Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiProgressive Democrats We Can Believe In
Can Jane Hamsher's internet army teach Rahm Emmanuel and Timothy Geithner a lesson about accepting the input of progressive Democrats? That would be change I could believe in. Here she makes the case against progressive Democrats caving in to leadership pressure that they vote for the War/IMF Supplemental:
Here's the lesson I want Rahm Emmanuel and Timothy Geithner to learn. To paraphrase another President from Illinois: you can piss on all of the progressive Democrats some of the time, and some of the progressive Democrats all of the time, but you cannot piss on all of the progressive Democrats, all of the time.
What makes the present situation particularly outrageous is this: the White House and the House leadership now want progressive Democrats in the House to abandon their constituents, their commitments, and their principles and vote for the War/IMF supplemental. But when progressive Democrats tried to have input into the process earlier, they were locked out by the leadership, on orders from the White House and Treasury.
Representative Jim McGovern tried to introduce an amendment on the war supplemental requiring the Pentagon to submit to Congress an exit strategy from Afghanistan. But McGovern's amendment was not even allowed to be considered. As a freestanding bill [H.R.2404], McGovern's amendment has 85 Democratic and Republican co-sponsors.
Representative Maxine Waters and forty other Democrats presented a package of commonsense reforms to U.S. policy at the International Monetary Fund. But they were not allowed by the House leadership to offer any amendments - that was the whole point of sneaking $108 billion for the IMF into the Senate version of the supplemental - to evade normal legislative process in the House.
On Thursday, House-Senate conferees made their deal on the war supplemental. They agreed to include Treasury's request for $108 billion dollars for the International Monetary Fund, the bulk of which will almost certainly be used for full bail-outs of European banks from their risky bets in Eastern Europe.
But in the conference report, the House-Senate conferees did not agree to any of the four demands for IMF reform put forward by 41 House Democrats, led by Representative Maxine Waters.
On June 3, 40 other Democrats joined Waters in sending a letter to the House appropriators, asking for IMF reform language to be included in any IMF appropriation.
Specifically, the 41 Democrats asked for:
- language to ensure that the funds allocated by Congress for global stimulus are used for stimulatory, and not contractionary, purposes. [That is, the money should not be used as leverage to demand austerity policies such as government budget cuts and high interest rates.]A summary of the conference report is here. The full conference report is here.
- language requiring the U.S. Executive Director to the IMF to ensure that some of the revenue from the planned gold sales and/or other sources of income will be used to provide at least $5 billion in non-debt-creating assistance to the world's poorest countries - either via debt relief or grants.
- language requiring the U.S. Executive Director to the IMF to ensure parliamentary approval of all IMF loans. [So that IMF agreements can't be used to undermine democratic process in recipient countries.]
- language to ensure greater transparency and public availability of documents within a reasonable time period. [So that people can see what government officials - from developed as well as developing countries - are doing in IMF board meetings and in negotiating agreements mandating changes to government policy in recipient countries.]
Here's what the summary says about the IMF:
International Monetary Fund (IMF)As you can see, there is no mention in the summary of policy reforms on ensuring that IMF funds go for stimulus rather than economic contraction, no mention of transparency, no mention of parliamentary approval. [There's no mention of these issues in the full conference report either - the IMF part starts on page 142.] Regarding low-income countries, the summary refers to "short-term financing," implying loans that would add to poor country debt, rather than debt relief and grants, as 41 Democrats called for in their June 3 letter. Moreover, even this figure is $4 billion, 20% less than called for in the June 3 letter.
1. To enable the IMF to respond to grave threats to the stability of the international monetary system, particularly in developing countries severely impacted by the financial crisis, the bill provides an increase in the U.S. quota in the IMF of roughly 5 billion in Special Drawing Rights valued at about $8 billion. The bill also provides for loans to the IMF, as requested, to enable the U.S. to increase its share of the New Arrangements to Borrow, which establishes a set of credit lines extended to the IMF, from approximately $10 billion (6.6 billion in SDRs) to the equivalent of $100 billion.
2. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to agree to the sale of nearly 13 million ounces of IMF gold which will finance an endowment the return on which will fund a portion of IMF administrative expenses and expand the IMF's investment authority. A portion of the sale of gold (at least $4 billion) would also be used to address the short-term financing needs of low-income countries.
