Look, I understand the reasons Bush and Company should be impeached and then put on trial for war crimes. I agree with all the reasons. My, rhetorical question. What are Bush and Company protecting? Why are the democrats and republicans enabling each other? What are they protecting? Is it greedy war profiteers? Are they just evil, greedy, power hunger people. I think many would answer, yes. Maybe you just think if we get rid of a few greedy, evil people, things will change.

I believe we need to impeach capitalism. Is this not what both party's are protecting. Why would they not push for universal single payer health care if they were not protecting the insurance industry's right to make maximum profit. Why don't the take on the energy industry and push to nationalize it? Are they not protecting the oil companies right to make maximum profit?

Should not the discussion move beyond individuals and get to the root of the problem.

I am guessing we don't have agreement that capitalism is the root of the problem. Maybe it is Mars. I am just saying, let's put more cards on the table.

Maybe CD should add the disclaimer:

"Abandon hope all ye who enter here".

JD Smith writes "checks and balances. . . BS — the system is perverted."

NO Sir the sytem is NOT perverted our elected officals and this time starting with BUSH and his Crooked administration is peverted and it is they who have perverted the sytem!

medic6869 July 25th, 2008 8:52 pm
I believe we need to impeach capitalism. Is this not what both party's are protecting.
-Bingo!

That is the root of the problem. The difficulty is that the solution, some form of socialism, is a dirty word for people.

As far as Big Business, Big Banks, and Big Profits Inc. they love it, but only for their losses. They love to swindle the system like the current banking and housing crisis and then have Uncle Sam come running to the rescue with all the tax dollars in the world to socialize the losses.

In the US the profits are privatized, but the losses for Big Money Inc. are fully socialized at tax payer expense. Honestly, I think the majority of the people support this system and the real solution would be to move to another country. Capitalism and the power behind it aren't going anywhere, short of a revolution. And that's the truth!

Sorry Dominick, you're correct. I should have written "the system has been perverted" but I insist it has been perverted in the legislative as well the executive branches.

Perversion of the judicial branch is a collusion of the Senate and the White house.

We have been "sold out" by many money-grubbing, avaricious and power-hungry politicians. A significant portion of both major parties are compromised. I don't have any solutions to offer. Recognizing the existence of the problem is a first step.

I salute the following remarks by these othor contributors, they are "spot on":

Spike
Nothing wrong with having a president as long as he/she are kept in check. The utter avariciousness and cowardice shown by the Congress are all that is necessary for the lice at the head of our government to prosper.

Eric Barth:
Democrats with backbone publicly calling for impeachment hearings? I just loved watching those Republicans on the committee squirm. They know in their hearts that Bush and his cronies are impeachable six ways from Sunday

Simo:
My only question is this: why isn't Ron Paul,
the Constitutionalist, standing side by side with Dennis and demanding impeachment. Answer: Ron Paul is another phony, a shill for corporate profits.

Pappy_Yokum:
AIPAC calls the tune, and the US Congress dances.
Everything else is just details.

lilyspad:
And a big heartfelt "thank you" to Mr. Kuchinich and Ms. Jackson Lee all the others
who have the courage to seek out and speak the truth.

Old Jeffersonian:
All We the People need is for the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be returned, intact
and functioning, to the Halls of Government.

I have sent the above request to my alleged representatives many times. So have others. So far, not one answer or acknowledgment. When it comes to Constitutional questions, they are mute.

That should certainly be telling us something.

AlwaysAskWhy:
IN DEFENSE OF REP. WALTER JONES:
Yes, he did introduce Freedom Fries, but later, when he realized what the Bush administration has done, their crimes, and perhaps understood the French resistance
to another useless, costly and murderous war…changed his mind and co-authored, with Dennis Kucinich, a resolution calling for the president to set a timeline for withdrawal
of troops from Iraq. FOR THIS WE SHOULD APPLAUD WALTER JONES…A MAN WHO CAN CHANGE HIS MIND, FUNCTIONALLY APOLOGIZE THROUGH HIS ACTIONS…SOMETHING MANY, MANY REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, IF THEY HAD MORALS AND ETHICS, WOULD BE DOING.

