Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNancy Pelosi: A Hawk in Donkey's Clothing
This has led to great consternation here in her home district in San Francisco, where anti-war sentiment remains stronger than ever. The timing of the measure is particularly upsetting given that California's record budget deficit has resulting in the layoffs of tens of thousands of teachers, the incipient closure of almost all of our state parks and draconian cuts in health care, housing, public transportation,the environment, social services and other critical programs. While unwilling or unable to get Congress to provide some financial support for the crisis here at home, our most powerful member of Congress was quite willing to work hard to insure continued financial support for war.
What few people outside of San Francisco realize is that despite representing one of the most liberal congressional districts in the country, Pelosi has been a strong supporter of the Iraq war for most of past seven years.
In 2002, public opinion polls showed that the only reason most Americans would support a U.S. invasion of Iraq was if they were convinced that Iraq was somehow a threat to the United States, such as possessing "weapons of mass destruction." Unfortunately for those supporting a U.S. takeover of that oil-rich country, independent strategic analysts were arguing that the evidence strongly suggested that Iraq had rid itself of its chemical and biological weapons some years earlier.
In an apparent effort to discredit those of us who -- correctly, as it turned out -- were insisting that Iraq had in all likelihood already disarmed, Pelosi categorically declared on NBC's Meet the Press in December 2002 that "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
By giving bipartisan credence to the Bush administration's unprincipled use of such scare tactics to gain support for the U.S. takeover of that oil-rich country, she negated a potential advantage the Democrats would have otherwise had in the 2004 campaign. After it became apparent that administration claims about Iraq's alleged military threat were false, the Democrats were unable to attack the Republicans for misleading the American public since their congressional leadership had also falsely claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
During the first twelve weeks of 2003, there were a series of large demonstrations against the war here in Pelosi's district, including one on Feb. 16 that brought out a half-million people. While Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee -- congresswomen from a neighboring districts -- spoke at the rally, Pelosi was notably absent.
On the day the war began the following month, San Francisco's downtown business district was shut down by thousands of anti-war protesters in a spontaneous act of massive civil disobedience. In response, Pelosi denounced the protesters and rushed to the defense of President George W. Bush, voting in favor of a resolution declaring the House of Representatives' "unequivocal support and appreciation to the president ... for his firm leadership and decisive action." She personally pressed a number of skeptical Democratic lawmakers to support the resolution as well.
Pelosi also sought to discredit those who argued that Iraq was not a threat to the United States and that United Nations inspectors -- which had returned to Iraq a couple of months earlier and were engaged in unfettered inspections -- should have been allowed to complete their mission to confirm that Iraq had disarmed as required. She joined her Republican colleagues going on record claiming that "reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone" could not "adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."
As a counter to those who argued that the war was a diversion of critical personnel, money, intelligence and other resources from the important battle against al-Qaida terrorists, Pelosi tried to link the secular regime of Saddam Hussein with that Islamist terrorist network by declaring that the Iraq invasion was "part of the ongoing global war on terrorism."
Furthermore, despite a CIA report that al-Qaida terrorist Abu Musab al-Zaqarwi had not received sanctuary or any other support from the former Iraqi regime, Pelosi went on record claiming that, under Saddam "the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies."
In the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, Pelosi helped lead an effort to undermine the anti-war candidacy of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, insisting that Americans must "raise our voices against all forms of terrorism" and that "this is not the time to be sending mixed messages."
Instead, she endorsed the hawkish Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., who co-sponsored the House resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his choosing. When Gephardt dropped out of the race, Pelosi threw her support to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who was also among the minority of Democrats on Capitol Hill who had voted to authorize Bush's war.
Pelosi's assertions that the Iraq war was part of the "war on terror" proved costly to the Democrats in the 2004 election, which the Democrats had been expected to win, as exit polls showed that 80 percent of those who did believe that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terrorism voted to re-elect Bush and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.
In response to the consensus of disarmament experts that the U.S. invasion of Iraq hurt the cause of nuclear nonproliferation, Pelosi voted in favor of a Republican-sponsored amendment that claimed that the elimination of Libya's nuclear program in late 2003 "would not have been possible if not for ... the liberation of Iraq by United States and coalition forces." Her support for this Republican-sponsored measure came despite testimony by U.S. negotiators who took part in British-initiated talks with the Muammar Qaddafi regime that the outline of the deal had come prior to the invasion and that the war played no role whatsoever in the agreement.
As the armed resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq grew in the wake of the invasion, Pelosi dismissed the growing consensus that it was part of a popular nationalist reaction to foreign occupation and instead went on record insisting that it is simply the work of "former regime elements, foreign and Iraqi terrorists and other criminals."
As far back as 2004, the voters of San Francisco, in a citywide referendum, voted by a nearly 2-to-1 margin calling on the United States government to withdraw all troops from Iraq. Pelosi, however, insisted on ignoring her constituents and continued to support Bush's policies.
By 2005, as Bay Area Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Pete Stark and Sam Farr joined Democratic colleagues from across the country in signing a letter to Bush calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, Pelosi was notably absent from the list of signatories.
By this point, even prominent Republicans like James Baker and Gen. Brent Scowcroft were calling for the withdrawal of American forces, yet Pelosi held firm in her support of the war. Back in 1990, Pelosi had been an outspoken liberal critic of the George H.W. Bush administration's militaristic policy toward Iraq. Fifteen years later, however, she was taking a position to the right of his secretary of state and national security adviser.
Defenders of Pelosi pointed out that, as assistant minority leader in October 2002, she was the only member of the Democratic leadership in either house of Congress to vote against authorizing the invasion. Furthermore, they noted how she subsequently raised some concerns regarding how the Bush administration had handled the occupation, such as not adequately preparing for the aftermath of the invasion, failing to utilize enough troops, not providing adequate training or body armor for U.S. forces and for backing such dubious exile figures as Ahmad Chalabi.