Thus, the demands 41 Democrats made on June 3 regarding the IMF appropriation have been ignored. If these Democrats want to be taken seriously by Treasury about IMF reform, they should vote no on the war supplemental with the IMF funding included. If they vote yes, they're communicating to the U.S. Treasury Department that they're not willing to fight for their demands. And that would validate Treasury's longstanding view that it can safely ignore progressive Democrats in Congress regarding U.S. policy at the IMF and the World Bank.
If progressive Democrats vote no, and the IMF funding is defeated, then Treasury will have to go through normal Congressional process to get the money. And that would mean that the criticisms of the 41 Democrats would get a full airing, and they would have an opportunity to try to amend the legislation.
Twenty-two of these 41 Democrats voted no on the war supplemental in May. Here's what we know about their positions now, thanks to FireDogLake:
Tammy Baldwin: expected to vote no again.
Yvette Clarke: expected to vote no again.
John Conyers: expected to vote no again.
Donna Edwards: expected to vote no again.
Keith Ellison: current position uncertain.
Sam Farr: expected to vote no again.
Bob Filner: certain to vote no again; signed a Dear Colleague letter
with Dennis Kucinich against IMF funding in the supplemental.
Alan Grayson: expected to vote no again.
Raul Grijalva: expected to vote no again.
Luis Gutierrez: expected to vote no again.
Michael Honda: current position uncertain.
Jay Inslee: expected to vote no again.
Dennis Kucinich: certain to vote no again; signed letters against war
funding and IMF funding in the supplemental.
Barbara Lee: expected to vote no again.
John Lewis: expected to vote no again.
James McGovern: certain to vote no again; told the Wall Street
Journal he was voting no.
Donald Payne: current position uncertain.
Jan Schakowsky: current position uncertain.
Maxine Waters: expected to vote no again.
Diane Watson: expected to vote no again.
Mel Watt: current position uncertain.
Lynn Woolsey: certain to vote no again; signed a letter with Kucinich
against the war funding.
To summarize: Keith Ellison, Michael Honda, Donald Payne, Jan Schakowsky, and Mel Watt voted no on the war supplemental in May, and then signed a letter saying that money for the IMF should have IMF reforms attached. But with the House now scheduled to vote early next week on the same war supplemental with money for an unreformed IMF, they have yet to state that they will vote no. If you would like to ask them where they stand, you can use FDL's "Citizen Whip Tool."
Eighteen of the 41 Democrats who wrote against funding an unreformed IMF voted for the war supplemental in May (one of the 41 was a non-voting Member.) Here's what we know about their positions now:
Robert Brady: expected to vote yes.
Corinne Brown: current position uncertain.
André Carson: current position uncertain.
Danny Davis: current position uncertain.
Chaka Fattah: current position uncertain.
Marcia Fudge: expected to vote yes.
Charles Gonzalez: current position uncertain.
Al Green: current position uncertain.
Phil Hare: current position uncertain.
Alcee Hastings: expected to vote yes.
Maurice Hinchey: current position uncertain.
Jesse Jackson: expected to vote yes.
Sheila Jackson-Lee: expected to vote yes.
Carolyn Maloney: current position uncertain.
Gwen Moore: current position uncertain.
Charles Rangel: current position uncertain.
Laura Richardson: current position uncertain.
Robert Scott: current position uncertain.
Disturbingly, not one of this second group of Members, who wrote in opposition to IMF funding without reform, has yet to say that they will back up that position with their vote. If you want to ask them about it, you can do so here. If you'd like to write a letter to your local newspaper against the War/IMF Supplemental, you can do that here.
52 Comments so far
Show AllI am so proud that Jim McGovern is my congressman.
Jane M
Princeton, Massachusetts
There will be no change because enough people will not see the writing on the wall, no matter how much worse things get. The current situation should already have been unacceptable to critical thinking people who were truly interesting in supporting progressive positions.
And by 'progressive positions' I mean those policies that are protecting basic human rights for all, which means protecting the weakest of us, the environment, and coming together to confront any injustice.
And while I don't want to diminish the efforts of those pitiful few who extend great energy and determination for the righteous cause, in the end it won't make a difference because not enough people are willing to commit themselves to the minor sacrifices that would be required to make a fundamental change. The critical mass will not be met. It is evidenced by the polarity on this supposedly progressive website.