Note: I have CAPITALIZED some portions of the following quotation for EMPHASIS.

Medic6869 (was quite right, when he) said:

"Look, I understand the reasons Bush and Company should be impeached and then put on trial for war crimes. I agree with all the reasons.

My, rhetorical question(s):

What are Bush and Company protecting?
Why are the Democrats and Republicans enabling each other?
What are they protecting?
Is it greedy war profiteers?
Are they just evil, greedy, power hunger people?

... Maybe you just think if we get rid of a few greedy, evil people, things will change.

I BELIEVE WE NEED TO IMPEACH CAPITALISM.

Is this not what both party's are protecting?

Why would they not push for universal single payer health care if they were not protecting the insurance industry's right to make maximum profit?

...

I am guessing we don't have agreement that CAPITALISM is the ROOT of the problem...I am just saying, let's put more cards on the table."

THANK YOU MEDIC6869 (for the above).

I too am starting to think that we need a far more socialistic form of governance. More "safety nets" for everyone. I do not advocate "doing away with" Capitalism.
But I think we need to restrain it, harness it, make it serve the common good far better than it currently does.
We need to stop "worshiping at the altar of Capitalism".

What do you folks think???

I watched about an hour and felt sorry that the quality of argument was so poor. For instance, the question of whether Bush "lied" or deliberately deceived Congress and the public will be impossible to prove and it is not necessary. The charge should be that Bush defrauded Congress,and proving fraud is not the same as proving lying. This was shown in the case of Enron chief Ken Lay. He was found guilty of defrauding stakeholders because he did not exercise due diligence in discovering and reporting the state of his company's finances. Instead he told them a happy self-interested story, when he should have known better. It was his job to know better. Likewise, it was Bush's job to represent reality and he was incapable of that because he honestly doesn't care about reality.

Anyway, the point is that it takes time for a prosecutor to develop precise charges and to hone the arguments to focus on the key proofs. Many authors have already done this in a half-dozen book-length treatments of the impeachment issue. Apparently our congress-wimps don't have time to read such books. They are lawyers, they ought to have done better.

I apologize for getting a little off course. I know the discussion is about impeachment and we do need to impeach.

About the system being perverted by perverted people. Is not an objective law of capitalism, making maximum profit? Objective means outside of ones thinking or ability to pervert. If you do not make maximum profits you go out of business. It is not just greed it is a law of the system. I think sometimes we get confused by the relationship between subjective and objective. While striving to stay in business and make maximum profit you are perverted by the system.

Many posters are this thread are suggesting that we contact our representatives and urge them to support impeachment.

But this ignores that people have been doing this. We are being ignored. For example, in Pelosi's district people overwhelmingly support impeachment. They have been petitioning, writing letters, protesting in the streets. After failing to reach her, they protested in front of her house. Her now infamous response to those people was "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."

They even had 1000 people gather to spell out IMPEACH with their bodies on Ocean Beach. But she has declared, against the will of her constituents, that "impeachment is off the table".

So is your best advice to just keep writing her letters and phoning her office?

Let's start at the bottom.
Impeach Pelosi.
No way is she doing her job.
She's allowing war criminals
and treasonous crooks
to not be held accountable.
Therefore, she's complicit.

half of the other side of the aisle didn't bother to show up until 3/4 through testimony and opinions, so who the fuck cares what anyone, i mean everyone, not just politicos, has to say it's 5th hand opining.

You want a leader, I give you Dennis Kucinich.

Obama? He can't even follow. Pathetic.

Dennis Kucinich would be a leader if he quit the Democratic Party and exposed them as the fraud that they are.

He's no leader. He's a sham just like these hearings he brought forward.

This has been meticulously designed to fool the left and keep them in the party. Kucinich knows that and he also knows that this will never come to a real vote for the actual impeachment (indictment).

