honest progressive: Nader, '08!"
Voting Nader, McKinney, Sheehan and the other third party progressive candidates really is a vote for truth and honesty, and when these values prevail, all of the right policies will naturally develop out of that. What a beautiful thing - public policy based on truth and honesty. Are you going to help make it happen? Don't worry about accidentally electing Repuks - the Demoks get full blame if that happens.
Here we go again...
If you are a humanitarian who wants to know the way forward, you MUST have a class analysis of history. The primary battle everywhere in the imperialist dominated world is the war of owners against workers - bourgeoisie versus proletariat, in the classical terminology. Netroots Nation never calls for proletarin socialism, and are cynical charlatans of progress. Tampering with the machinery of the capitalist electoral system in the world's dominant imperialist nation will never bring lasting and meaningful change.
We live in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. There will NEVER be peace or economic justice until this is replaced with the dictatorship of the proletariat - the dominance of the working class over all others in society. Simple justice is impossible in a system that has exploitation of one human by another as its basis. Inequality, nationalism, poverty and war are integral to capitalism, and there is no way out except successful international proletarian revolution.
Netroots Nation is a REFORMIST organization - one that has no stated intention of overthrowing the illegitimate dictatorship of the capitalist class. Their site is drenched with left-leaning patriotism, but never a hint of global workers' revolution. They put forward capitalist reform as the solution, which is guaranteed to be a disaster.
The theoretical work has long ago been done by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. What remains is the task of implementation. Those who would have you continuously pressuring the capitalists (liberal Democrats, Greens, Nader, NN) are class traitors (or capitalist supporters) and perhaps more treacherous than open imperialists, because they sweep up ignorant subjective revolutionaries, and guide them down the rat hole of capitalist reform.
If you want real and lasting peace, prosperity and justice, you must build the party of proletarin socialist revolution. The working masses cannot win the war without leadership. The task of our times is to build that leadership, and integrate it into the major industrial sectors. Any real red can demonstrate that there simply is no other choice. Without a disciplined Leninist party at the head of the workers movement, we are doomed to failure.
Beware! NN will lead you down the primrose path to nuclear war. This assertion is based a class analysis, which puts NN into the camp of capitalist supporters, who must be overthrown before they kill us all. Gore and Pelosi and even Kucinich are merely the slightly leftish safety valves of the imperialist Democratic Party.
Most everybody on CD now is following a sheep parade to bash Obama. This is because most of them are mad (in general–and about everything), want to stay mad, and are perversely afraid Dems will actually be elected and cause them to lose some of their soap boxes. I wonder how many of them I can tick off today. Wheeeee!
_________________________________________
In my view, the above-quoted DD bit of imbecility is intentionally insulting and provocative. It merited a thoughtful response.
Adele, I don't know about most of the others here-- but although I was born at night, it wasn't last night. We must each judge according to our wits and sensibilities, of course, but you do me a disservice to dismissively reduce my response to "trying my best to insult Daniel David". Apparently unsuccessfully, judging from responses from you and indignant lesser-evilists.
Insulting? If so, that is merely an incidental consequence of letting the chips fall where they may. Besides, one of DD's abiding traits is that he is a glutton for punishment; he thrives on abuse-- it obviously keeps him fired up.
It's all well and good to piously decry flame wars and personal attacks in comments threads; I've disgustedly scrolled through many a comments thread, here and elsewhere, with page after page of two or three commenters harping on each other-- usually about something off-topic in the first place. Who needs it, indeed.
But I stand by my spontaneous response to a provocative comment. And as proof that I'm basically a pussycat, I'm not going to stoop to further "attacks" on certain inane criticisms levelled at my previous comment.
Where's Rodney King when we really need him?