However, Pelosi refused to acknowledge that the United States should have never invaded Iraq in the first place, which had been acknowledged by religious leaders from around the globe. Nor did she ever acknowledge that the invasion was a direct violation of the United Nations Charter, which the United States -- as a party to such binding international treaties -- is legally required to uphold.
Historically, opposition leaders in Congress have helped expose the lies and counterproductive policies of the incumbent administration. Pelosi, however, to her party's detriment, decided instead to defend them.
By the end of 2005, as protesters met her at virtually every public event in her district and even conservative colleagues in the House Democratic leadership, such as Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, began calling for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, Pelosi finally spoke out in favor of an end to the war.
She continued to support unconditional funding for the war effort, however, for the next two fiscal years. It was only on the vote for last year's fiscal budget, as anti-war sentiment in her district was reaching a fever pitch and fears of a serious challenge to her seat in the Democratic primary and/or from the Green Party nominee in November, did she finally vote against war funding.
Now, however, as public attention on the Iraq war has faded, she has reverted to her previous pro-war position. Along with her support for Israel's wars on the Gaza Strip and on Lebanon, her backing of the Iraq war is demonstrative of her willingness to ally herself with the former Bush administration in pushing policies based on the premise that instability and extremism can be best addressed through brute military force regardless of international legal norms or high civilian casualties.
Despite all this, much of the mainstream media and leading political pundits identify Pelosi as a prominent liberal. It is but one example of how far to the right political discourse in American has gone.
86 Comments so far
Show AllSierra7: Thanks for your fantastic comment! I will not be voting for a corporate candidate again. Thanks to these discussions, I will finally vote my conscience, without worrying about a right wing Republican getting elected instead of a supposedly liberal Democrat. It's the same difference: Duopoly! Alternative candidates here I come! It's clear that excluding Ralph Nader, or any potential candidate, from Presidential debates is our own Fascism.
"This has led to great consternation here in her home district in San Francisco, where anti-war sentiment remains stronger than ever."
Great consternation my behind. Those San Franciscans passed up a chance to elect Cindy Sheehan. They re-elected Pelosi to protect their real estate investments. The more powerful the empire, the greater their mammonary fortunes. The class divide remains agape as ever, thanks to Pelosi's constituents and their peers. Who is this Zunes character?
thanks for the post socialist. beat me to it. also most animals
with the exception of cats do not kill for the pleasure of it.
people are monsters the present house session being the same.
its so ironic or should we say moronic that california
with the reputation as a liberal state has brought us
ronnie rayguns nancy. jane harman and a laundry list of defense
contractors and other right wing lunatics. whats in the water?
btw isn't pelosi's husband a defense CON-tractor(not a typo)?
Pelosi's hard work and service with the Knesset are sadly disrespected on this thread.
sierra7
America will "vote" itself into oblivion....whether from internal stress or external pressures.
Our system desperately needs a "firewall" between business and society.
There is no one out there including in these comments that cam convince me that the institutions that exist today that are supposed to promote "democracy" in America really work.
But, that being said, democracy can only function with an informed public.
There's the rub.
Until individuals get their heads out of where the sun doesn't shine and actively get involved in their communities, states, regions and nationally we will have no chance whatsoever to remedy the disastrous path we are on (and have been for decades).
If there is too much "resistance" to contemporary control, as one commenter said...(para) ".....like in Iran those in power will prove to be just as violent" to control the protesters.
Have we not forgotten the anti-Vietnam War protests? And the incredible violence perpetrated on so many??
Nancy Pelosi, whom I totally despise as a pol, and even as an individual with no scruples, has tons of political power after so many years in the government.....Any newly elected individual like Cindy Sheehan would enter Congress with no power whatsoever....not committee chairmanships, no ability to organize caucuses, etc...no ability as some commenters have stated....."....inability to deliver the pork."
That goes for any other long time incumbent.....That's part of the problem...we need a more "parliamentary" system.......
So many powerful people are against that kind of a system but it does give "the people" a better chance.....Tho, looking at the years of Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain could give us pause.
It has been fairly easy for the leading pols to push the American people in into bashing others in the world because most of the people don't give a tinker's damn about anyone else. America has not suffered any wartime damage and then only in a minor fashion, the early 19th Century.
We escaped any national physical damage during WW2, slaughtered millions of Koreans in a "police action", repeated the slaughter of millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians; "created" external threats which again cost others dearly....all with hardly no protestation (real protests) by the individuals here.
We are now faced with a deteriorating economic situation brought on by the very individuals working in the Obama administration....So, tell me, "What have we learned?"
Nothing.
Until the American people are aware of what we put others thru we will not care one iota; at least not enough to really protest enough to bring the elites out into the streets.
I am 78 years old, did almost 5 years in the military.....am totally anit-war...because I learned so early on that war is mostly about money and mostly the poor are used to fight those "capitalist" wars.....(Not forgetting historical massacres by religous and ideological factions).
I am a registered non-partisan voter....and despise both major parties..
I have written hundreds of letters to editors of local papers against the illegal invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan); tried to educate my neighbors (and readers) of all the lies of almost all the politicians over the years but, you know what? They still keep voting and "hoping."
There is no more hope.
Period.
There are things you can do...for example...opt out now of the "maniacal consumer" society. Get in "survivor" mode as far as your immediate lives are concerned. Hit Wall St. in the pocketbook...And, yes jobs will be lost....but, let's face it, until all the excess crap is economically "burned up" we will continue to sink into economic oblivion......and it's going to take years......
I remember the Great Depression and the lives my parents did...and how we as children had to work piece work at night to survive....I remember...
And now the lying business people, their whores in the government are trying to build another bubble to rescue their own A$%^....and most of the public believes them
All governments are corrupt in some degree or other...This is my government and it is totally corrupt.