The hearings are a step. People speaking out, members of Congress having a place where they can speak out without Pelosi shushing them...it's a step. I am not holding my breath, but maybe just maybe...

#
tailcap July 25th, 2008 2:59 pm

"WTF July 25th, 2008 2:41 pm
I believe a motion of censure is required before impeachment proceedings can begin.
-Thank you for that clarification, I wasn't aware of that."

No motion of censure is required to impeach. In fact hearings aren't required either. All that is required is for it to be brought to a vote on the House floor. Straight up or down, simple majority makes the decision.

Lobo Gris

I'd like to see an Obama Kucinich ticket.

About members of Congress being afraid of their own culpability if the truth comes out as to who knew what and when they knew it about going to war, or torturing, or eavesdropping. I believe those who are worried should not only cooperate, but be the driving force behind impeachment to make up for whatever they feel guilty about. The American people will understand as long as we get the real scoundrels.

RE: nwcitizen July 25th, 2008 7:02 pm
"Beware, the people posting here who preach "we cannot do anything" are TROLLS! Ignore them."

That might be true in some cases, but refuses to acknowlege many people in this country are depressed from being oppressed, feel powerless because the MSM has suppressed information about the true number of people (now in the majority BTW) who are highly pissed off about what a very few wealthy powerful people have done to them, or have no sense of history. They seem to forget public outrage, citizen activism, and the uncovering of crimes that were so blatant they could only be hidden from fools, caused two presidents within the past several decades to leave the Whitehouse; Johnson, a 'war' president who illegally lead us into & kept us in a prior illegal war, and Nixon, who's, "I am not a crook" statement was proven a lie. I would point out neither Johnson or Nixon were voted out of office, but were forced to withdraw by the sheer weight of public opinion turned against them.

The mainstream media was as complicit then as now, but they couldn't fight word of mouth, the most effective form of advertising & promulgating believable information among the population. We have the advantage of the internet now, and many faster means of spreading information. Aside from the profit involved for corporations why do you think net neutrality is such an important issue? An avenue of open communication is the greatest threat to fascists, dictators, and tyrants.

It's a game of time & numbers, folks. It takes time to sway idiots, fools, the uncaring or ignorant, that based on facts it is in their better interest to stop supporting a government/administration/party/system which keeps vital information secret from its citizens.

In 1966, when I actively started speaking out & protesting the illegal war in Viet Nam there were few of us, and many around me thought me crazy to fight the 'system'. In 1968, I proclaimed to my family Nixon was a crook, and would cause this country immense problems. Was I wrong on either count...no, but it still took years for the rest of the public to wake up, and the tipping point of public opinion to cause the scales to swing over to the side I was on. They were lonely frustrating years, to be sure, but my faith the American people would not remain foolish forever was well placed.

I wouldn't worry too much about trolls, nwcitizen, such spies will always be around. Very quickly on this site they get found out, and the absurdity of their trying to defend their untenable undefendable ridiculous positions soon become evident. Sometimes they are even useful to us, because their devil's advocate role is a necessary requirement for a thorough debate. Vile insults, and unnecessarily long off the wall comments, that just waste everyone's time are another matter, though, especially when the same comments are posted on numerous threads.

Lobo Gris July 26th, 2008 4:52 am No motion of censure is required to impeach. In fact hearings aren't required either. All that is required is for it to be brought to a vote on the House floor. Straight up or down, simple majority makes the decision.

Lobo Gris
-Thank you, it's important to know that.

PaulMagillSmith,

Excellent commentary. You said it all! My compliments!

RE: nwcitizen July 25th, 2008 7:02 pm
"Beware, the people posting here who preach "we cannot do anything" are TROLLS! Ignore them."
PaulMagillSmith July 26th, 2008 8:55 am responds:
I wouldn't worry too much about trolls, nwcitizen, such spies will always be around.

