BS: Keeping Democrats honest

Subject: Keeping Democrats honest - Sheehan
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 09:48 PM

House Democratic leaders had gathered in the Cannon Caucus room to discuss wide-ranging and symbolic changes to the House rules, including a complete gift ban and new restrictions on travel, earmarks and legislative procedures when activists, including Cindy Sheehan, drove lawmakers from the microphones.

If the rules are adopted after the full House votes on them today, lawmakers' ability to accept junkets from lobbyists will be curtailed, they will have to attach their names to earmarks and spending and tax deductions, credits, exclusions or preferences directed to 10 or fewer beneficiaries will be banned. The proposals also include measures to give the ethics committee power to pre-approve privately funded trips and require lawmakers to report more quickly the costs of the trips.

But when Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) stepped up to pronounce that Democrats fundamentally would "change the relationship between lawmakers and legislators," Sheehan and her allies started shouting, "De-escalate, investigate, bring our troops home now!"

Emanuel's aides said he was willing to talk to Sheehan and her cohorts, but he and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and incoming Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) headed inside the Cannon Caucus room when it appeared the shouting would not stop....

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/010407/cindy.html

~~~~~

And in a related item, there's this guy commenting on the recent U.S. elections:

...None of you has a mandate for anything. Not one. Had each elected position on last week's ballot carried an option marked "leave this job vacant for the entire term," a much larger number of you now would be seeking new employment than you possibly can imagine.

Very few of you actually are wanted in your position. You newly elected are there simply because we wanted to deliver a message to all of you, not because you somehow are better in our eyes. Those of you heading out the door are leaving for the same reason. Make no mistake about this fact and get over yourselves. Are you listening, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Get over yourself and do it now. Our patience with Congressional hubris and incompetence has grown exceedingly thin.

Here's the message: We are fed up with your bullshit. Let me repeat that in words of one syllable for those of you unaccustomed to listening to your constituents: We are fed up with your bull shit. Admit it - you know the truth when you hear it and this is truth at its simplest and most fundamental level.

This has nothing to do with being Democrat or Republican. Neither do conservative nor liberal values figure into the equation. You are not blameless simply because Bush has proven so frightfully bad at being President. After all, you made possible every single thing that he has done. You were our trump card - our safety net - and you let us down!

Above all, we are sick to death of being the World's bad guys! We want America once again to be at the forefront of the good guys. We don't need or want to run the world.

You have proven yourselves incapable of running small nations that America bombs back into the Stone Age on behalf of foreign interests. You thereby have proven our own inability to select decent leadership for ourselves. Why, you have proven incapable of putting your own political party houses in order! Your individual records of corruption, fiscal mismanagement and sexual misbehavior defy description and thus demonstrate your inability, even, to run your own lives. It is folly to think you capable of running the lives of others, let alone entire nations of people and, least of all, the rest of us.

We are through with tolerating the death of our children in foreign lands for the benefit of special interests, particularly those foreign to America. End that stupid war and do it NOW. Get our sons and daughters back home in time for the holidays. Make no mistake about our resolve in this regard, incidentally.

http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/rants/listenup.htm

Subject: RE: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 09:50 PM

Oops. Didn't hit the BS button. Sorry.

---

Title fixed, thread moved

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 09:28 AM

If y'all find something to keep the Democrats accountable, please try it on the Republicans, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 12:44 PM

I'll second that!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 12:51 PM

I'd druther see this call "Keeping Politicians honest."

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 12:58 PM

Sounds sort of like "Keeping fish dry"

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 02:19 PM

"The honest politician is one who, when he is bought, stays bought."
~ U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania Simon Cameron (1862)

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 08:02 PM

First order of the Democratic Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas2.html

Type in S.1 and H.R.1 in the search space. Senate Bill 1 and House Resolution 1. First bills of the new session. The Senate bill will punish "grassroots" lobbying and speaking out against the parties in power. The House bill will adopt the BS known as the "9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007." That act takes as truth the official govt lie that 9/11 was carried out by 19 flight-school dropouts. This is your Democratic congress, backing the fascists 100%. What are you going to do about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 08:11 PM

Reminds me of walkin' thru a cemetary once and readin' on a headstone, "Here rests a politcan and an honest man" and wonderin' if they'd burried two men in the same grave...

But, I'm glad to see the Repubs out but don't hold much faith that the Dems will pan out but...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 09:50 PM

"Power comes from the barrel of a gun." -- Mao Tse-Tung

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.

"Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

"...The average American is just like the child in the family. You
give him some responsibility and he is going to amount to
something...He is going to do something...If, on the other hand, you
make him completely dependent and pamper him and cater to him too
much, you are going to make him soft, spoiled and eventually a very
weak individual." -- Richard Nixon, Interview, November 9, 1972.

"Our nation must come together to unite." -- George W. Bush, Tampa,                     Florida, Jun. 4, 2001

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: SINSULL
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 10:02 PM

Honest politicians - who would elect them? Certainly not the American voter.