If you are or were an Obama supporter, you enabled the corporate elite to continue their self serving destruction of society and the world. This is not meant to be disparaging, it is just a statement of fact that the current economic, political, social processes are leading to our and our planet's demise.
Not that the corporate elite are smart enough to realize that they will one day have to face the same destructive forces that they are directed towards other people, but maybe they feel some sense of accomplishments being the last beings on the planet.
Hope is the opiate of the masses. Words without action don't mean a thing.
"enough people will not see the writing on the wall..."
Correct. Why? Because mainstream media will not educate the people on where their interests lie, in addition to ending/limiting the political career of any politician who dares stand in the way of war, which continues to fill the coffers of media giants who invest in war stock contingent upon their ability to entice us into war.
"There is no more powerful weapon than media control". --Adolph Hitler
Robert, Thanks for posting Jane's video. One of my reps was on the list and I took action immediately. Let's not throw the towel in just yet folks. I would like nothing more than to be out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and on and on ad nauseum. Down with the military-industrial complex absolutely. We've worked our arses off but there is still much work to be done. Don't give up, PLS!
"Progressive Democrats We Can Believe In" !!?
Good lord.
The handwriting's been on the wall for decades: the Dems are "doing their part" to hand it all to the corporate state.
The "progressives" are just welcomed in there to keep alive the "flavor" of a "second" party -- and to help fill the coffers and get out the vote. They are ignored, when not spat or trodden upon.
Also, the "progressives" are just welcomed in there to keep real progressive energies from spilling over into debate, organization, action, and rebellion. Dems have spent more money and venom attacking Greens than they have attacking Republicans; not by accident. They can deal with the Repugs, but don't want any alternative way to open up to question ... anything!
Hope without action is worse than useless. It is dangerous. But the Dems spent millions over the past two years to have "hope" paper over the ugly realities that they simply WON'T address.
Sorry, I hate to rain on so many parades, but Dems have been enabling, involved with or directly responsible for:
• steady declilne in wages
• destruction of the unions' power
• doing nothing to shore up the Constitution's shredding
• looking the other way from stolen elections (look at the brouhaha over Iran -- what hypocrisy!)
• torture
• lack of women's rights (remember ERA?)
• lack of decent health care
• concentration of the media
• shipping our industries overseas (quietly, in the night, with not a murmur from Congress)
• NAFTA and the corporate globalization model
• and on ...
Which of these things have progressives in the Democratic Party been able to slow down or stop? By not building an alternative force, they have fooled millions of good-hearted people into biding their time, and lost us decades of building a resistance.
"Progressive Democrat" is an oxymoron.
Well said...!
I expect to see a few more "mcKinney's" leave the big blue tent after four years of Owebama...
Let's show them how it's done. Register Green and get active with a party that has a better plan than permanent war and corporate globalization. Just by registering Green, progressives can show that they won't be taken for granted by the Democrats. Or would you prefer another 100 years of politics as usual?
It's over. Prepare yourselves for the collapse. We lost.
Perestroika anyone?
Jim Shea
It would really be a nice change of the progressive democrats would show some political courage and tell their leadership that they will vote their principles and what their constituents want.
When Obama was running for the nomination and then the Presidency he was said to be the most liberal member of the Senate. However, since he's become President he's changed his stripes on virtually every important issue. He needs to be shown that he cannot do this and still retain the support of the progressives.
It is truly time for some acts of political courage.
HEALTHCARE, NOT WARFARE!
Hey PRESIDENT EMANUEL! We get it. When are you going to get it?
"If these Democrats want to be taken seriously by Treasury about IMF reform, they should vote no on the war supplemental with the IMF funding included. "
But they should vote yes if it was included?!?!
I love how these "progressive" Democrats are debating the best way to fund the wars and the IMF. How very "liberal" of them.
These politicians with the wisdom, vision and common sense to vote against business as usual in the IMF and war profiteering are the nucleus of a new political party. They could call it the Grand Egalitarian Transformation Party. The bought and paid for politicians are just trash that won't change their behavior regardless of their talk, talk, talk. Just declaring a new party would wreak havoc on caucus rules and Dino committee positions. It would put the fear of God in the Dinos if we let them know loud and clear that they are no different from the reptilians.