-There are basically two major mindsets posting on CD. Those that see the Democrats, however imperfect, as the answer and us post-Democrats that see Democrats as the problem. I think those that believe Democrats are the problem are the ones being referred to above as "trolls". Please correct me if I am wrong.

I have posted challenges to the Democratic Party supporters, for example explain why Obama supports the war by funding it, wants to expand the war in Afghanistan, hasn't pushed impeachment and capitulated on FISA.

Lacking solid arguments Dem Supporters usually resort to calling you Republican troll, a fascist, Republican shill, or even an idiot when they are incapable of denying the obvious. Another example, the Democrats have waited until the eleventh hour to hold hearings about the "controversies" of the Bush administration. You point that out, they get pissed and call you a troll.

How can Democratic Party supporters defend the indefensible? They can't. So they resort to name calling in the absence of sound, reasoned arguments. Only an actual idiot would confuse name calling and labeling with a logical argument.

If pointing out how the Democrats are selling us down the river, is what the above posters are referring to as trolls, then the Patriots during the Revolutionary War pointing out the abuses of King George would also have been called: Native American trolls, Indian shills, idiots and traitors. Would they not?

Instead of calling people names why don't you refute what they are claiming. If you can.

Great Theatre!

I laughed; I cried;

I kissed my hopes for justice goodbye!

A public bitch session is no substitute for impeachment

I agree with Bugliosi when he notes that Bush can not be prosecuted until after he is no longer president. I advise reading "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder".

The House Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Limitations of Executive Power (July 25, 2008) was not impeachment, but it's more than worth watching.

Vincent Bugliosi can be seen at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4kU

Bruce Fein can be seen and heard at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80IphtHrFzg

Dennis Kucinich can be seen and heard at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRAcenaTVkQ&feature=related

Robert Wexler can be seen and heard at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1ojrKhp6E&feature=related

Jerrold Nadler can be seen and heard at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL7259BAP9s&feature=related

I agree, tailcap (11:25 am)-- see the comment I just made to John Pilger's article today.

FWIW, apart from the gratuitous name-calling, the Obama/Democratic True Believers also keep handy a stock of rhetorical mousetraps, which they drop whenever it becomes even clear to THEM that they got nothin' in the way of rigorous arguments to effectively rebut criticisms.

One such mousetrap can be seen when the Dem Supporter suddenly wheels around and says: OK, what's YOUR solution? (Or your PLAN?) This is merely a rhetorical wrestling move, designed to flip the user from a defensive, one-down status and reclaim the high ground by putting the challenged party on the defensive.

When critics rise to the occasion (as I've seen RichM do more than once), the Supporter simply rejects the response out of hand by claiming that it's no "solution" or "PLAN" at all! And they may sincerely believe this, because of the circular problem that they can't see beyond their own limited, two-dimensional terms of reference in the first place. So they get to respond by saying, in effect, BZZZ! Time's up! You've got no PLAN, ya big phony! So I WIN!

If the opponent refuses to take the bait, they do the same thing: what, no SOLUTION? No PLAN! Then I get to dismiss you entirely as a mere empty bullshitter!

As you've observed, such cheap tricks and parthian ambushes are all they've got, except for the solidarity with fellow Dem Supporters, who often give the equivalent of "high-fives" in the form of intellect-free concurrence and mutual affirmation of their superior morals, attitude, and perspective.

'Tis a gift to be simple, but not so charming when it's a gift that never stops giving.

and another day of talk.....the ups, the downs and even some possibilites or not depending on your views.......
My question what has been accomplished, aside another day passing without the Constitution or Impeachment & Prosecution?

Little Brother,
Well said brother:
"Dem Supporters, who often give the equivalent of "high-fives" in the form of intellect-free concurrence and mutual affirmation of their superior morals, attitude, and perspective."
-actually, I disagree about the superior morals, they usually cede ground on that one by claiming that it is the Democratic Party critic who has pie-in-sky morals so superior that he demands perfection from candidates that is not possible in the real world.