SINS the Cynical

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the tread
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 10:08 PM

"Ford's in his flivver and all's right with the world."
from Brave New World, Aldous Huxley

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 10:51 PM

I worked as a volunteer for a couple of Democrats whom I consider to be quite honest. I don't think it does any good to be so completley cynical about them all; generalising usually doesn't do any good.

Guest, what are you doing about it? Do you have any positive

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 10:55 PM

One of the problems in being an 'honest politician' these days, is that the media are falling all over themselves trying to GET a compromising, awkward statement out of every politician!

Anyone who is competent but who is even vaguely concerned about his/her past or image is reluctant to have all the half-truths and innuendos that the opposition can dig up thrown at them over & over by zealous interviewers anxious to raise THEIR image by getting a sound byte on some vague issue, while ignoring the important questions.

What we need is an entirely new way to recruit and choose candidates. I have a 4 hour discourse on how we might approach that....shall I start typing? You gotta promise to read every word! ...maybe put up a deposit in advance..*grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 11:08 PM

What do I do? Well, for one thing I voted for the degenerate Democrat scum this time. That's one thing I did. They lip-flapped about change and ending the war and all that, so they got my vote. Now I want you diehard Democrats to keep them honest. I don't know how to kiss their asses like the old-line "liberals" do, but since I helped you people get your candidates into office, I'm now going to hound you people. Why the hell are the Democrats in lock-step with the Republican fascists? The answer is it's all the same party, but since the old two-party-goers don't see it that way, I want you to hold some feet to the fire. I'd write to my reps, but there's not a Democrat within a hundred miles. The Republicans certainly know me...I bug them constantly about their abominations...but I'm not in the districts of these animals that just took over congress. And I want the people who ARE in their districts to pester the crap out of them. They fought back mightily against the "surge" and showed that George W....what horseshit. Where's the talk of pull-out? It's time for Democrats to hold the people they voted for accountable.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:17 AM

I outgrew taking directions from invisible beings long ago.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 01:09 AM

I don't have to worry about my two senators and my congressional representative. All three are Democrats, and all three are solid progressives. There are a number of other Democratic representatives from other districts in my state, and they, too, are firm when it comes to progressive values.

Nevertheless, I watch them very carefully, and I correspond with them regularly.

Granted, there are Democrats who are essentially indistinguishable from Republicans (prime example, Joe Lieberman), but to accuse all Democrats of being that way is just plain wrong. Anyone who says that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is merely making a cynical and uninformed accusation. That's the blanket judgment of someone who's just too lazy to really check on the actions of individual Democrats.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 03:02 AM

Keeping smoke in a birdcage.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 03:54 AM

I think part of the US problem is the parts of the US press/media who relentlessly concentrate on trivia such as sexual morality and irrationalities such as the religious agendas. Regrettably the UK press is also not blameless for the problems with UK politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: autolycus
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:35 PM

Man is a political animal.    Aristotle.



   So it's not that politicians are not honest - people aren't.






      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:41 PM

All power corrupts. Absolute power IS kinda neat, though....

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: kendall
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 08:30 AM

There is a saying in Washington. "To get along, you must GO along."

To expect major changes right off the bat is not realistic.

Motto of the republican party; Pull up the ladder I'M aboard.

Motto of the democrat party; I'm from the government. I'm here to help you.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 03:55 PM

An impossible task.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: kendall
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 07:27 PM

Or one 6 year term for presidents.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 09:53 PM

The U.S. Senate voted 100-0 for the Real I.D. Act of 2005. On May 11, 2008, you will need an internal passport in the U.S. to enter a federal bldg, drive a vehicle, hold a job, etc. Same with the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. The Senate voted 100-0 to give the president complete control over the governors of the U.S. Show me the difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

The only recent, publicly-stated difference is that the Democrats promised to get us out of Iraq & Afghanistan if elected. They have to be held to the promise. If you live in a district that elected a Democrat, you have to hold them to the promise. The voice of a non-constituent like myself doesn't have the same impact as the voice of a constituent. You have to keep the Democrats honest. They said they would end the war. If they don't end the wars, the rest of the world will be forced to put the U.S. down like a mad dog. This is the most crucial moment in American history. Rationalizing and pussyfooting won't do. Your children will die if you don't take action. Plague your representatives. Phone, write, email, go to the office. They need to stop the wars now, and only you can make it happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 10:12 PM

Cite your sources, with working links.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: kendall
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 10:24 PM

My rep to congress has been against the war from the start.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:54 PM

PELOSI: Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way.

ABC News, with CFR member Diane Sawyer

Impeach the bitch. She's in favor of killing Americans and in favor of genocide.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 11:07 PM

Guest/Started the Thread, I gather that you are not an American. Mind your own skirts, fella.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 11:45 PM

I'm an American. And you need to mind your new Queen Democrat's skirts. She went back on her word. She's going to kill people. Stop her. If you don't do what you can to stop her, the blood is on your hands. You wanted Democrats, you got them, now how are going to make them stop the war? Think fast. The hundred hours just ended, and Pelosi is saying congress will continue funding the war. What are you going to do about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 11:53 PM

Oh, an American, who now lurks on forums to blame everyone else for what may go wrong in the world. Hmmm...makes sense to me. Rave with self-righteous "told ya so's" whether there's a shred of truth, continue to distort and rant. Yep, that's gonna bring about a lotta change and allies. Suggest you get a grip.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 12:43 PM

"Impeach the bitch?"