Hamsher is right!
Oh, and by the way, that "selling of gold" is another cheap and fraudulent maneuver to disguise the weakening of our currency. Geithner belongs in prison.
Jane Hamsher mentioned freshman representatives were given an ultimatum by upper management. Is there a list of the particular freshman who actually experienced this occur? Love a direct reference here....
A really good question. All I've seen are some blanket statements about "some" freshman Democrats being subjected to pressure, but we have too much of that kind of "information" that passes for news. If we had such a thing anymore as investigative reporters, they'd get off their derriers and do some investigation. That not being the case, "we" have to be citizen investigators; and I'd challenge any candidates, including myself, to check out more detailed stories on particular "freshmen" and report the result on this comments board before it dies; probably in about 12 hours.
Answering his own question, he said: I decided to take 10 minutes of my valuable time to go to this website to get the names of all freshman House Democrats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freshman_class_members_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress
Comparing these names with those furnished in the Naiman article (the 41 signers of the demand for IMF conditions) I found that exactly ONE of the 32 freshman Democrats (Paul Grayson of Florida) was one of the 41 signers; so if it's literally true that Pelosi and Obama were putting pressure on the freshman Democrats, seems like Grayson would have been the sole recipient of this "pressure." This startling ABSENCE of freshman signers suggests that, if there was intimidation, it started much earlier, before members made their decisions to sign on to the letter. What this probably reflects is how completely Rahm Emanuel, as the head honcho of the congressional campaign committee, was able to orchestrate the election of new Democrats who would be reliable pro-war votes. Since the self-same Emanuel is now Obama's Chief of Staff, do you not reckon that the "intimidation" began with their very election, which they owed to Obama's coat-tails and Emanuel's campaign fund distributions? Now THAT's intimidation!
You just peeled back another layer of the proverbial onion in my understanding of the backdoor deals and muscle used to bring the democrats into the fold... Thank you...
Have you published any of your research into the JFK assassination?
Is it in book form or on a website ?
I have done research into it, and I am still trying to get a handle on the power dynamics between the CIA, MIC, the cubans, Cosa Nostra, and the Kennedy brothers during that time period... Any insights?
It seems like another false flag psyops event to me, with contingency plans in case one or more failed to do the job...
Please elaborate... Thanks
Golden means: thanks for the kind words. I have only a couple minutes right now but wanted to get something on this thread before it "expires." The corpus of my research work on JFK is widely dispersed throughout the journals that I edited and posted between l984 and 2001 called The Third Decade and later The Fourth Decade. The Mary Ferrell Foundation had the contents of those posted on a website that can be retrieved (with a little effort googling my name and a JFK-related topic).
As to my "insight," it is focussed actually on a "vast right wing conspiracy" involving remnants of McCarthy anti-communism and hard-line segregationism. But beyond that, I did a lot of micro-studies of evidence fabrication of the sort that should have made a shambles of any prosecution of Oswald as the lone shooter (or any shooter). Beyond that, I don't want to abuse cyber-space with detail. Read Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics if you haven't and if you (or anybody who might be "listening in") like, feel free to contact me at jerrydrose11@yahoo.com. (that 11 is eleven). Jerry
Sioux Rose
GOLDEN: Jerry lives near me, so if you visit Florida this autumn, perhaps we all could meet and have a discussion over coffee that would reverberate across these conservative parts!
Progressive Democrats We Can Believe In
_____________________________________
This isn't even an oxymoron-- at best, it's a moxymoron.
PS: I missed the Klein piece also. But evidently I didn't miss much. FWIW, it occurs to me that I have the same proverbial bone to pick with Klein as I do with Jane Mayer. (I might even drag Amy Goodman into this, but it isn't really a gender thing.)
The bone is that they both provide superb reporting and analysis that breaks through the oily scum of pseudo-intellectual bloviating that serves as analysis in the corporate media, including most of PBS and NPR-- but they also express what I consider to be an undue sympathy or civility towards those in power.
I think this is partly the same inescapable conflict and tension seen in Chomsky and Zinn: they are naturally iconoclastic and contrarian, and their work effectively indicts The Establishment on all fronts. But they still are (or were) tenured professors who must remain civil and tolerant of their colleagues.