I "travel" lots through the internet and read lots of comments and I urge all to continue to write......until the day that you realize that it is time to "take to the streets" to protest the capitalist/fascist government we are under.
There are only very minor difference between the two major parties; if you really want change you have to bring it on as citizens...not wait passively for "someone else" to do the work. Every citizen is effected, some more or less. Power floes upwardly, not downward to the needy...Historically the "needy" always had to revolt and take what seemingly theirs to bring more balance to society...it happens all the time.....
Until the military/industrial/media/corporate/pharma complex is overthrown we will hear the word...."reform" bantered about in the pols mouths, in the media, etc...and when I hear or read that work, I know the whores in Washington are trying to bull$%^ us again....That word should immediately make your antennas go up!!
Enough.
The Democratic party in Kent, Conn, has told Dodd they are
no longer with him as he has taken in 13 million dollars from
Banks and the Financial industries in the past..
The rest of Ct should follow the lead from Kent, Ct.
What Town Committee in Ct can compete with those millions of
dollars? Who owns your senator should be the next battle cry!
I think Pelosi will be out once the party loses the House by 2010 or at least gets marginalized.
Having read all the comments and given thought to what people have to say I have come to the conclusion that until we as Americans reach the decision to stop voting against our own interests the two Parties in this Country will continue to ignore us. A third or even a fourth Party might break the loggerjam in the Political process of this country. Another thought along these same lines is the question, How can the process change when we have candidates who themselves are wealthy? The wealthy in this country are not going to vote against their own interests I can assure you.
We are in a very real way just like the common folk in Iran, their government ignored their concerns over the election fraud that was heaped upon them. We, in this country haved voiced our concerns regarding the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our government has ignored us. If we would attempt to take to the streets and protest the government decision on a scale that the Iranian people have done, do you not think the government would not descend upon those in the streets with violence? We have historical records that our government have "put down" protests violently to save the status quo, namely the wealthy and powerful.
I like to comment on articules and I like to read the thoughts of my fellow Americans, one thread that is taking shape I believe in the comments not just here on Common Dreams, but in the Washington Post, Huffington Post, Politico, LA Times, is that the people are growing more and mores frustrated with the tenor of how our Government is working for them, and how the two Parties have ignored the majority of Americans regards the War, Healthcare, the lack of interest of our government in going after those who caused the economic crisis in this country and the members of the Bush administration that broke US laws in allowing the Torture of prisoners.
The American people are in their minds gearing up to confront our government, but the time is not right simply because of two things, no REAL opposition leader to unite us
in the battle that is not tied to the present power structures of this country and the second is the fact that for all the "sins" of the government that are occuring, we are still not "touched" by those governmental sins or abuse.
Tommytoons, I also recognize the trend you speak of, however I do not believe that it is necessarily the government that we need to 'confront'. From my perspective, the real problem is the power that corporations have over our political system AND the media. The top media companies (Time Warner, Disney, Bartelsmann, Viacom, News Corp., Universal, et.al) are so dependant upon advertising dollars and their corporate structures are so intertwined with the military/industrial complex that we can never expect our "elected" representatives to listen to the people. There has been built a house of cards that will eventually fall. Our government is running on borrowed money and the big investors are not domestic. It's great to think that we have the biggest and baddest military ever assembled, but if we can not afford to feed them or build new equipment for them, they will not stand for long. As for "Nancy", she is one of the finest examples I can think of that represents "Republocrats". We have not had two parties for many years, but again, the sheeple have never been educated. ALL third party candidates will be tagged as "fringe" elements or minimalized by corporate powers. The people MUST first understand the interaction between corporations and the government (IMHO). Then we need to demand laws to limit corporate power.... the rest will be easy.
Two words: Cindy Sheehan
I also find it amazing that Zunes, a Bay Area personality, did not mention Cindy.
I also find it amazing, especially listening to all who have posted here, that we are not all in the streets, a la our brothers and sisters in Iran.
Everyone talks about the hypocrisy without naming it. The hypocrisy is our guv consisting of bought-and-paid-for politicians are supporting the Iran protests as part of democracy.
Our guv has NOT repealed the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and pres. Sec memo #51 which all combine to eliminate our rights to demonstrate in the same manner and make it criminal to do so.
Just a thought.
Cindy Sheehan represented the demographics of SF more than Pelosi did yet she lost her bid to unseat Rambo-Pelosi. That ought to tell you all you need to know about the power of money on politics and why it ought to be rendered illegitimate.
This has led to great consternation here in her home district in San Francisco, where anti-war sentiment remains stronger than ever.
If that's the case, then why didn't the citizens of the City vote her out last November and elect Cindy Sheehan? Because her position as Speaker, with its ability to funnel a lot of cash to her district, was more important.
Have the people of Pelosi's district have no shame in continuing to elect her? Do they really believe that having her as their representative that she will bring in sufficient pork to assuage their consciences? Poor showing, folk.
Last fall, before the elections, I attended a birthday party of a friend in the Bay Area. There were a number of people there from SF, seemingly liberal minded. The primary topic was the election and the fear of a McCain victory. I and one other person were the only Nader supporters there. I brought up Cindy Sheehan and Pelosi. One person fired back "what's wrong with Pelosi?". To my complete dismay some of these entrenched "liberals" had not even known that Sheehan was running! Others looked at me in silence. That was the end of that.
The population of the US is asleep at the wheel, too much comfort, too much complacency, too much non-action and wishful thinking.
But that will end soon, circumstances will shake things up whether we like it or not.
Most of the sheeples in the U.S. belong to the Slumber Party.
Unless this is copyrighted I'm stealing it.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Oregoncharles
Right on! I love it!
The Oligarchy hated Roosevelt for interfering with the Robber Barons and limiting some of their power and profits. They hated him even more for introducing some social services and a safety net for the American Citizen. They consider such services as simply wasting money that should go into their pockets.