You sound like the same faceless, nameless yo-yo who wanted to start a bloody revolution in a couple of the more stupid threads. I don't think you have a clue as to what's really at stake here. In fact, I don't think you care about what's really at stake, you just want to blow off steam.

Not very helpful.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 01:03 PM

"The voice of a non-constituent like myself doesn't have the same impact as the voice of a constituent..."


hmmmmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 01:30 PM

The country does NOT need yet another demonstration of the gutlessness of "liberal democrats." Your people are now controlling congress, controlling the committees, controlling the purse strings. So they need to end the wars, as they promised they would. The voice of a constituent is heard more clearly than the voice of one who does not live in the district, so it is up to the people who got democrats into office to hold them accountable. I keep in touch with my rep, and you need to keep in touch with yours. The dems promised to end the wars. Make them do it.

"All these legislative initiatives deal with Iraq, with only one – House Joint Resolution 14 – confronting the key issue on the war-and-peace front: Iran. This is a binding resolution that forbids the President from ordering an attack on Iran absent military action against U.S. forces, or a demonstrably imminent threat of attack...."

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10353

My representative is Ron Paul (or he was until his own party redistricted him to try to get him out of office this last election), and here's the type of thing HE talks about in congress:

"...We should remember that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone do anything to America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.

Even if such an attack is carried out by Israel over U.S. objections, we will be politically and morally culpable since we provided the weapons and dollars to make it possible...."

http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10330

I don't know if Paul walks the walk because of conscience or constituent input, but he's walking the walk. In this speech, on the floor of the House, he cautioned the nation that we are at a point where a phony "Gulf of Tonkin" incident might be used to start WW3. Why the fuck aren't the Democrats talking like that? Paul's a Republican bucking his own party. Where the hell are the Democrats? No impeachment, no investigation of 9/11, no investigation of hundreds of massive financial crimes, no pull-out of the wars...why aren't you people screaming about this? Where's your decency? Where's your plan of action? What about recall votes? Are any of you working on that? What promises did your candidates make? Have you called to see what progress they've made toward fulfilling those promises? Do something.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 02:01 PM

"....why aren't you people screaming about this?" ..because screaming is counter-productive.

"Where's your decency?..." right here..perfectly intact. I use it in the voting booth, IF I get a reasonable choice.

" Where's your plan of action? .." ... read, evaluate, talk...and hope. What do you want me to do? ask YOU for a list of bad candidates, and go knock 'em off? How much time would you LIKE me/us to spend beating our heads on walls?

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 02:11 PM

No. You need to CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE. Tell him or her that he or she needs to introduce legislation to stop the wars. To investigate wrongdoing. To impeach. To do all the things they promised to do. The representative isn't obliged to listen to a person who's not a constituent. That's the FIRST thing they do to avoid responsibility. Always. So we all need to harrass the representatives from our districts. And emails and letters won't do. Phone calls and walk-ins, that they can't avoid. Hound them. Make them do what they promised.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 02:14 PM

Flappity flap.

Do let us know what you are actually planning to do or, better yet, actually doing.

Where's your plan of action?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 02:17 PM

You need to CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE. Tell him or her that he or she needs to introduce legislation to stop the wars.

Bleeding heart liberals do this on a regular basis. Oh, you didn't know that?

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 02:24 PM

Mine is Chris Van Hollen...he does pretty well on his own, and will hear from me when I decide he needs advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 02:50 PM

My representative is Jim McDermott. What more do you need to know?

And if you don't know, educate yourself. McDermott has been to Iraq--went before the war started--and was opposed to the war from the start. He said that he had visions of Americans having to leave Iraq the same way they had to leave Vietnam:   frantically scrambling aboard helicopters from the top of the embassy building before they were torn limb from limb. I heard him say that in person.

I do call McDermott regularly. But I know I have a damned good representative there.

In fact, on several occasions the Repubs have tried to pull his teeth. On one particular occasion, he was contacted by a Florida couple who had inadvertantly heard a cell-phone conversation between Newt Gingrich and someone else, recognized that an illegal deal was going on, and taped the conversation. They gave the tape to McDermott. McDermott turned the tape over to the Ethics Committee, then told the press about it on the basis that the public has a right to know what their elected officials are up to. The Repubs then sued McDermott for unethical conduct!   I think that's called chutzpah!

No. No problem with my representative! I'm quite happy with him.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 03:11 PM

Hey, people--it's never worth debating a "Ghost". If said poster doesn't get a handle--and stick to it--that says all we need to know about how seriously to take anything it says.

I've never understood why anybody ever says anything to a poster which just calls itself "Guest"--except to tell it to get a handle.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 05:09 PM

Ron If you don't mind me saying so, I think you "over egg" the GUEST problem.
Surely it is the content of the post which is important, not the identity of the poster.