Douglas,
I'd never actually heard of the PUMA movement, so I just checked it out. I agree, there is NOTHING progressive about it. They appear to simply be water carriers for Hillary. And that's fine. If you agree with someones principles, you should support them. But, as opposed to progressives - who'd ACCEPT McCain as Prez over Obama to build a better future - these folks seem to PREFER a McCain presidency over Obama - simply to allow Hillary another shot in 2012. Reading their statements was downright frightening.
MP
The arguments and gentle chides posted by Democrats on this thread are sufficient to drive most progressives back to the party. Progressives' commitment to social justice, the rule of law, and ending the war on terror is very shallow; really these causes are just progressive talking points. What is different this election is that Hillary Clinton's supporters, scrappy as her, will not be easily driven back to the fold. Their goals are not progressive goals, but their determination is real, and they take a long view so lacking amongst progressives; they may succeed in stopping Obama this election and electing Hillary Clinton next election. Some progressives, sick of selling their souls to the lesser of two evils for so pitiful a return, may find the PUMA movement inspirational, and may even vote their convictions this election.
Siouxrose July 19th, 2008 4:56 pm
MARIUS P: Good post. You left out that Clinton helped DEREGULATE the FCC which led the way to media monopolies that in turn have diminished the access to news/true commentary, which has dumbed the public down, created legitimacy where none should have existed (pro-war, downplaying Bush's illegal moves) and helped to get us where we now are: NON-represenative government for all but the well-endowed lobbyists. Plutocracy, Inc.
HEY SIOUXROSE,
Yeah - I did want to mention the 1996 Telecom Act which was HAILED as a BIPARTISAN effort to work on behalf of the CUNSUMER adn bring down cable prices.
WHAT A JOKE
The problem with Congress is that we have too much BIPARTISAN cooperation. What we need is NON-PARTISAN legislation, that is enacted on behalf of the people. But, until we get the money out of poltics ... uggh, it does get very hard to stay optimistic.
And, yes, it is difficult to ponder the notion of "allowing" McCain to become Prez. But how do we ever get a third party going for the future, if we're constantly
focusing only on the present?
Daniel,
Thanks for your reply. And, btw, I take exception to the people attacking YOU as well.
Now, as to the question of "viability." I hate that word, for that is worth. I loved Dennis Kucinich's reply when Ted Koppel asked him his resposne to all of the people who say they agreed with his politics but that he wasn;t "electable." He said (I'm paraphrasing) "If they would all just vote for me, I'd be ELECTABLE.
My take is that the Dems are not a long term solution. I really don't think they are a SHORT term one either. My question to you is - what do you think Obama will accomplish in 4 or 8 years? Will he end (or even scale back) the war? Will he stop this talk of attacking Iran? (BTW, when will someone explain to me why the US -owner of more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined - gets to dictate who may possess nukes?)
As for the Court ... this always gets me in trouble but, I think people put too much weight in the Prez's party. The most reactionary member of the Court today is Scalia. Scalia was confirmed - 97 to ZIP - by a Dem controlled Senate. (And, by the way, one of those 97 was the then Senator form Tennessee. A Mr. Albert Gore, Jr!) Earl Warren, who brought us Brown v Board of Ed, was nominated by a Republican.
So, again, what are we hoping to gain from a Barack presidency?
I DO think, as other have suggested, we MIGHT be better off working to build a solid third party from the ground up, focusing more on state and local races. the only problem with that is, we presently have no unified party to accomplish that. THAT, to me, was the appeal of Nader's 2000 presidential bid. It was an attempt to build support for a viable third party down the road.
And what happened?
With the result in Florida, Nader was (disgustingly, in my opinion) BLAMED for handing over the election to Bush.
Never mind the Supreme Court.
Never mind Katherine Harris.
Never mind the fact the tens of thousands of African-Americans were ILLEGALLY disenfranchised.
And, when the Dems had a chance to investigate this CRIMINAL activity- WHICH COST THEM THE ELECTION - the Senate, needing one Senator to certify a HOuse Committees call for investigation --HEADED BY AL GORE --chose to IGNORE all of this.