They have tried since the late thirties to get rid of these services with no luck. You can't vote them out, it is political suicide. They have finally found the way.
Give the wealth of the US Treasury to the rich, support continued, expanded wars around the world, putting untold billions into the military. Then, one of these days, the government is going to turn out empty pockets and say, "Sorry folks, we're broke, there is no more Social Security, Medicare, Aid to Education or anything else. If you need help, go beg from a billionaire."
And that will be that.
Oregoncharles
I believe you're right. Once that happens, the only option is revolt.
Before we get to that point, can we, you and I, get off our butts and go to work? Just a couple of hours a week would be sufficient if we all pitched in.
Several people in my hometown are writing letters to the editor of our local paper saying they dropped their registration in the Democratic Party, that the party no longer represents them. They forwarded these letters to their representatives in Congress. All Oregon reps voted for this vile supplemental. We can do better than this but without our efforts, nothing will change.
The Green Party is actively searching for honest, hard working progressives with name recognition who have shown that they can, and will, walk the walk. The Greens have ballot lines in most states, they are up and running as a party. All they need is the collective force of active members. The Green Party philosophy is one that all of us can be proud of and get behind. All we need is you!
I think we will have to face the fact that "the American public" overwhelmingly supports what is going on with Congress and Obama. Specifically with regard to war, one has to see that the citizens support the current situation - - there can be no other explanation. Sure, ask someone over the telephone if they are against war, they will tell you that they oppose war - - except of course "good wars". Americans want to be seen as nice, peaceful people when in fact they are not.
There is another issue coming from the Liberal/Progressive side and that is one should vote for alternative candidates - - this is irrational, sentimental and false thinking. One should not vote. If you vote you accept and support the system - - you declare it's legitimacy. In statistical fact your vote is meaningless (one in a million, 10 million, one in 10,000 for local candidates) but you vote because you love America, you want to be part of this great country, you support it even though it is rotten through and through, top to bottom. And then one hears: "If you don't vote, you have no right to criticize" - - this is completely wrong - - it is precisely those who vote who have no right to criticize the political system which they support, nurture, approve - - they are the political system. Don't vote, don't feed the beast. Throw your vote away, throw your patriotism and nationalism away. Politics is irredeemable.
You're right, ekzile, and I applaud your decision to stop voting. In fact, I hope you've already stopped.
For the rest of you that are organizing and voting third party, keep up the good work. Thanks, and continue to continue.
Seeing as we really only have the one party of Big Business @ War Inc. with its two factions, the Democrats and Republicans, perhaps those disillusioned with the status quo should either not vote in protest which accomplishes nothing, or start voting second party.
Whoosh - your joke went over my head when I posted.
LOL
Yes, if you vote in protest, it means nothing.
I don't vote in protest. I vote for the people that I want elected.
It's called the spirit of democracy.
Vote third party. (Except for Libertarians - that's actually a religion.)
-- Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who was also among the MINORITY of Democrats on Capitol Hill who had voted to authorize Bush's war. --
That minority totaled 111 Dems. One hell of a minority, don't you think? In fact, a majority of Senate Dems voted for war.
Another facet of the author's attempt to pin the tail on only one donkey.
In addition to the great comments, notice the animal metaphors that are often used regarding politicians who vote for wars etc. "hawks"?
These people are not "hawks" a hawk actually kills what it needs to survive. Pelosi and her ilk are Leeches, Vultures, Vampires and Parasites. They don't do the killing, they just profit from it; they suck the blood of innocents. A hawk is a beautiful animal that does not deserve to be equated with the foulest, ugliest most despicable human beings on the planet.
The War Vultures
You remind me of a time when we were driving along a country road last summer and happened to scare up some vultures feeding on roadkill. For a moment the bird kept up with the speed of our vehicle and Oh My God Did It Smell. Still, they only eat the dead, perhaps they wallow in it a bit, but they do not cause death. Even leeches don't suck ALL the blood of their hosts, though I have heard of animals dying from massive flea infestations. It takes a hell of a lot of them to do that (kinda like congress).
But for the distinction of dealing death without need there's only one animal name that fits: human.
An ass in donkey's clothing. During the last 2 years of Bush II, she was great at rubber stamping.
"This has led to great consternation here in her home district in San Francisco, where anti-war sentiment remains stronger than ever."
Oh please ! I've heard this again and again and yet Pelosi gets reelected by blindies and arrogant rich snobs. SF is nothing more than a sick joke. Either SF vote her out or accept what they deserve.
"What few people outside of San Francisco realize is that despite representing one of the most liberal congressional districts in the country, Pelosi has been a strong supporter of the Iraq war for most of past seven years."
Don't you dare talk about people outside of San Francisco ! When the voters in SF vote Pelosi over Sheehan 7 to 3, you have no business lecturing others how to vote. SF is filled with fake "liberals". If SF is really "liberal", then why is it too expensive to live in?
Will the author please explain why he failed to even mention Cindy Sheehan ? Sometimes, when I read trash from party apologists, my blood boils. Ignoring true progressives has got to stop !
Stephen, what a revealing article about 'the speaker'/
However your headline should be corrected, as it's really only the back-end of the "Donkey's Clothing" that she wears as an appropriate disguise.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
"By contrast, a Barack Obama administration would be more prone to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America's allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country's international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort." - Stephen Zunes Feb. 4, 2008
-Zunes does a good job of attempting to lay the entire blame for supporting the war on the despicable Pelosi. This is thoroughly dishonest because he never mentions all the other Democrats, including Obama, that more than willing voted to fund the wars, let alone the fact that it's Obama who is asking for the money.
Prof. Zunes does a good spin job making it seem that it's Nancy Pelosi and not Obama sitting in the White House ramming the wars down our throats.
Ric, I don't know about your criticism of our highly principled and fearless-leader Obama regarding supporting these (mulitple) wars.