Very few of us have a clue who the other members of this forum really are. Handles tell us no more than the label of GUEST.
Except for the chance of mistaken identity during debate, which Mr McGrath of Harlow has brought to our attention for long and weary, I see no advantage in having a personal handle other than for egotistical reasons.

I find most of the guests here better informed and more entertaining than some of the "longest standing members" like Catspaw49 or the representatives of the "religious right".....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:39 PM

Ake--

The Guest problem would be no problem if each "Guest" would take a name or handle---and stick to it. This is what Joe wants--and it's a modest request. Otherwise you have no idea who you are talking to--and you may have the edifying spectacle of 2 "Guests" attacking each other.

And check the subjects and attitudes of opening posts,-- below the line-- (above the line it's fine)--- started by a "Guest". Often the apple of discord--you may have noticed.

But be my guest-- if you like shadowboxing, dig in.

And since I now know you don't like my attempts to push a "Guest" into civilized behavior, I'll refrain from now on--unless I'm carrying on a conversation and one of our delightful "politics only" Guests puts his oar in.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:33 PM

Bunch of whiners. I do my bit as a 'guest' by using a consitent name on a thread. That way you don't have to 'shadowbox'.

But why, when a guest gets you folks by the short and curlies, do you always fall back on how anonynimty ain't fair? Address the message, not the messenger.

On this thread, I suspect the pissing and moaning started early because you Democrats CAN'T defend your party. You've bitched about GWBush and company for years, and now it's being made evident Pelosi and company are THE SAME PEOPLE.

If your representative has not introduced or has not signed on to legislation to end the war, then YOU NEED TO DOG THEM. MAKE them do what they promised to do. The Democrats were gonna end the wars, remember? Do you people think the rules don't apply now that your candidates got elected (with the help of a lot of pissed-off Republicans)? You can't just fall back into la-dee-dah socialist territory now. The country wants RESULTS. The War. The terrorists in the White House. The draining of our treasury by Executive criminals. If you don't address these issues, and fast, your party will be outed as the same gangsters that claim the 'Republican' label.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:14 AM

I really do wonder about you, Guest/started the thread. You're convinced that you are correct in your assessments and you're big on telling others what to do. From this and from all the other threads and posts on which you have fulminated in the last year, I gather that you yourself are very little, and that you feel powerless to an extreme.

See, I haven't given up hope that we *CAN* make a difference. I don't feel it is necessary - or accurate - or productive - to issue blanket condemnations.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 10:16 PM

Blanket condemnations are in order if the Democrats don't stop the wars. That's what the Democratic candidates said they would do, and it's up to the people who elected them to keep them honest. If the Democrats don't insist now that congress stop funding the wars, then the Democrats are just continuing the murder. No...the democrats are TAKING OVER the murders.

Politics doesn't end once you cast a ballot. You have to make sure the people elected keep their promises. Bush kept his. We're pre-emptively invading countries. The Dems offered a reversal. Let's see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:35 PM

I can't remember the set-up for the joke, but I do remember the punch-line:

"Patience, jackass, patience!"

Ye gods! They've only been in office for a couple of weeks and they've already passed six of the laws they said they were going to pass. Give 'em a chance!

(That's the problem with frothing-at-the-mouth revolutionaries. They want everything last week, and they pee their pants if it actually takes a reasonable amount of time to bring off!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:00 PM

Come on Don, it's not a question of time, it's a question of will!

Who's the favourite to challenge Bush? Hillary Clinton, a pro-war, pro-Israeli hawk, distrusted by most of the American electorate and even the tepid democrats of this forum.

Hillary as front runner doesn't bode well for anyone with a progressive agenda....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:22 PM

So you are all three!! Viz, jejune, meretricious AND pusillanimous! Aha!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:35 PM

Are you trying to tell me I'm an arsehole Amos??

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:40 PM

I know a shrink who reckons he can get you off dictionaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 05:18 PM

Pardon me, that's eight key bills the new Democratic house has passed within the promised 100 hours. And with thirteen hours to spare. Now it's up to the Senate.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 09:14 PM

Eight key bills. Let's see them. Is this that bogus minimum wage and speech-killing crap they were rattling on about? List the bills.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:06 PM

If you're so on top of things, Guest/startedthethread, you already know.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:23 PM

Ake:

My apologies -- I was not referring to you.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:38 PM

Here they are. All eight of the proposals.

And with that post I have to go. Night, all.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the tread
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:42 PM

No, I want to see a breakdown of these "key" bills. I want to know what's so key about them.

The privately-owned Federal Reserve in the U.S. announced last year it was going to double the amount of paper money floating around the world. Double the number of U.S. bills in just two years. So that means...what? Figger this out. Double the number of dollars = dollar is worth half. In just two years.

And then here come the Democrats with the bullshit diversion of raising the minimum wage. The privately-owned Federal Reserve is emptying the bladder of the U.S. economy, and the Democrats are going to make sure the last couple or drops are shaken onto the people.

The Democrats are hiding the truth behind a totally transparent screen. The value of your dollar will be cut in half in two years, but you'll be told you're getting a raise. Incredible.