I hope I'm not sounding too unfocused, but I just keep coming back to the idea that the Dems don't appear to be at all interested in what's best for the country or its people. And we need to figure out a way to move beyond them as the solution to our problems. And I'm not sure how we build that support for a viable third party -- if we keep backing a Democrat.
MariusP
Democratic leadership is an oxymoron... nothing but cowards and traitors in the bunch. They sold out Americans to preserve their political image instead of standing up for us. We need to clean house (and senate).
Read all the posts, and Daniel, there's no question you are a decent, nice guy... and we ALL are frustrated with the options before us. Damned if we do (vote Obama) and damned if we don't (McCain), and all of us wanting a more just and humane nation. The 3rd party's TIME has come, and yet to sacrifice yet more rabid militarism (McCain) to begin to really give this alternative power and momentum runs its own risks.
NONE of the choices are particularly easy.
MARIUS P: Good post. You left out that Clinton helped DEREGULATE the FCC which led the way to media monopolies that in turn have diminished the access to news/true commentary, which has dumbed the public down, created legitimacy where none should have existed (pro-war, downplaying Bush's illegal moves) and helped to get us where we now are: NON-represenative government for all but the well-endowed lobbyists. Plutocracy, Inc.
The carcas of what was must come apart so that out of its entrails whatever is next has the space to be born. Who can argue the rot has not gotten so thick as to necessitate that explosion from within? No bandaids are strong enough to work on this process, that's now acquiring a power of its own, not withstanding the millions of Americans self-medicating with a variety of substances to keep their little life together as the shit burns and world turns. Well, we all came in (to bodies) for this, the big show, the grand transition, and seldom is any birth process painless.
Hence, laughter IS therapy. Don't worry Daniel, most of us get our turn at the center of the wheel, scorn aimed our way. I think this is how we let off steam given the frustrations we all face, and our sense of impotence on personal levels to do much to change things. And some of us do make major efforts.
LITTLE BROTHER: (with all due respect to Daniel D), now THAT was therapy! I haven't laughed so hard in too long... the set up to your comment was brilliant. I didn't see IT coming. If you're not writing scripts, you should be. Shakespeare related, "What's in a name," and I did Daniel the courtesy of a numerology evaluation. His name, beginning and ending with the D, the foundation 4 number of numerology, has a tendency to box itself in. (Not sure if Daniel read it? It's posted on the article expressing the need for more women's voices in media/op-eds.)
I think I'll go for a second laugh-in. Wow.
The University of Chicago should be dismantled brick by brick, and the entire campus sown with salt to prevent any future use as a site of universal inquiry.
"Cass Sunstein, an adviser to Barack Obama from the University of Chicago Law School, cautioned against prosecuting criminal conduct from the current Administration. Prosecuting government officials risks a "cycle" of criminalizing public service, he argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton–or even the "slight appearance" of it."
He just defined what it means to be an accomplice.
MariusP,
I am regularly attacked on CD---called many names--for supporting DEMS. That's why, I guess, I'm getting cranky. But I must take a break from that to compliment you on a serious post without such rancor. It's refreshing. And you're right that our two-party system is a problem.
The main reasons I keep working myself up are that I just about can't bear the thought of us electing John and Cindy and corporatists in all the agencies when we have a better alternative, AND, the Supreme Court is half gone to ultraconservatives and will be the other half gone too if we let McCain appoint two or three justices.
It's not that I somehow "love" Dems. It would suit me fine to have Obama for 4 or 8 years, then him be replaced by a 3rd-party progressive. But the folks who imagine that a 3rd-party progressive is there and viable in 2008, when he or she ISN'T VIABLE (past 5-10%) are about to drive me crazy. Liberals have not won 2008. There is more than a little risk we won't. Settling for McCain by default is not acceptable.
Daniel,
I'm reading your posts (and all of the responses). On the one hand, I'm irritated about all of the anger back and forth. There's no reason to personally attack people whose positions we disagree with. All (I assume) of the posters here are "progressive" at least in thought - that is, we all WANT significant change. The debate is how to achieve it.