In short, none of the above want to be Ward Churchills. This isn't to say that they're no better than any other co-opted sell-out; they are much better. But they're still occasionally prone to turn away from the most subversive implications of their investigations in order to maintain conventional respectability.
· Yr Obd't Servant
YOS, a point well taken about the reluctance of academics to take positions not well liked in their career "establishments." As one whose research and writing specialty is (or used to be) the JFK assassination, I spent a lot of years of my academic career wondering at the paucity of academics interested in the subject, especially in the fields of history and political science; if a stray professor came into our camp, it seemed to be someone like the superb Peter Dale Scott, a professor of English and a poet for god's sake.
I'd like to offer one friendly amendment, if you will. It isn't only academics who are muted by the siren call of respectability among their peers. Well-known examples come from the worlds of journalism (think of the stable of Progressives for Obama at The Nation led by Katrina van den Heuvel) or of progressive "think tank" thinkers and writers such as Robert Naiman and Phyllis Bennis; the same overly-polite veneers are painted over their critical analyses of the administration of Obama the Great. I'd guess that we're dealing with something more generic than the timidity of those like Chomsky and Zinn who "don't want to be Ward Churchill." It's always lonely on the outside of peer group approval and I'm guessing that, without the "peer support for deviance" that you and I get from other "deviants" who inhabit the pages of CD commentary, we too would be looking for ways of coming in out of the cold and settling down to a comfortable tenure and retirement (which, ironically, are two comforts that I have enjoyed, albeit with the conditioned "academic freedom" policy granted for "the JFK assassination nut.")
Will you accept my friendly amendment?
I certainly accept your friendly amendment without hesitation or scruple!
Actually, I went off on a tangent about Chomsky and Zinn; I WAS thinking of journalists more than scholars in the first place. Naomi Klein is both. But I agree that it is a universal syndrome.
Contrariwise, I more and more admire journalists like Jeremy Scahill and Nir Rosen, who-- to dust off another of my prized Sixties phrases-- Tell It Like It Is without pulling their punches.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Isn't it at least possible that they're aware that the electorate is still conservative and are just being rational? Kucinich would leave the Dems if he thought they couldn't be reformed. Nader and McKinney could be in congress now-voting independently. The President is over-rated.
On the Republican side, there's Ron Paul.
Ron Paul would not be half bad if he had a sense of social and economic justice. I will give him partial credit for recognizing the evil of Empire.
Here's some interesting stuff about the psychology of right-wingers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_Authoritarianism
If anyone knows of similar stuff, please post.
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
Very good analysis of Authoritarian Followers.
No word from Congressman Glenn Nye or Senator Webb but Mark Warner is a big fan of the IMF and plans to "work with" the military leaders. I'm not so sure my state has progressive Democrats unless I live in Northern VA and even there it's mixed. Who cares what party a progressive is in? If he or she is a progressive regardless of party then help them out in your district.
The following is an all inclusive list of 'progressive' (whatever the hell that means) democrats you can believe in:
Didn't find your legislators listed above? People who 'believe' in their 'leaders' deserve what they get.
Mr. Naiman cites some great examples of how our legislative process works in practice. The only thing I would have liked to see, given he is senior policy analyst, is some more context and theoretical applications.
What do these examples tell us about how the legislative process works? If we see this in context of democratic theory, what conclusions can be drawn? Can these specifics be placed in an overall significant context? The article sort of leads us down a path and then stops short of the destination.
But perhaps that is not necessary here, as CD readers can put the pieces of the puzzle togtether for ourselves.
I tend to see things in a more abstract, theoretical and meta level. In my mind, this article underlines that we have some serious systemic/structural problems with the democratic process. The author implies indirectly that somehow this may not be the case and we can work with a corrupt system to produce a less than corrupt outcome.
. . . .you can piss on all of the progressive Democrats some of the time, and some of the progressive Democrats all of the time,
but you cannot piss on all of the progressive Democrats, all of the time.
What else have they been doing for the past four months? At least Bill Maher denounced Obysmal last night on Real Time . . . and got applause for it. Whatever little that's worth, it is nonetheless heartening.
The past four months? How about the last 30 years?
A few more months of this and we'll have to build an arc and float away on a sea of urine.
good one!
The Progressives will go down in defeat on this one.