If you don't know this stuff, it's because you don't WANT to know.

I hope Firth is working away with his flatulence transcriber listing those 8 "key" bills.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:43 PM

Thanks, Peace. Cross-posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:46 PM

GUEST,Started the thread, buy a goddam newspaper once in a while. Or turn on the radio. Or the television. Or check the internet.

For someone who bitches and complains as much as you do, you sure don't know a helluva lot.

DO try to keep up to date, there's a good fellow. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:03 PM

This week...Rep. Jim McGovern will introduce new legislation, "The Safe and Orderly Withdrawal Act of 2007," calling for the safe and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq within 30 days of enactment to be completed within 180 days. The withdrawal would be paid for by already appropriated funds and all funds for deployment of U.S. troops would be terminated upon completion of the withdrawal. More:
http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-01-22-19-06-36-news.php

Hmmm...wonderful what those Democrats will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 03:38 PM

A deal in the desert for Sen. Reid?

"BULLHEAD CITY, ARIZ. — It's hard to buy undeveloped land in booming northern Arizona for $166 an acre. But now-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid effectively did just that when a longtime friend decided to sell property owned by the employee pension fund that he controlled.

In 2002, Reid (D-Nev.) paid $10,000 to a pension fund controlled by Clair Haycock, a Las Vegas lubricants distributor and his friend for 50 years. The payment gave the senator full control of a 160-acre parcel in Bullhead City that Reid and the pension fund had jointly owned. Reid's price for the equivalent of 60 acres of undeveloped desert was less than one-tenth of the value the assessor placed on it at the time.

Six months after the deal closed, Reid introduced legislation to address the plight of lubricants dealers who had their supplies disrupted by the decisions of big oil companies. It was an issue the Haycock family had brought to Reid's attention in 1994, according to a source familiar with the events...."

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Peace
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 03:39 PM

Dishonesty in politics? I AM shocked.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 09:53 AM

"...Last month, Rezko was indicted for his role in an alleged pay-to-play scheme designed to fatten Gov. Blagojevich's political fund. Rezko also was accused of bilking a creditor....
...Obama and Rezko have been friends since 1990, and Obama said the Wilmette businessman raised as much as $60,000 for him during his political career. After Rezko's indictment, Obama donated $11,500 to charity--a total that represents what Rezko contributed to the senator's federal campaign fund...." [after he was elected]

More here

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 11:14 AM

"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama expressed regret late Friday for his 2005 land purchase from now-indicted political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko in a deal that enlarged the senator's yard.


"I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it," Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in an exclusive and revealing question-and-answer exchange about the transaction.
"

Did you leave this part out because it was too honest for you?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 10:31 PM

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_26

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Peace
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 10:53 PM

Do I recall saying that Pelosi would amount to NO FRIGGIN' GOOD!

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 11:12 PM

Oh please. After Ken de Lay's endorsement of slave labor and enforced abortions in Saipan, Bush wholesale bloodbath and complete inversion of the national surplus, and Abramoff's lusting grabbery spree bilking the tribal elders in dozens of tribes across the continent of tens ofmillions of dollars, you're going to have to do better than that to convince me there is a serious situation among Democrats. What you are doing is tantamount to fear-mongering, in an effort to scrabble for some kind of cheap factional angle with no concern for the public weal yourself.

By all means, expose graft and shine the light on evil. But don't go doing it on a partisan ballyhoo basis. It is tedious and counterproductive. I predict you will find some more, and it will not stop, because power corrupts human beings in general, with delightful rare exceptions. Blow all the whistles you like, but do it from a sense of decency, not a lust for slander.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: fumblefingers
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 10:30 PM

Amos: "Oh please..."

A spate of words, somewhat.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:30 AM

No factional angle here. The Democrats are acting against the public interest. So are the Republicans.

The people of America voted overwhelmingly to limit the power of the Bush crime cabal. The Democrats now have the ability to keep those gangsters from wielding unchecked power, but Pelosi and the others have chosen to go along with the program. And in doing so, they're condemning tens of thousands of Americans to death on foreign battlefields. They are setting the stage for millions of deaths in America, too. The road they're clearing for the MINORITY party leads to martial law, and that's unconstitutional. It's also worth fighting against, to the death. Tens of millions of us have already made the choice on that issue. So the crunch has come, and the Democratic leaders are stepping onboard with Bush, while the weak-kneed Democratic base makes excuses. The Republican leadership has just been outed as a club of AGGRESSIVE HOMOSEXUAL PEDERASTS, so heaven HELP us now that the historically degenerate Democrats are back in power. You people WANT to sacrifice America's children on battlefields. You HATE life. You support reaching into the womb and annihilating it, and then if a child DOES make it into the world, you can't wait to blow it up. I don't think you perverts CAN be kept honest. The pederast Republican leadership knows EXACTLY what makes you tick, and they know EXACTLY how to get you to follow along in their slime trail--THEY JUST PROMISE THAT YOU CAN KILL ALL THE BABIES!

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:53 PM

From the best Democrat out there. Cynthia McKinney wants to know where the change is:

Well, it seems that George Bush and Democratic Leaders were right.