I want to believe - I really do - that we can work within the system and unite behind a charismatic leader like Obama.
But history (and PRESENT) seems to defy that possibility.
I was a college student in 1992 when Bill Clinton was hailed as a great Liberal who was going to change our country for the better. I worked on campus to register voters and we celebrated when he won the election. Then he came into office and imposed sanctions on Iraq (killing an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children), passed NAFTA (causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of US jobs - not to mention ruining the lives of many Mexicans), instituted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (which has made things WORSE for gay soldiers), signed the "Welfare Reform Act (throwing countless poor women and children off of public assistance) ... should I go on?
And now Obama who, for all of his rhetoric, has done nothing particularly "progressive" in office (I would love to see how he would have voted on the war were he a Senator at that time). Of course, we can't hold it against him that he didn't have a vote - but we can't give him credit either!
Now we've seen how he's backtracking on the war, "compromising" on FISA, "reaching out" to AIPAC ... And when you look at some of the people he's surrounding himself with I'm still not seeing any serious evidence that leads me to believe he's going to be anything different than past false hopes.
Which leads me to the real point: I don't think the problem is the Democratic candidate - I think it's the political system. I know I'm echoing some of the sentiment expressed here by others, but it seems to me the two-party system is not working. In fact, I would argue we don't really have a two-party system - it's a two-headed one party monster.
How is that the Dems - who regained control of Congress on ONE SINGLE ISSUE - ending the war - have managed not only to NOT end it - but allowed it to be expanded?
The list of issues where the Dems have caved is practically inexhaustible. And, it seems to me, that by continuing to support them as "the only viable alternative" to the Republicans, we simply allow BOTH parties to move further and further to the Right.
Now - I KNOW - Ralph Nader (or McKinney or whoever the Green party nominates) has no chance to win. BUT, instead of asking ourselves - as Progressives - who is going to be the best option TODAY, shouldn't we consider what would be our best option for the next TWENTY years or so?
When I've mentioned Nader to my "Democratic" friends, many remark that - even if elected - he'd be able to accomplish NONE of his objectives with 534 Dem's and Rep's in Congress. When I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, I thought I was casting a vote for a change for the better. But, in the 16 years since, I've come to believe NO DEMOCRAT can accomplish any of our progressive goals either! Because the system is so toxic, filled with lobbyists and corporate money and hidden agendas. NO matter who is office, they always have to be beholden to the power structure in America. I believe its time to change the system and build a powerful third party in America that can act in the interest of its citizens.
In peace,
MariusP
Since when is this forum all about infighting and who is invested the most in their point of view that they need to bash other posters who don't share that view?
What do the words 'Common Dreams' mean other than that perhaps we are all, in our own ways, progressives, politically involved, environmentally friendly, generally well informed individuals with our own opinions. I have always believed that the person who is most invested in convincing others of his views is the least likely to have an open mind. Without an open mind there can be no real dialogue.
???
What Daniel David's "Honor's Psychology" class's exposure to an institutional sitting "to observe" failed to instruct was the classical study of the human ability (students) to ignore pleas, even under duress, of fellow humans being subjected to electrical shock, when there was no implied restraint to the practitioners (students) by any moral or legal admonition. In other words, human beings will allow the suffering of a fellow human being for the simple reason of perceived power over that human being.
This is essentially what DD has illustrated.
Therefore, under this knowledge that most educated people, and uneducated, will understand is that there is no difference between the democrats and the republicans, because each has been instrumental in furthering the concept that this country is an oligarchy and thusly not worthy of it's power over the people who have striven to make it anything but that.
So either console yourself with selling your vote for the lesser of two evils, of which neither is the case, or vote your conscience for one of those whom the oligarchy deemed "irrelevant," "UFO," or "whatever." That way when you get up in the morning and look yourself in the mirror, you can honestly say, "Hey, I did what I could."