If you look carefully, Ric, at CD's picture of Obama signing the war funding bill you can clearly see that he is not really smiling, and as a fervent Obama supporter, I swear that I can almost see a highly resistant grimace of pain on our brave leader's face.
I don't know about you, Ric, but that certainly is all the evidence I need to conclude that Obama has quite probably been water-boarded or otherwise tortured to get him to sign this bill.
I maintain every confidence that Obama is under incredible duress and pain, which many people simply do not have the understanding to appreciate, and that he is still trying like hell to 'fight for us' and "change" the system --- and we all need to just support hm and "hope" that his heartfelt commitment to "change" wil be able to escape the clutches of these evil forces that have temporarily delayed his righteous course.
Ric, I swear, if we can all just hold-on to our "hope" and support the O-man with all our hearts, that he will soon break loose from the evil forces that hold him down and keep him from grasping that orgiastic future --- "and then one fine morning he will run faster, stretch out his arms further. So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past" waiting not for Godot, but for our Obama.
And, Ric, BTW, if you are interested in a bridge, I can get you a great deal on a big one in NYC.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Very funny!
Pelosi was there at the same time Obama was a junior senator, and they BOTH approved every single war crime worthy act that Bush shoved in front of their noses, often giving speeches and making comments to the MSM that they supported these acts because they 'protected America (TM)'.
And as I recall, didn't Obama promise to close Gitmo the day he took office?
And who is giving the orders to kill innocent civilians attending weddings in Pakistan, using Global Hawk RPV combat drones firing Hellfire antitank missiles?
The new boss... same as the old boss.
Walk in peace.
Exactly.
-And the job of the good professor and The Nation liberals and their ilk to obfuscate the fact the Democrats are as worthless as the Republicans in representing the will of the people which is overwhelmingly for single payer healthcare and against war, and portray it as if it's only a few rotten apples like Pelosi that are the problem, and not virtually the entire barrel, minus Kucinich and perhaps a few others.
Here here!
Actually, upon second thought, the job of The Nation liberals is more nuanced. Their job is to politely criticize Democrats individually or collectively between elections but then line up firmly behind them with if nothing else, lesserevilistic arguments, as we approach the next election. This allows them to burnish their liberal credentials.
Yep - keep the illusion of choice but make sure no real choice is there.
Like the NY Times - they are so liberal by endorsing Bill Clinton for President, then calling for his impeachment. But did they call for the impeachment of their friend, Bush. No way - they covered for him.
Hear Hear! Ric
The entire system is corrupt; not a few bad apples.
A 'smart' bomb cost's the same as a child's college education. How do we spell T R E A S O N ?
So why do the people of San Francisco keep re-electing this %*@%#*& (explicative deleted)?
Really, I don't get it.
The San Francisco residents commenting here know best, so I defer to their opinion.
But I think I'm correct to note that despite SF's reputation as a hotbed of countercultural radical extremist culture and politics, earned during the last century, in reality there is a solid base of old and new rich, California conservatives, and reactionaries residing there.
And, even more appallingly, there are old-school "limousine liberals" who actually were unwilling to lose the honor of supporting the First Woman Speaker of the House! How's THAT for another example of identity politics morphing into toxicity?
· Yr Obd't Servant
Yr Obd't Servant:
I'm a native Iowan who happens to live in San Francisco and moved here because of my husband's job. All of your points are spot on.
After living here for five years, I've come to the conclusion that many San Franciscans are liberal about everything except their money. San Francisco has loads of new and old money types -- the very limousine liberals you mentioned. People like having Nancy in power because of the perception that she will bring money into the district. When it comes down to it, a great deal of "liberals" here don't give a damn about having a congressional rep who will do anything about the war in Iraq.
Having moved here from Toronto -- a city which puts its money where its mouth is when it comes to things like fighting crime and supporting public schools, I find the so-called "liberalism" here in San Francisco to be full of whistles and bells.
Toronto is in Canada, SF in the US, big difference.
While I can see some validity to your points, we cannot ignore the fact that our so-called democracy is a sham. If SF is so bad, most of the rest of the country is neo-Fascist by comparison. SF is only one small example of the rampant corruption in our democratic process. Blaming the victims of a corrupt system is only half of the picture. We have to see the forrest for the trees.
Ask any Euorpean tourist what city in America is their favorite. When I lived in Europe and told everyone I was from SF, they treated me very well and expressed how they loved the city. It is indeed one of the most beautiful cities in the country, like it or not.
Yes, San Francisco is visually appealing, and many middle class European tourists enjoy coming here on holiday. It's a great place to visit, but not a great place to live if you're poor or have a family.
Where San Francisco has a lot to answer for is the state of its public schools. If you live here, you know how horrible the public school system is. There are many less wealthy and less glamourous cities here in the U.S. that have much better public schools and lower crime rates than San Francisco does.
We are the only major U.S. city whose African-American population is shrinking. How city planners have treated African-Americans in the Fillmore and Bayview districts has been extremely disappointing, to say the list.
There are things I love about San Francisco -- the emphasis on LBGT rights is amazing. I love the mandatory composting law. But let's be honest here -- we here in the People's Republic have a lot to learn from other cities and states. We need their wisdom.
The only major city where African American population declining? I thought New Orleans was on top on that one. Gentrification is not limited to SF, by the way. What happens in CA and SF is indicative to what is happening in our country; Prop 13 has a lot to do with what you describe as well. Singling out one city is not helpful in raising awareness of the systemic and structural corruption from the Federal level on down.
California has one of worst public schools systems in the country, it is not just SF. If you think the SF schools are bad, go across the bridge to Oakland and see how bad it is there. I think you need to get out more. Have you been to the LA area, you think SF is bad, I recommend you spend some time down there.
I suggest you move across the bridge to Berkeley, seriously.