They confidently told us that not only would Democrats fund the surge, but that the Democrats would not stop action in Iran, too.

Now, we are not surprised when the unelected, illegitimate Administration of George Bush ignores us, but we are shocked that the Democratic majority in Congress chose war over us as we say Bring our troops home now!

The answer is clear: Our country has been hijacked.

What about a livable wage for America's workers?

What about the right of return for Katrina survivors?

What about repealing the Patriot Act, the Secret Evidence Act, and the Military Tribunals Act?

Why is impeachment "off the table"?

Our country is bankrupt yet this institution, the Pentagon, has "lost" 2.3trillion dollars!

I want that money back . . .

For jobs . . . for health care . . . for education . . . for our veterans!

The Democrats have become so timid they won't even repeal the Bush tax cuts as a strategy to deal with a bankrupt nation.

Seems the story is the same: more money for war, but we can't feed the poor.

It's hard to believe, but now the Democrats are full partners in George Bush's wars.

And by funding his wars, the Democratic Congress is explicitly complicit.

Complicit in war crimes! Complicit in torture! Complicit in crimes against humanity! Complicit in crimes against peace!

The FBI spied on us; Condoleezza, Dick, and George lied to us.

In 1957, Dr. King observed that "Both political parties have betrayed the cause of justice."

And so it must be repeated today.

Our beloved America is dividing again into two Americas. Our struggle is for nothing less than the soul of our country.

We want an America that is respected in the commonwealth of man; we want our values to shine like a beacon throughout the world.

As an American of conscience, I hereby declare my independence from every bomb dropped, every threat leveled, every civil liberties rollback, every child killed, every veteran maimed, every man tortured.

And I sadly declare my independence from the leaders who let it happen.

We will not stop. We will win. We will take our country back!

http://www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com/node/22

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 12:48 AM

That someone I'd vote for. Me too, I'd also like my money back!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:55 AM

"Oh where have all the De--ems......Long times a pa---ssin'"..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 01:31 PM

...The bill is a labored attempt by the Democratic leadership to pose as opponents of the Iraq war, while in practice ensuring its continuation. The vote to authorize war funding flies in the face of the will of the electorate, which expressed its desire to end the war and its opposition to the policies of the Bush administration in last November's congressional elections, overturning Republican control in both houses of Congress.

In remarks following the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went out of her way to declare her party's support for the US military and the so-called "war on terror," calling the bill "a giant step to end the war and responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq" so they could concentrate on Afghanistan, "where the war on terrorism is."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/dems-m24.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 10:59 PM

The Democrat's Debate:

...the debate began just hours after the Senate approved a supplemental spending bill that will provide the White House with an additional $124 billion to continue the fighting and occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.... "The Congress has voted, as of today, to end this war," Clinton declared.

...Blaming the Iraqi people for the devastating civil war that has resulted from the US invasion and the shattering of Iraqi society, Clinton said the Iraqi government had to provide "security and stability without our young men and women in the middle of their sectarian civil war."

...Biden has been the most strident proponent of partitioning Iraq into ethno-religious statelets, dividing Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. Such a proposal is a prescription for ethnic cleansing and mass killings on a scale not seen since the partitioning of India in the 1940s....

...Barack Obama said he had opposed the war from the start and then attempted to justify his repeated votes to fund it as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and more than 3,300 US soldiers have been killed. He claimed that the troops needed the best military hardware possible in order to "come home safely."

This support for militarism stems from the fact that the Democratic Party speaks for the same financial oligarchy as the Republicans....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/deba-a28.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 09:31 AM

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has called for reinstating the draft as a way to end the Iraq war.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QUECGG1&show_article=1

They not only "surged" the war, they now want to feed your children to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: kendall
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 10:23 AM

Congress is powerless to end the war. They have only ONE course of action, to stop funding it.Can you imagine what would happen over there if the troops were not funded? It would be a bloodbath and the democrats would be held responsible.
The republicans have been in control for years, now, someone whose name we don't know expects them to make things right in the space of a few months.

A pox on all of those self serving phonies.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 10:50 AM

Yeah, they are powerless to end it. It's bigger than them. As always.

Bearded Bruce had it right. The title of this thread is funny, because it might as well be, as he says...

"Keeping fish dry"

You can't make the Democrats honest. You can't make the Republicans honest. You can't make fish (living fish, that is) dry.

Why? Because "This support for militarism stems from the fact that the Democratic Party speaks for the same financial oligarchy as the Republicans...."

Exactly. Just like in Imperial Rome. The financial oligarchy runs the $ySStem and the $ySStem is founded upon making war. The politicians are just temporary errand boys and girls on the payroll of the $ySStem.

The only time such $ySStems are interrupted (for awhile) is when they go bankrupt or they lose a GREAT war to another such $ySStem.

Germans and Japanese know a lot about that from their own bitter experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 11:03 AM

The Republicans, by not reigning in Bush earlier, have gotten us so deep into this quagmire that now all they can do is try to lie & fake their way until the next election, because the Democrats will 'probably' win it, and then they (the Repubs) can blame whatever happens on the Dems!