Next they proceed to patronize you by explaining how foolish and naive you are and that you need to grow up, live in the real world and get with the program. Then they proceed to lesser-evilism and crying wolf about McCain.

I agree about the "WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?" which is a classic red herring attempt to put you on the defensive and change the subject. No matter what your plan is, to them it will never be as good as voting for a Democrat.

Most Democrats today are actually slightly left of center Republicans. That's why they can support a candidate that is both pro-war and in favor of curtailing civil rights.

Many Democratic Party supporters are incapable of differentiating between a criticism of Democrats that is coming from their left and one coming from the right (which is very rare). They confuse the two, hence any criticism from the left gets incorrectly labeled as a "Republican shill" attack.

The $24,000 question is whether they do it knowingly are intellectually challenged?

duopoly, noun -- concentration of power in two forces.

The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are a political duopoly. They serve the interests of the economic elite. They are "The Business Party" -- instruments of Corporate America.

That's their job.

Dennis Kucinich rejects working outside the Democratic Party. He refuses to establish a third party or else join an already-existing third party movement. In short, he believes in the Democratic Party. He believes that progress can only come within the framework of the Democratic Party.

However, as long as Dennis Kucinich stays within the confines of the Democratic Party, his role will be nothing more than, if you will, "putting lipstick on a pig."

Harsh words? Not at all. Consider the history of the Democratic Party. …

Since it began, the Democratic Party has served as a "safety valve" during periods of political unrest. When things start to heat up, when the general population becomes aroused and (a real danger to the economic elite) when they start to *organize* -- when broad-based, grassroots political movements start to form -- Corporate America becomes very nervous.

After all, broad-based, grassroots, democratic-inspired movements threaten their oligarchic interests. Such movements must be kept in check. What "instrument" can the economic elite use to allow the general population to let off steam but, at the same time, to keep their political unrest under control? … Enter the Democratic Party.

(Continued)

For example, when farmers started to move to the left, started to heat up the political landscape, started questioning not just specific laws and regulations but the entire political system … there was the Democratic Party to dutifully co-opt and, in turn, dilute their "radical excesses."

Similarly, in the 1930s, when labor began to not just question various laws and regulations but when they began to question the very existence of capitalism … there, once again, doing their corporate-enabling duty, was the Democratic Party, co-opting the labor movement's radical, capitalist-endangering aspirations.

The same is true as regards the feminist movement, the environmentalist movement, the peace movement. Once the Democratic Party co-opted the radicalism of these broad-based democratic movements – once they "tamed" these challenges to the status quo, to the political oligarchy -- it then diluted their radicalism and, in turn, sold out their fundamental principles.

So that once the Democratic Party insinuated itself into the 1930s labor movement, the movement soon found itself in bed with the likes of George Meany. … George Meany: fervent supporter of the Vietnam War, frequent guest at the White House, and one of a succession of fat-cat labor leader who cynically and unhesitatingly sold out the interests of rank-and-file America. ... Much to the delight of Corporate America.

(Continued)

Another historical example ...

Flashback to the 1960s. Uh-oh, those people who were brought to the United States in chains are getting restless again. … "Come with us, Black America," the left-wing of the Democratic Party said during the hottest days of the civil rights movement -- when the Black Panthers were at their strongest; when America's inner cities were ablaze; when Stokely Carmichael and H. Rapp Brown and Malcolm X were calling for radical changes, as opposed to "working within the system."

"Come with us, Black America, and all those who support you," urged the Democratic Party. "Trust us, we'll represent your interests. Besides, we're you're only hope. The Democratic/Republican game is the only game in town."

And so the civil rights movement was successfully co-opted by the Democratic Party, i.e., by the left-wing of "The Business Party."

And indeed, for a while, blacks progressed, to where in the 1970s, the black middle class grew. (Remember how "The Jeffersons" were "movin' on up to the Eastside, to that de-luxe mansion in the sky."). But what also happened in the 1970s was the challenge to Corporate America from newly-emerging international competitors such as Japan, Taiwan, Korea. And … well … so much for the advance of the black middle class. The progress blacks were "allowed to make" soon came to a halt.