Hi farmgirl,
I've noticed similar patterns in St Louis City myself. I always suspected that SF was nowhere as "liberal" as the media claimed it to be but thank you for confirming. Yes, I agree that Iowa is a lot better than SF. My brother and his wife plan to move to IA next year. I think rural IA is a little more lively than rural MO where I used to live in before I moved to St Louis.
San Franciscan's keep Pelosi in Congress because they are just as dopey as the rest of the country. How do you think a corporate warmonger like Obama got elected? He did it with the votes of people who don't look to closely.
Thank you Caleb. I'm glad that you too can see through the two party baloney. If only people would vote on the issues with their hearts and minds and stop putting party affiliation, "personality" celebrity, faux "electibility", etc ... first. It's going to be tough to get people to think like you and I but I think I might be able to find some way or other to get voters out of the shortcut thinking mentality or at least someone out there might. I'm glad to read through lots of books and articles and get further interested in possible thinking cures.
You said it all. I can't add anything except to say I am sick of nancy pelosi and have been for quite awhile (I can't even look at her), sick of all the politicians in washington, including that oily, slick salesman obama - who said anything to get elected. HE IS A FRAUD!! I can't look at him either. He is more dangerous than bush in that he has bamboozled the people of this country into thinking he is "for them." HE IS NOT!! When are people going to wake up?
They (the politicians) don't represent the people of this country with the exception of a few. They have their own agenda and they care about one thing only - their careers and getting re-elected to their cushy jobs.
We need to do something. I hope someone great can step up and start a revolution against the government of this country. I'M READY!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, I have been a democrat all my life and switched to independent during the last campaign. I voted for Ralph Nader who really does care about the people of this country. Of course, he was not allowed in the debates. What does that tell you? We need a third party, a fourth party, a fifth party - something.
Again, I'm ready!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Karen, the geart 'showman' O-man prefers if you would use the term "oki-doke" rather than "bamboozled" when referring to slick snake-oil sales-men trying to fool all the people all the time.
In fact, Karen, here's a clip of the polished clipster himself warning us about the dangers of 'others' who would run that old "oki-doke" against us to fool us (which he would obviously never do himself):
It certainly looks like Obama's campaign warning of "don't let them run the old 'oki-doke' on you" was right on target, and quite prescient in this campaign video OF HIM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh69Zi2rV-U
"he doth protest too much"
This video certainly seems to support psychologists suggestions that one who focuses excessively on a negative point in others may often be projecting their own faults.
The only thing is that now that he's president, he's the one running that old 'oki-doke' of MORE WAR on all of us.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
PS. Of course, phony neo-liberal apologist cheerleaders like David Axledick, "The Nation", Move-On, and the rest of the phony neo-liberal Obama crowd will bring back their admonition that, "even FDR wanted the people to push him to do the right thing", and to point out that in the above picture you can see that, "Obama isn't smiling about signing this war funding --- and he needs OUR HELP AND SUPPORT to resist expansion of the wars".
What horse-poop!
I was amazed by the hypocrisy of "liberals" voting for Obama. I am proud to say I voted for Nader in each of the last 3 presidential elections. I think two things will go a long way to fixing the systems:
1)No money from outside of the district for congressional races.
2)No out-of-state money for senate races.
Take it further. NO private money for elections at all. As soon as you allow it, you have institutionalized graft. It doesn't matter if the money comes from the district or not, it's still graft. Here is my proposal.
1) A fund of public money will be established, and each candidate is given a certain amount, depending on the race. More for president than for dog catcher, for instance. But each candidate gets the same amount for that race.
2) NO private money allowed from ANY source. No using your own money, your family's money, a friend's money, and absolutely NO corporate money. Any breaches of this will be dealt with by jail time for both the giver and the receiver.
3) A certain amount of air time on the public airwaves will be given to each candidate. As the licenses for use of the public airwaves cost nothing, this is a part of citizenship for those who have them. If you can't do that, your license is revoked and given to someone who will. Those licenses are nothing but a free piece of paper that allows you to make money for nothing.
4) If you run out of money early, then that proves to the voters that you can't handle money. If you don't spend it and don't get your message out properly as a result, then that also tells us things about your ability to deal with a situation.
5) Any money not spent will be returned to the fund to be used in the next election (yeah, like THAT would ever happen).
6) Volunteerism is how people will make their voices known, not the throwing around of money. Regardless of what the SCOTUS says, money and speech are NOT the same thing. Money corrupts, speech does not.
It's a simple, non corruptible system that would make ideas the real point behind voting for someone, not how much money they have. It would also be FAR cheaper than what we have now, and wouldn't allow big business to corrupt the representatives and senators that we the people have to vote for. And without something like that, nothing else will ever be allowed to change for the better or the benefit of the American people.
WJM, you are exactly right, but how do we get from here to there?
The only way I see it happening is a citizen's initiative to amend the constitution. You know that congress will NEVER pass anything that takes away their money, and business will never allow it to go through a congressional effort, even if there were to be one. It would have to happen due to our efforts. A true grass roots initiative is the ONLY way it would ever work.
I agree that such a measure would have as much success as, say, term limits in Congress. So what's the first step to making it happen? Is there a legal proceedure? A provision in the Constitution? I would like to see this amendment state clearly that only people (individuals not corporations) are persons, and only people can influence the actions of their representatives, and not with the legalized bribery now known as lobbying. Just my two cents for the dream democracy.
BTW, did you hear that in Minneapolis the voters will now have an instant runoff voting system? It's a good start, and maybe a good example to learn from. (I had to split the URL)
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/06/11/
court_approves_instant_runoff_voting_for_minneapolis/
Sioux Rose
WJM: Since we're playing "fantasy democracy," I'd like to add to your list.
Every candidate must answer a questionaire where their position is given, and no "I'll get back to you style equivocations" will be tolerated, on things like mountain top removal, nuclear power, unitary executive, FISA, legalizing marijuana, nuclear disarmament, etc.