This IS a 'no-win' situation. We can't win a war against insurgents...they can plant IEDs for years. And *IF* we leave, they can spend their time killing each other in sectarian in-fighting.
Bush simply did not LISTEN to experts who tried to tell him that Iraq...and the Middle-East in general...operates on different rules, and that WE ARE NOT LIKED very much, even by those for whom we do a favor. There IS no plan for victory...or for controlled withdrawal. The 'plan', in so far as there is ANY plan, is to stretch this 'surge' until the elections, then let the Democrats take responsibility for the mess when we try to get out......and it will probably work.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 01:32 PM

The Democratic "surge" in spending was uncalled for. They increased war spending. This had nothing to do with "cutting off funds." They INCREASED spending, after Americans voted them into power to end the war. Now the Democrats are saying that not only your money but your forced servitude will be needed.

The Democrats are inheriting just what they want from the Bush gang -- a perpetual war and spy/torture powers to facilitate social engineering. If this were not so, they would be working to end the war and repeal the spy/torture policies instituted by the Bush people. They are making no serious effort to do either.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 02:20 PM

sorry, but both your data and your logic are deficient. You don't know what "the Democrats" want, OR what they are trying to do, just because you don't like what you see. Not dancing to your preferred tune does NOT logically mean they are guilty of the sleaziest of motives. It 'could' mean they are dense & incompetent, but even that does not follow.

You are flatly ignoring the legislative limitations on Congress, and especially what they can do without a larger majority. What good would it do to waste ALL the Senate's time introducing bills that the Republicans would only block?

I get so damn tired of ridiculous tirades by folks who assume that any action...or LACK of action...that they disapprove of can be attributed to evil motives and power grabbing. etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 03:32 PM

"The 'plan', in so far as there is ANY plan, is to stretch this 'surge' until the elections, then let the Democrats take responsibility for the mess when we try to get out......and it will probably work."

Yup, you got that right, Bill. ;-) That's how party politics works. If it were the Democrats who got us into this war, as in Vietnam, it would be the same story...only the other way around. They would let the Republicans take responsibility for the mess after they got voted out, like they did in '68.

They can both be depended on to always blame the other one for whatever goes wrong. It's what they live to do, after all. They've been set up like two championship football teams to oppose one another in that fashion and keep the public amused (or infuriated?), while the League itself moves merrily on from season to season.

I'd be a fan...but I don't like football very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 04:17 PM

Actually, if the Dems were truely into ending the Iraq wra, they could... Here's how: Suspend the 60 votes need to end a filibuster and then pass a bill requiring that Bush un-occupy Iraq by _________...

This doesn't cut off funds... It sets a date when the last of the troops will be removed...

(But, Bobert, could the Dems really do this???)

Yes, they have the power to do it just not the will... Rememeber in the last Congress the Repubs threatening to suspend the 60 vote rule??? It almost happened but the Repubs thought it would make them look bad...

I don't think it would make the Dems look bad seein' as they would be carrying oput the wishes of such a high percentage of Americans...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 04:33 PM

Why still agonize about this? The Maliki government will fall soon, certainly well before the 2008 election. Then it will be obvious, even to the most obtuse Bushites, that there's no point to staying in Iraq. Except in "Kurdistan". And no matter what anybody says, the US will stay in "Kurdistan"--both for oil and because the Kurds want us to.

It's also interesting that "Guest Started" is horrified at a draft--but fine with the current situation--where the folks on the bottom of the economic pile do the fighting---and the dying.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 05:28 PM

"Suspend the 60 votes need to end a filibuster .."

Well, Bobert...with the 1 vote majority, they would need to be VERY sure of every vote before they try something like that. It would be extremely awkward to have one of their own decide not to go along, and give the Republicans a 2 vote win...and crowing rights for months!

   Yeah, I know...all they'd need is a couple of Republican defections to get this done, but voting with the Dems to end a filibuster might be a death sentence for any Republican Senator who hopes to run again.... now where are the Bill Proxmire and Wayne Morse types when you need them?

I wonder if they could get Arlen Spector?

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 05:32 PM

A draft would be good, I think, because it would soon arouse such a degree of protest from the general American public (now that it was affecting more of them directly) that the war would become insupportable for any administration to pursue for much longer. Therefore, I hope they institute a new draft ASAP.

One question, Ron. Why would the fall of the Maliki government necessarily mean the departure of American occupying forces? Going by the Vietnam record (Diem, Thieu and all the others) cannot the fall of one useless semi-puppet government in an American satellite state simply lead to the rapid creation of another in its place? I think they would probably come up with something. At least they would certainly try to. Maybe they could import one of the Saudi Bin Ladens (You know? The good ones?) to head it.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: DougR
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 07:13 PM

We ain't gonna have no stinkin' draft, L.H.!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 07:36 PM

Well, Doug, you are probably correct....but if this 'war' keeps on, we ain't gonna have no stinkin' army, either! You can't expect re-enlistments and 'good' new recruits if sweating 3-4 tours in the desert...and maybe being blown up...is all they can look forward to.