Besides, what real concern does a business party have for the general population; black, white or otherwise?

(Continued)

The same is true of the antiwar movement. Take 1968. Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, George McGovern -- they could have broken away from the Democratic Party and started a third party movement. And in doing so they could have not only questioned the Vietnam War, they could have questioned war itself -- war as part of "the capitalist necessity."

But they didn't.

Instead, they gave vent to the antiwar fervor that was sweeping the country, BUT NOTHING FUNDAMENTAL CHANGED. Capitalism survived, indeed prospered; with future corporate profits surpassing the wildest dreams of even the greediest of CEOs.

And all the while the military-industrial complex steamed on, well-oiled and uninterrupted. After all, the only blood shed was that of 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 Vietnamese dead, at least a million of whom were civilians. That 58,000 Americans also died and that 14 million Indochinese were either killed, wounded or made refugees -- hey, what's important is that the con worked, the system remained intact. The left-wing of the Business Party, the Democratic Party, did its job.

(Continued)

Take 2006. Well, we all know what happened then, don't we. The Democratic Party said to the antiwar movement, "Come with us. Vote Democratic in 2006. Frustrated? Yeah, we know. Fact is, we're the only game in town for your political frustrations, for your antiwar outrage. We'll represent your antiwar interests. Sure we will."

And guess what. Those who believe in T.I.N.A. ("There Is No Alternative") and, specifically, that there is no alternative to the two party duopoly … dutifully voted Democratic. So that once more (again!) the Democratic Party served well its corporate overseers. The radicalism of the Iraq antiwar movement was successfully contained by the Democratic Party. Mission accomplished!

(Continued)

Take 2008. Barack Obama, surely a Democrat-in-good-standing, gathers under his wings all the pent-up frustrations of not just the antiwar movement but all the other political and economic frustrations of the general population. While Corporate America wonders: "Gee, things are really starting to get hot. It's a good thing that mainstream media and the Democratic Party are there to 'head 'em off at the pass,' dilute their passion, control their anger."

And so (quite predictably) espousing his phony -- what should by now be his *transparent* mantra of "Change, Change, Change! -- Obama wins the Democratic Party nomination. But then, guess what. Surprise! The nomination securely in hand, Obama, loyal and faithful Democrat that he is, lurches to the right.

Of course if there was such a thing as "historical awareness" in America it wouldn't be a surprise at all.

Surprise, liberal-Democrats, you got screwed. Again.

(Continued)

Why did Obama do this, lurch to the right? Isn't he afraid he will lose his base-support, the left wing of the Demcoratic Party?

Not at all! He knows that all the people who supported the Democratic Party in 1968 hoping for a fundamental change to the political system ... and all the civil rights workers who supported the Democratic Party in the 1950s and 1960s hoping for a fundamental change to the political system .. and all the antiwar protestors who voted Democratic in the 2006 Congressional elections hoping for a fundamental change in the political system. or at least an end to the war in Iraq … he knew he could count on them to be conned … AGAIN!

After all, they were gullible enough and naive enough to believe the Democratic Party in the past, why not go to the well again? Or, put another way: does a con man give up on a sucker who keeps getting screwed? And by the same con!

The Democratic Party has got to be the drooling envy of every con man who ever sat down between a new pair of shoes.

(Continued)

Thus, the Democratic Party is of great service to the economic elite. Anytime things start heating up on the left, anytime the natives become restless, the Democratic Party is there to make sure these rumblings don't get out of hand.

As corporate-controlled and corporate-sponsored mass media keep these broad-based rumblings in check, so too does the Democratic Party. They work hand-in-hand. So that even before the current Democratic Party primary began, the mass media knew full-well that one of their jobs was to immediately and unhesitatingly marginalize candidates such as Dennis Kucinich.