"Reform" is nonsense. You cannot reform a jackal. People can't seem to see that tweaking a disastrous program is worse that getting rid of it or even keeping it as is so its flaws will be more obvious and it will more likely fail. We do not need the IMF. Malaysia refused their "help" in 1998 and apparently did much better that those countries that took it. Brazil borrowed money from Venezuela to pay off the IMF and World Bank. I just heard a news story that Brazilian currency is now the strongest in the world.
You have to get rid of the IMF. If Progressives are going to go down, that's what they ought to go down for, standing up for what's right.
"We do not need the IMF."
Sure sure, we don't need any of the elites' rackets.
"Malaysia refused their "help" in 1998 and apparently did much better that those countries that took it. Brazil borrowed money from Venezuela to pay off the IMF and World Bank. I just heard a news story that Brazilian currency is now the strongest in the world."
Sure sure, it's always better for the people to reject exchange/association with elites and their rackets, particularly US elites as they are the most frantic players of the "great games" right now.
Sioux Rose
I think the most troubling thing is that the machinations that created this bubble-bust are still being used! I'm talking about derivatives and betting on futures, and toxic debt bundles. Kind of reminds me of war. Ruin one country, no problem, learn nothing, go on to execute the same failed policy (yes, I know a few do make mega- bucks from this deadly scenario) on the next. Now that strategy seems to be what's driving the banks/Wall St. Break the economy, buoy it up with a lot of hot air, keep the machine rolling, keep adding the hot air, and hope the balloon doesn't burst. Of course when it does, it'll only be real people with tangible assets that feel the pain, not those who have played the world economy like a series of complex casino chips and feel NO pain... just the addictive quest for more gain. It is a SORRY bankrupt state of affairs, but the "experts" for the most part are in on the fix, and the public is told it's another calamity like 911, so decisions must be made in haste, or there will be terrible repurcussions. The ship of state is being navigated by dangeorus sharks.
In other words, the IMF funds and the selling of gold as here mentioned are tiny sums when compared with the true nature of the implosion caused by betting TRILLIONS. Until the "casino" is shut down or regulated, these sums are tantamount to watering a desert. When the music stops no one has a clue what a dollar will be worth, or how things of genuine value now tied to things that represent the absence of value (debt) can be tabulated. The hoax is so enormous few minds can wrap around it. Its depravity is beyond what a civilized mind/imagination can take in!
Well, as John Murtha, a big supporter of the supplemental, said: "Nancy is working with it." Not only has Pelosi maneuvered by parliamentary tricks to exclude the IMF conditions from the bill; she has as well promised freshmen among these 41 Democrats who signed on to the IMF-conditions letter to expect "not to hear from us again" if they voted against the supplemental. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/140610/white_house_browbeats_dem_freshmen_on_war_money%3A_'you'll_never_hear_from_us_again'/
Another analysis said Pelosi needed to "peel away" 15 of the 41 to avoid a majority against the supplemental in that unlikely coalition of Republicans, blue dog Democrats and progressive Democrats. From Naiman's listing of the likely votes of the 41, it appears that only 5 (at most) of those 22 who voted no on the last supplemental would vote yes on this one; whereas possibly none of the 18 of those who voted yes on the last supplemental would buck the President and Speaker and vote no on this one. In order words, Nancy has a fertile peeling field in those who made a verbal protest about IMF but are unlikely to back their words with their actions on the supplemental. (Which has been the default position of nearly every supposedly anti-war member of Congress.) Another way of saying this is a further paraphrase on Naiman's paraphrase on Lincoln's statement about fooling the people. The President and the Speaker don't need to piss on all progressives all the time, only those relatively few of them they need to cement the centrist agenda of the P and S. And with all that federal stimulus money yet to be allocated and each of these members of Congress with a constituency who want their share of pork pie, it's easy to see that they have all the urine they will need to have the desired effect.
Well said.
Pelosi, Obama, and the rest of the Democratic leadership are threatening the progressives in Congress, to force them to break their campaign promises to their constituents. They are supposed to betray their constituents, and for what? For more billions more of our tax dollars wasted on war and the sinister IMF.
But no pressure from Obama or Pelosi or the rest of their crew on the bought-off congresspeople to betray their owners, the insurance companies, and give us single payer health care, which would actually save lives and money.