I expect the list to have a minimum of 25 questions, and if elected, once the official violates 3 (as in "The People's 3-Strike Rule") the leader must give up the office. And if we had instant run-off voting, then the individual who'd garnered the next highest amount of votes would take his or her position, until (hopefully this would not occur) s/he invalidated 3 or more stated positions. Or got caught on the next Madame's sexual watch-list, or thanks to our nation's Puritan background, caught with his/her pants down.
We could call this the "Political Accountability Act," where leaders are forced to conform to the positions that got them elected. And since to err is human, they get cut SOME slack; but once that 3-strikes threshold is crossed, it's "exit time." We must regain the thing no nation can really thrive without: INTEGRITY! in leaders.
Oregoncharles
Yeah, this is akin to recall - voters insurance against fraud.
I agree with your suggestions: our current election, voting and campaign system is corrupt to the bone. That is why the Duopoly rules and our democracy is a sham. Pelosi is but one example. We also need to reform the winner takes all system with IRV/STV (Instant Runoff Vote, Single Tranferrable Vote; a proportional representation (PR) system also has attractive elements, but would require more structural overhaul.
Cindy Sheehan, an independent candidate, ran against Nancy Pelosi last November. Cindy got NO PRESS, even when she came in second over the Republican, her name was not mentioned.
The people of the United States think they have only two choices--vote Republican or vote Democrat. Many working people are confident that the Democrats are better for working people and the the Republicans are for increasing the profits and reducing the regulations on corporations. With these FIRMLY held beliefs the two party system survives.
Time for us to reconsider these beliefs. Time to look at the results. Is our nation ever more tightly held in the hands of the very wealthy? Do the big corporations fund each party at nearly the same rate? Is there any difference between the two major parties?
Last week we saw a major shift in their positions. In the lastest war appropriation bill the Democrats said YES, and the Republicans said NO. (This was about the added hundred billion dollar bail out to the International Monetary Fund that was tacked onto the supplementary military budget). The Democratic leadership came down like a ton of bricks on the fifty Democrats who had voted against the war funding to change their votes. Most of them did so, and the war bill with the billions for for the banksters passed.
Do any of you Democrats approve of the war funding? Do any of you want another bankster bailout? Are the Democrats serving you well?
"Oh, but it would be EVEN WORSE if the Republican win!" say the people who are full of fear. "I have to stick with the Democrats. They not as bad as the Republicans (lesser of two evils concept).
Get over it. Did your Senators and Representative vote for the first bankster bailout? Vote for the continuation and expansion of the wars? Watch for their vote on Single Payer. If they didn't vote to please you, DON'T VOTE FOR THEM AGAIN. You have to let go of your beliefs on the separation of the two major parties. They are marching together, sometimes one in in the lead, sometimes the other--but the steady march to the right goes on. It is time for you to step out of that march and vote independent or 'minor' parties.
Sioux Rose
WANT REAL: I fully agree with you. It seems likely that now that Californians will see their most basic services cut WHILE funding is always on tap for war, that they will have the opportunity to see through these disgusting acts of malice engineered by the political elite with their fingers in all the same cookie jars that their elected positions permit them to fund. The graft is utterly overbearing, and serves all the wrong things... libraries closed but bombs built and then detonated? There is no more blatant recipe for disaster possible, and it's in plain sight, and bears witness to the depravity of this nation under thrall to the oldest sin: the LOVE of money. Millionaires every one of them (our elected reps), but not an ounce of satiety in their souls, rather only the quest for more gain without the slightest remorse for or understanding of its cost. It is all so unbearable.
Oregoncharles
Yes, Californians and Americans in general will have the "opportunity to see through these disgusting acts of malice," but the opportunity will be squandered, just as all the other opportunities have been since I started paying attention 40 years ago. There will always be the great theater, with all the power and resources both parties are able to put into it, distracting, confusing, and obfuscating the real issues. Again, genuine progressives will be marginalized. Everyone loves a winner. People don't want to be associated with losers, like Cindy, Ralph, Cynthia. That's why the Green Party is so maligned. They got .01% of the vote! Nader got .05! Obama, the free market war monger, was elevated to celebrity status.
"They can't win!" and by repeating this over and over again, they make it so.
As we slide into what looks to be nascent fascism, ya think the voters would finally get it, wouldn't you?
You say: "(This was about the added hundred billion dollar bail out to the International Monetary Fund that was tacked onto the supplementary military budget)." I'm not so sure it wasn't just a really good excuse to be contrary. It recently occurred to me that the Rep of my last home district, Steve LaTourette, whom I despised, has actually voted more in line with my views on the bailout and war funding than my supposed liberal new Rep. Tim Ryan.
I actually did vote for a bible-thumping anti-choice Republican last year because Ryan voted for the bankster bailout. I even called his (Tim Ryan's) office as they debated the bailout and said "please for god's sake don't make me vote for that neaderthal". Several times. Zero results.
I also "became" a Republican a few years ago (I even had to sign a pledge or something) to vote in the Ohio primaries against Ken Blackwell, thief of votes, former sec'y of State and voting machine allocator. Zero again, but Strickland won against him in the gubernatorial election.
Previous to that I have voted Independant or third party for years. Nader, Perot and so on. Zero results again.
I have tried so many voting strategies and I've been allied with a few different parties, even if only for a moment. I'm still sitting in the middle of the worst economic and political shit-storm ever and with more Zeppelin-sized turds still to come I think there'd better be something better to do than just voting against the entrenched Poop flingers.
You should stop voting.
For the rest of you that are organizing and voting third party, keep up the good work. Thanks, and continue to continue.
(Third party does not include Libertarians.)
Hey, Wan, thanks, I just might. I think I'll still vote for school levies and library funding, though, If that's okay with you.
Now tell me some details of YOUR plan, YOUR actions.
Yes, it's always easier to detail your plans when it is primarily do nothing.
You advocate that.