Do you think his immediate marginalization in the 2008 Democratic primaries came as a surprise to Dennis Kucinich? Of course not. He knows "the game" as well as anyone else. What's sad, if not tragic, about Dennis Kucinich is that he sincerely believes in T.I.N.A., i.e., that "the game" (a.k.a. The Business Party duopoly) is the only game in town.

(Continued)

And so this is the Democratic Party -- specifically, the left-wing of the Democratic Party.
The left wing of the Democratic Party is of crucial importance to Corporate America, especially in times of political turmoil and economic stress. Whatever tensions, whatever radical sentiments begin to crop up, there's the Democratic Party to see to it that such rumblings don't get out of hand.

Crucial to this con game are, needless to say, the people who go along with it; Dennis Kucinich most certainly included.

(Continued)

Of course, as we all know and as is clearly the case, there *is* an alternative to the two- party duopoly. (Can you imagine the people of East Europe during Soviet domination believing in T.I.N.A.) The simple truth is that unless and until the left moves *apart* from the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party and their corporate paymasters will pull the same con over and over and over again.

Also, we have to ask the question: Is Dennis Kucinich part of the con? Well, yes and no. He's part of the con in that he goes along with it, in that he should know better. But, at the same time, like many on the left, he's also naive enough to believe in T.I.N.A., i.e., that there is no alternative.

In assessing Kucinich's complicity in all this, we also have to realize that political power is only achieved as a result of hard-fought electoral battles. And Dennis Kucinich, as anyone who is aware of his history knows, has fought many hard and bitter political battles. And his reward for those battles-won is the political *property* he now owns.

Property he owns under the auspices of the Democratic Party.

Therefore: is Dennis Kucinich willing to give up the political property he's fought for *as a Democrat,* within and under the auspices of the Democratic Party … is he willing to give up that power, that political property, and either start a third party or join an already established third party movement?

Well, the answer is obvious: no, he *not* willing to do that. He's quite clear on that point. And, unfortunately (and I say unfortunately because one can't help being impressed with Kucinich's honesty and integrity), unfortunately, Dennis Kucinich is not willing to risk his political property, his political power, in the cause of political justice.

(Power versus justice. … I once read in a biography of Ralph Nader how Nader's family has many similarities to the Kennedy family. Large. Fiercely loyal to each other. Politically active. But, pointed out the author, with one notable exception. While the Kennedys sat around the table talking about power, the Naders sat around the table talking about justice.)

(Continued)

I think Dennis Kucinich honestly believes in T.I.N.A.: that there is no alternative to the two-party duopoly; that the Republican/Democratic game is the only game in town.

And as long as he and others on the left believe that, nothing fundamental is going to change. And without fundamental changes to the political system in the United States, indeed, without fundamental changes to the distribution of wealth and resources worldwide, well, start kissing your kids, your grandchildren, the planet and your own personal ass good-bye.

The right wing fascist Republican party appreciates the help they are receiving from the far left in their attacks on the Democrats. They find you to be most useful idiots.

If his campaign is successful, Barack Obama will do everything in his power to set things right in this country. You cannot hope for or ask for more than that.

tailcap sez:

"How can Democratic Party supporters defend the indefensible? They can't. So they resort to name calling in the absence of sound, reasoned arguments...
If pointing out how the Democrats are selling us down the river, is what the above posters are referring to as trolls, then the Patriots during the Revolutionary War pointing out the abuses of King George would also have been called: Native American trolls, Indian shills, idiots and traitors. Would they not?

Instead of calling people names why don't you refute what they are claiming. If you can."

Well spoken tailcap.

I am a Dem, and I cannot refute what you are saying.
I cannot defend Obama, and I think he is an arrogant shill.

I am dismayed by the lack of principle among our leadership.
But that fellow who said that Kucinich was "a phoney" has it wrong.
Dennis is one of "the best we have" in the Democratic Party.

I am SURE that there are plenty of folks who self-identify as Republicans, who are also angry and upset that THEIR party has decended into its current level of mendacity; Republicans who DON'T WANT the "best government that money can BUY". Republicans who believe in small government, conservative financial positions, and the right of privacy.