I did for the last 4 elections and I have no regrets.
ezeflyer,
You're right. I should not appear as "bashing" Ralph and Cynthia. They are both good people, just not at the moment doing a good thing by diluting the liberal/progressive vote.
If indeed Obama would put them in important posts, as you suggest, I think that would be great for them, for Obama and for us.
DD I'm with you. Spot on AdeletheC. Jesus H Christ, Little Brother, your view of reality is little different than the fellow who was so wrought up with Richard's shirt. You seem equally delusional that massive changes could somehow happen sooner by throwing away your vote. Check out Noam Chomsky sometime. He has often pointed out the serious changes for the better that have occurred in his lifetime. Ultimately most of us CDers want the same things. But if you're not grounded in reality, and have a little (all right, a hell of a lot of) patience then you risk losing your bearings (which sadly seems to be happening to some of the CD posters).
Very good DD. I agree, except bashing Ralph or Cynthia could be counterproductive. Ralph would make the best Attorney General in an Obama Administration and Cynthia a great Supreme Court Justice.
estebandido - "How many more frightened and controlled puppets masquerading as "presidents" will we "elect" before we realize that the entire enterprise is corrupt from top to bottom?"
And what assurances do you have that your green president won't end up as just one more "frightened and controlled puppet masquerading as "president"?
You're totally right about the entire enterprise being corrupt from top to bottom. That's why I've been saying we need to focus on getting new blood into congress, young people who come from every race, nationality, and gender that defines America.
And then we need to go after those providing the money that are driving the politics of this country. Then, and only then might we have any chance of getting back any semblence of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Hank Fur,
You're right, I'm serious. It's the Nader nuts who are not. To a name, they are as deluded as poor Ralph himself.
Thanks Adele,
You may have noticed I'm on a "toot" today. Just a mood, maybe, and I don't have time to keep it up, as I do have some other commitments today.
What say, let's you and me and a few others goad the diehards here into making greater fools of themselves?
Obama 08
Little Brother,
You may have impressed yourself with "Honors" "Psychology" "observations" of "therapy sessions" (where those needing real help are told to sit down and be quiet while the "professionals" bloviate), but your over-wordy crap doesn't impress me a bit, buddy. If you and your cohorts had had any sense, you would have helped the "gent" go find out whether "Richard's" shirt was misplaced or not. Everything else you (they) did with him was a waste of time ---as are your pompous posts.
Barack is not a constitutional law professor to "dupe" the masses, not does your understanding of the rule of law somehow eclipse his. Your fog machine needs adjusting, though. It's just dripping instead of blocking our view of reality (the way you'd hoped).
Little Brother did his best to insult Daniel David, whose posts I find thoughtful and practical. Far from being a person given to "monomanical [sic] assertions" as Brother wrote, Daniel strikes me as the kind of guy who'd rather "light a candle than curse the darkness."
I'm getting pretty weary about all the darkness-cursing that's gone on here since Obama got the nomination. And as for monomaniacal, how about the posters for whom Nader or McKinney are the only politicians "pure" enough for them to consider?
Daniel David's comments sometimes read like utter satire. I get the feeling that he's ghosting for Mark Twain. But he's not. I think he's serious - seriously flawed, that is.
This is his best: Elect Obama [who has already sold you out many times over] and then, and only then, make your demands!
Like we haven't done that before? Obama has signed on to the killing of a million innocent Iraqis - mostly children - but once he gets elected again, this time as president, he'll do an about face and viola! A closet progressive? No more killing innocents? He will have seen the light? Unlike Ted Bundy, there will be no prison term for the killers, no outrage from people like Daniel David, just "Vote Obama!"