I am encouraging others to do more and not to follow that example.
'Nuff said.
No, not enough said for me. I have no idea where you got the idea that I do nothing. I am merely out of ideas at this point on how to make my vote and political input count.
I welcome ideas that promote action: I asked you for yours, and you gave nothing back.
That was not a rhetorical question. Do you have a plan, if so what is it, and what are you personally doing that other people might emulate? Please be specific.
"You should stop voting."
Please don't say that. elainem has good reasons for voting the way she has. The Democrats have angered us just as much as the Republicans for starters. I don't even know who will be on the ballot by 2012 but if Obama keeps this all up and we have no third party on the ballot, if I am FORCED to choose between Obama and Palin, I'll vote Palin in anger even if it's as "good" as killing myself. I vote on the issues and at this rate, the Republicans are looking less rightwing than the Democrats even on war funding and bailouts as elainem correctly pointed out. That doesn't mean I won't vote 3rd party. In fact, as long as a 3rd party candidate is on the ballot and I find him or her to be best on the issues, they have my vote just like Nader had mine thrice.
This is silly. Did you even read my post.
If someone wants to stop voting, I say go ahead.
For the rest of us organizing and voting third parties, I say bravo, keep it up.
If you feel the choice is between the Democrats and Republicans (Obama vs Palin, and you'll vote Palin), let me encourage you to fall into the don't vote category.
I read your post perfectly well thank you. On the other hand, you did not fully read what I wrote. I said that IF I WERE FORCED to choose between the two, not about feeling. I vote on issues, NOT on party affiliations. That is why I end up voting Independent 9 out of 10 times. Please try to understand. Thank you.
P.S.: FYI, I voted thrice for Nader and proudly so for his courage and convictions on the issues no matter the odds. Mckinney was awesome too and actually wished Nader and Mckinney had run a joint ticket.
Yes! Sheehan was largely ignored by the press; when she did get any coverage, she was misrepresented, smeared and cast as the lunatic fringe. As usual, this was a sham democratic process. It is crystal clear that what we have can be called 'democracy' in only the most superficial terms.
I think she needs another facelift and more botox, especially around the lips. Immobilize the muscles around her mouth so they are frozen shut.
AIPAC has so corroded our body politic that nothing of integrity can ever get passed.
An excellent analysis by Zunes, concisely stating what many of us already knew.
It became perfectly clear to me when she declared impeachment off the table.
Another demonstration of how meaningless the voting process is.
Voting is only meaningless if you vote for the two major parties.
Having voted for Libertarian candidates for about 20 years now, the same thing could be said of that party. I haven't noticed any Green Party candidates winning much.
Therefore, and for other reasons, the voting process is pretty much an illusion.
Voting alone will bring no major changes to our system. I just vote for whichever presidential candidate I think will hurt the people less. All the major Dem and Publican candiadtes are rich or servants of the rich. If I really want to effect change around an issue, I hook up with a union or community organization and agitate.
That being said elections still matter. Gore would have caused less damage than Bush. With Gore the decline of America would have been slower.
I don't admire Gore. He is an over-priveleged scion of one of America's ruling families, and he was ineffectual in Florida in Nov & Dec of 2000 because he was too cowardly and aristocratic to moblize and lead his followers in a revolt against the stolen election. Men of his stature are quite reluctant to stir up the riff raff.
But give up the illusion that elections alone are going to bring revolutionary change. They a are just a process for choosing the least onerous overlord.
Oregoncharles
Gore would have been much the same as Obama - catering to the power of corporations. The reality is, the duopoly cares more about maintaining power than it does about any one candidate winning elections. Both parties have a role to play.
Gore's role was laid out for him and I think he knew it: He was to run a lousy campaign and lose, even if that meant walking away from a WIN! The corporate power structure had a job to do in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. This would have been a nightmare to accomplish for the Democrats. Iraq had no WMDs and thinking, informed people knew it, especially Democrat voters. Starting a war in Iraq would have meant death for the Democratic Party. But now that the wars are raging on, can't just walk away! And the terrorist threat is growing! Can't just walk away!
Gore's role not only saved the Democratic Party, it punished those who thought they could vote for whom they actually wanted rather than the Sophie's Choice option, lesser of two evils. Hence, Gore's decision not to challenge the vote - by design.
These people are way ahead of us .... by design. They have much more up their sleeves. Be wary.
Of course, we need more than voting.
And yet, that being said, we also definitely need the voting, too.
I see your post and others like you as muddying up the waters.
We need to vote.
We need to vote third party.
Yep - I can see how a Republican who likes to smoke dope might be discouraged at how things turned out.
And yet I support your boycotting of the voting process. Right-on. I encourage you to boycott.
For those people who organize and vote for real alternative third parties, keep up the good work and continue to continue.
You must be hallucinating. I never said I boycott the voting process.
I said that it is illusory. That is, one who believes that it brings meaningful change is kidding himself. Or herself, as the case may be.
You are posting nonsense.
Voting does bring about meaningful change. Voting for Democrats over Republicans brings about very little meaningful change.
I don't know what the point you're trying to make is. So it's "illusory" - so what?
It is important to vote. It is important to vote third party.
If you can help organize, that's important, too.
I think it would be very beneficial for those of you who have not read Naomi Klein's book 'The Shock Walk Doctrine' to do so.
You would discover that what passes for a 'government' in the US these days is nothing more than an unconfirmed hypothesis practicing radical free market doctrine as prescribed by the (thankfully) late Milton Freidman and the Chicago School of economics.
In the case of California, the wealthy will do just fine thank you. They can pay to have whatever they like, any service they like, even to the point of 'disaster vacations' and selective evacuation of themselves and their servants.
This is not random happenstance or chance that has led to the destruction of the social safety net in the US. It was planned with precision and quietly implemented.
Walk in peace.
The hairy one is just a tool of AIPAC.
q
Agreed.