We need not demonize either Party "in and of itself"...
Blame the folks who currently "control" your party.
(and these "folks" may not even hold public office).
It may well be necessary to "walk away" from the Party that I have belonged to for over 50 years, just as some Republicans may wind up having to do the same.

But before we throw up our hands in dispair, we really owe it to our country and to ourselves to at least TRY to fix our parties. It takes a very long time to build up a party functionality to the point that it can have a meaningful impact on national affairs. In the meantime, I suggest
"hedging our bets"... Join "more than one" party.

Support the Green Party, or the Constitution Party, or whatever minority Party with which you can find common cause and a comfort level. And continue to work for change in the major party that you are currently in. But if you don't like the candidate that your "major party" endorses, then vote for the candidate of your favorite minority party instead.

Contribute (time& money) to your favorite minority party.

Know where you are going to land before you bail, and be sure you have a true understanding of who and what that favorite minority party "is really all about" before you bail.

Maybe you will never have to actually leave the Democratic or Republican Party, who knows? In any event, I suggest that you apportion your "fidelity" according to the "worthiness" of the party (or parties) in question.

And remember, it is very difficult to affect the path of any party if you are outside the tent.

We need a real forum here.

Quelle....so it is your party and you owe it something, and the country you owe it the party?

Sorry, I'm not buying it, if something is owed to the country it is to uphold the US Constitution and the party should be the one America has when it Impeachs and Prosecutes all those who have broken with the Constitution...which ever private party Republican or Democrat.

tailcap (2:11 pm), at the risk of seeming to high-five, I agree with your correction. It's another vexing paradox, or doublethink, expressed by proponents of realpolitik.

On the one hand, the Impurists race to claim the moral high ground on the basis that they are virtuous because they're "realistic"; they regard politics as a sort of clogged Behavioral Toilet (companion to the Behavioral Sink). Thus, they assert a moral duty to (temporarily) divest themselves of morality, and plunge into the bowels of that toilet to unclog it a double-fistful at a time, by any means necessary.

This moral justification of amorality is also employed to rationalize war and espionage operations; it's dirty work, but SOMEONE has to do it. I read a cogent criticism somewhere noting that a theme in espionage fiction from "Reilly, Ace of Spies" to "24" shifts sympathy from the actual victims of these amoral patriots and agents to the agents themselves-- they are regarded as heroes, and objects of sympathy, because they nobly struggle with selflessly destroying their own souls in the course of Doing What Must Be Done so that Daddy, Mommy, Bub and Sis can sleep comfortably in the safety of their beds.

The application of this doublethink to politics is not so high-contrast, but it amounts to the same thing. As I commented on a recent CD article about that New Yorker cover nonsense:

" [...] The further irony, if such a thing is possible, is that these worldly inside-politics mavens seem entirely oblivious to any inherent contradiction in on the one hand, giving politicians license to wallow with the pigs, but still suggesting that, given proper support, they can soar with the eagles."

I watched the hearings on c-span yesterday and I almost had to laugh when the Republicans (for the President) just couldn't understand how the others could say such things about Bush; that he lied about Iraq etc. One of the Professors on the witness panel, (for Bush) said that Clinton lied about sex and tried to cover it up and keep people from talking etc. that is why HE was brought up on Impeachment. How could he sit there with all the information (that he refused to look at) and say Bush was not guilty of anything. It was pointed out and he still said, "not impeachable". I guess it's whatever "is" "is" huh?
Conyers, when he first opened the hearing, talked about the things this administration did, and I know they have had some hearings, but if that is the case, why not impeach instead of just talking about it? It's all a sham anyhow. They know they aren't going to do anything which makes them as guilty as Bush and Cheney. At least, if anybody cared to watch, maybe they found out things they didn't know before.
I enjoyed Bugliosi's speech. I wish he was the special prosecutor appointed to look into the charges against Bush.
He'd be locked up real quick!