If your candidate is not behaving in ways you approve of (killing other people's children, for example), you demand that he change his positions. If the candidate ignores you, votes to fund the illegal occupation anyway, give immunity for illegal wiretapping, for example, you go elsewhere. Anyone should know this: You don't urge them on by voting for them. Daniel may be new to politics and hasn't seen this over and over again like many of us here on CD. When the candidate is running he/she will give you just enough "hope" to get your vote. Once in office, you'll be ignored entirely, no doubt about it.
Start your demands NOW, not later.
Support a true and honest progressive: Nader, '08!
Nader has 6% in the polls, when it reaches 10% he will debate Obama and McCain on Google/YouTube. Then we can really see some flames rising from our smoldering coals. Nader will cream them both! Can you imagine a debate, Nader vs Obama?
Help bring it on!
Indeed Little Brother, you have DD and other lesserevilists dead to rights. It is a shallow pond in which to swim and quite a few observers of politics start there. Alas, too few venture further into the deep end of reality.
• Our entrenched political elite has no intention of restoring the rule of law within the meaning of the US Constitution. At best, the Party of Cain and the Party of Judas may collude to streamline the present two-tier system of law, which is a neo-feudal arrangement in which the lords are free to murder, rape, and pillage with impunity while peasants are drawn and quartered for stealing a loaf of bread.
If the presumptive candidate of the Party of Judas become president, he may be hailed for piously preaching ABOUT the rule of law. As our business and government organizations discovered in recent decades, the Rhetoric of Excellence is indispensible to obscure and distract the gaping flaws and wrongs in their operations. So too do bright politicians recognize that it is ALWAYS necessary to give lip service to the Rule of Law.
Who better than a professor of constitutional law to dupe the credulous masses into believing that he is, as we used to say during the scorned Sixties, Part of the Solution? As the sedulous lesser-evil "pragmatists" remind us every day, politics is all. Yet ends/means politics freed from principle is merely Might Makes Right, buried beneath rhetoric and ritual.
• Speaking of credulous masses-- many years ago, my small university Honors Psychology class visited a psychiatric hospital and observed a group therapy session populated by transitional patients to facilitate their ability to cope with post-release life. From behind a two-way mirror, we watched as the therapist solicited the concerns of the participants and moderated the dialogue.
One poor gent raised his hand, and when called upon, stood up and earnestly explained that Richard (another group member) may have left his shirt in the gent's room. The therapist acknowledged his comment, but gently explained that this matter could be addressed after the group session; it wasn't relevant to the topic. The patient sat back down.
A little later, he again raised his hand and was called upon. "I think," he began, "... Richard left his shirt in my room." Again he was reminded that this was as may be, but really didn't pertain to the session. Eventually, as the discussion warmed up, the therapist asked the gent if he had any thoughts on whatever had just been said. The man eagerly stood up and announced, "Well, I think RICHARD left his shirt in my room..."
I don't know if this poor guy was related to Daniel David or not. I do know that monomania is monomania. And I do sympathize with the prospect that it can be challenging to present oneself as a mere Chatty Cathy or Energizer Bunny for lesser-evilism and compulsory support of the Democratic Party in an open discussion including many who are not members of the choir.
But Daniel flatters himself with the suggestion that he is somehow a sensible cat among flighty progressive pigeons, or a brave martyr or anti-hero speaking Truth to irresponsible rogues, shills, or idiots-- rather like a Jehovah's Witness undertaking the self-sacrifice of enduring a thousand slammed doors and ten thousand harsh words in hopes of making ONE convert.
I'm not speaking for others, but monomanical assertions arising from a viewpoint as narrow as a hairline crack and as deep as an oil slick are not particularly challenging. With a few exceptions, Daniel David's comments have all of the insight of a still-not-ready-for-the-outside-world refrain from a mental patient that Richard left his shirt in the patient's room.
And the wild, windmilling suggestions that opponents of his brand of lesser-evilism must be conformist goats in groupthink, or perhaps sociopathic obstructionists or wingnut trolls or shills, are simply laughably amiss.