True. Sadly, the Corp elite own both parties heart and soul. The Dems. or at least most of them only listen to the wealthy just as the Rethugs do. The only diff. is on social issues. If we don't see real reform on the banks and health care we'll know the die is cast and Change we can believe in was nothing more then a clever marketing line. So far Emperor Obama has done nothing for the rest of us except throw a few crumbs off the table. he's given the banksters trillions to play with and he's getting ready IMHO to give the Health vampires just what they want as well. ( A mandate to enroll everyone by law or else. ). NO public option will see the light of day and even if one does it will be constricted in such a fashion to be nothing more then charade.
You can piss on all of the progressive Democrats some of the time, and some of the progressive Democrats all of the time, but you cannot piss on all of the progressive Democrats, all of the time.
-Wrong!
Democrats can piss on progressive Democrats all they want and not pay a price. No matter what they do, the liberals, like the Nation, will offer criticism now, but come the next election they will be screaming: "The sky is falling! The Republicans are coming! The Democrats will save us! Vote for the Democrats!"
Exactly right.
We will never have change in America as long as the one party system keeps the debates to themselves. We can vote for any candidate we want, but it would be nice to have had Ralph and Cynthia, and any other, who had ballot access to be in the national debates, not just the one party candidates.
hey has everyone noticed how fast they pulled naomi klein's piece today
guess we weren't supportive enough
what a joke
Yup. I had tried to post a reply to your comment but before I could the piece got pulled. Here it is:
ma g: "...where is the leader who is going to throw out the corporate trade agreements...where is the leader who is going to make the corporations pay their fair share of taxes"
The US can be likened to a train that is painted green for money. The destination is Profitville, Corp USA. The corporate conductors alternate between wearing red suits and blue suits, but no matter which color the conductors wear the destination is the same. The tracks have been laid down by corporations and moneyed interests. The train is called Capitalism and has shiny wheels.
The problem is not the leader, the problem is the system that gives rise to the leader. Very few posters and writers on this site and other progressive sites are willing to tear up the tracks, therefore the train will continue to arrive on time, driven by the alternating red or blue-suited conductors.
Until the mass of Democratic and Republican Party supporters realize that, we will continue to be stuck a shiny green train headed on a one way trip to Profitville, Corp while our pockets get picked along the way. By the time we get to Profitville we will be penniless and stripped of all our rights.
What is needed is a decisive break with the party of Big Business and its two wings and the fashioning of a new system that is based on meeting the needs of the people, not profits for the few and one that is sustainable and doesn't destroy other forms of life.
Exactly -- we need to rip up those f***ing tracks! But Americans expect to solve all their problems by voting for red or blue conductors. Pathetic. Bailing off the train doesn't slow it down much, either. It's those damn tracks.
Yeah, I noticed. The piece stunk. It should have been titled, "Naomi pretends you can criticize capitalism, & say flattering things about Obama, both at the same time." (This is good enough for The Nation crowd, who don't notice such contradictions, but get excited by the left-sounding language.)
I was busy preparing an attack on it, only to find out they'd pulled it.
Naomi tried to blame all the bad stuff on Rahm, while letting Obama completely off the hook. This is the approach used by all the dimwits who bitterly criticize Geithner & Summers, yet remain supportive of Obama.
I was not quick enough to even see the Klein article. It seems the liberal and progressive elite (many of whom are quite wealthy) tend to want us to blame certain individuals yet still believe in the overall system. The system is corrupt and it is no surprise that it produces corrupt results. If we focus our attention on and blame a few bad apples that takes attention away from how rotten the entire political culture, institutions, and structure really are.
I think the original post was over at ALTERNET and Klein yanked it from there, or alternet obliged her. I don't know if CD is playing sport, and pulling the thread via a direct request by Klein. I just don't know.
original linky link:
http://www.alternet.org/politics/140611/naomi_klein%3A_the_financial_crisis_presents_a_huge_opportunit...
As you can see, unlike Commondreams.org, Alternet specifically states the article was pulled at request of Klein. CD's post states something wrong with the URL --yeah, okay?
anyway, you can still find a copy over at PDA.... source link here:
http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2009-06-13-11-31-05-news.php
Grab it before it sinks off into the land of the lost....
Alternet sux.
Alternet sux.
Was it put in the memory hole? If so, just fahgetaboutit.