When one of his advisors publicly argues against prosecuting the gang of fascists now in the White House, whose crimes are well documented and already summarized in the form of Congressman Kucinich's 37 Articles of Impeachment now in the House Judiciary Committee, Obama should let that advisor go. If Obama doesn't plan to follow the Constitution, we need to know it now.
Compromise on roads, funding for particular projects, etc., is fine, but there is no compromise on the Consitution. We can agree to disagree on many, many issues, but there is no compromise on justice.
That's why I'll be part of the 5+% voting for Cynthia McKinney in November, helping build a strong Green Party that's a meaningful opposition party.
John M. Wages, Jr.
www.VoteJohnWages.com
It is quite evident that the American people have lost control of their government, military and corporations. Conservative democrats may, and this is a big may, celebrate an Obama victory with new bottles of wine filled with hope and change. Only to find the same sour wine.
Bon appetite.
"And what will the "plurality of mere liberals" DO with the aging empire?" asks a Green-promoter?
The plurality will put an "inexperienced" pair of world-stage hope stars (Barack and Michelle) in The White House ---something the Greens cannot do now or ever in your (or Ralph's or Cynthia's) lifetime. The plurality will improve (aka change) the debates on taxes, debt, budget, peace, climate, health care, drugs, street violence, corporate over-reach, individual responsibility, education, race, immigration, and America's image in the world.
Barack and Michelle are not "gods" or perfect or somehow all-powerful. They WILL be required to conform and compromise on some things. And they WILL require the same from the opposition on some other things. Us MERE liberals can't wait for this process to begin. We can't wait for Greens to somehow "get something together" in some Shangri-la decade while we endure McCain taking us a few more years backwards in the meantime. Voting Green to teach the Dims a lesson is a common theme here at CD, and it's about as thoughtful a strategy getting up and publicly mutilating yourself to see if you can "teach" your neighbors something. Your neighbors don't give a darn---and think you're nuts. C'mon you reactionaries! I haven't been obnoxious enough to get you off your duffs yet! Get mad.
Raise hell. (Then get sense.)
D.D: And what will the "plurality of mere liberals" DO with the aging empire? How many more frightened and controlled puppets masquerading as "presidents" will we "elect" before we realize that the entire enterprise is corrupt from top to bottom?
Lincoln, for better or worse, allowed us to murder one another in the Civil War because there were overriding moral concerns requiring every citizen to put his/her life on the line....but the wages of war came back to haunt us: The Federal monster which we created during the intervening years has shown its face repeatedly, and since WW2 we have come to realize that the U.S. people cannot control their military, their corporations, or their government, Morally and economically we have failed as a nation and need a complete overhaul. Obama will only allow more denial and business as usual as the rest of the world continues to move towards true democracy, the energy revolution, and a response to global warming. Vote Green and force the Dims to at least acknowledge the true progressive agenda. All else is more wishful dithering.
Rather than speculate at conferences about how an Obama administration "might" restore the rule of law, we'd be well advised to just elect him and enlist the power of the net people to DEMAND he do so. Liberal voices are far more effective when screaming at a moderate-to-liberal administration than they are when screaming at Republican power that merely laughs back at them (us)--as Reagan and the Bushes did and McCain will continue, if elected.
Most everybody on CD now is following a sheep parade to bash Obama. This is because most of them are mad (in general--and about everything), want to stay mad, and are perversely afraid Dems will actually be elected and cause them to lose some of their soap boxes. I wonder how many of them I can tick off today. Wheeeee!
The rest of us are planning a Dem victory in November, with or without you. (Yes, Obama is quite capable of engineering a plurality of MERE liberals.)
madame speaker pelosi, howard dean, krugman, ford and the nation magazine...with such a distinguished panel, how could anybody have any expectations at all?
a politician convicted of corruption is the source of the only sensible commentary, while those yet unconvicted try to enlist our support in keeping them out of jail.
"tears of rage,
tears of grief/
why must i always
be the thief?"