There are good, loyal soldiers over there, but a good portion of them MUST see the futility of trying to 'help' a country who won't try.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 10:16 PM

Awww...darn! You think not, Doug? I trust the instincts of drafted citizen soldiers to recognize that a war is a bad idea a lot more than I trust the judgement of a volunteer army. It takes volunteers a bit longer to realize they've been had, cos their pride is at stake.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 07:19 PM

Bill,

Ya' know what, I'd have 100% more faith in the Dems if that ***at least*** tried to suspend the rules on the 60 votes needed to cut off a fillibuster... I read the other day that Repubs have used the fillibuster, or threat of, more times since the Dems took control of Congress 6 months ago than the Dems ahd used in the last 2 years???

Yeah, at least this would show the American people some courage of conviction...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 02:47 PM

The Dems did something good today, while the GOP did their usual, voted against allowing a vote to re-establish habeas corpus.From HERE:

The roll call is online, but I'd highlight a couple of things. First, every Democrat in the Senate supported restoring habeas, including conservative Dems from red states who are up for re-election. There is a patriotic party that's still willing to stand up for American principles; it's called the Democratic Party.

Second, six Senate Republicans had the decency to break party ranks on the issue: Sens. Snowe (Maine), Sununu (N.H.), Specter (Pa.), Hagel (Neb.), Lugar (Ind.), and Smith (Ore.).

Keep in mind, this was just the vote to allow a vote. It's one thing for conservatives to oppose habeas corpus, but these guys wouldn't even allow an up-or-down vote on a basic principle of Western Civilization.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:10 PM

Show votes. The Dems vote with the Reps on the big issues (Real I.D. Act, PATRIOT Act, the Iraq war), then they have a little show vote for the people back home every once in a while. A sham.

MEANWHILE, lead Democratic contender for the white house reveals a streak of fascism that none of the "fascist" Republicans would DARE show:

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system.

"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ap_interview_6

I mean, one of you democrats needs to really, really explain this to me. Clinton says the burden of providing health insurance will be shifted from the employer to the employee? She says you will be FORCED to give your money to an insurance company? She says punishment for non-compliance is an option? TELL me how this serves the interests of the "common" person.

-----------

"hmmm....budget time again. Shelter...check. Food...dog food, but check. Utilities...I can burn the other two dining chairs when it gets cold again, so...check. That's it. I got by for another month, and I even have a little left ov... Wait a minute. Health insurance. Lemme see, it looks like...damn. Only got enough for 17 days. 17 days if I go with Clinton Fidelity. They're a little higher but you get sexual enhancement drugs. Bush Security's been running some good TV ads, though. "An offer you can't refute." Man that GW makes me laugh. So let's see...Bush or Clinton, Bush or Clinton. Glad I have two choices. Arf."

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Alba
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 09:26 PM

Why waste a day in Congress debating Health Care and War and small stuff like that when you can take time out, of what I assume is a rather slow time for these Folks, and tackle the REAL issues facing this Country. Enough time out in fact to go through the rigmaroll of putting forward a resolution regarding a Political ad and then passing a vote condemning Political free speech! duh!

Meanwhile the Prez sayz that the "Democrat Party" (it's Democratic Party numb nuts) is more afraid of irritating Left wing Groups than they are of irritating the US Military...now what the F*** does that mean?
What has one got to do with the other and why would any American be "afraid" of their OWN Military?
Strange Politics.
Yeah honesty is the best politics, sorry Policy.
What a sorry time in American Political History we are living in.

J

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 12:21 AM

Alba, too fucking right! What a waste of a day in Congress!!


HillarycareII is not quite as simplistic as stated above. There's a good analysis at Slate with other related articles linked at the bottom of the article. From that article, I found out about what sounds like a very interesting book:

Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer (Hardcover)
by Shannon Brownlee

From Publishers Weekly

Starred Review. Contrary to Americans' common belief that in health care more is more—that more spending, drugs and technology means better care—this lucid report posits that less is actually better. Medical journalist Brownlee acknowledges that state-of-the-art medicine can improve care and save lives. But technology and drugs are misused and overused, she argues, citing a 2003 study of one million Medicare recipients, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, which showed that patients in hospitals that spent the most were 2% to 6% more likely to die than patients in hospitals that spent the least. Additionally, she says, billions per year are spent on unnecessary tests and drugs and on specialists who are rewarded more for some procedures than for more appropriate ones. The solution, Brownlee writes, already exists: the Veterans Health Administration outperforms the rest of the American health care system on multiple measures of quality. The main obstacle to replicating this model nationwide, according to the author, is a powerful cartel of organizations, from hospitals to drug companies, that stand to lose in such a system. Many of Brownlee's points have been much covered, but her incisiveness and proposed solution can add to the health care debate heated up by the release of Michael Moore's Sicko. (Sept.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Peace
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 11:09 AM

Guest STT:

"The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is the Democrat is a cannibal -- they have to live off each other--while the Republicans, why, they live off the Democrats."

Will Rogers

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 01:40 PM

Thanks for the Slate link katlaughing. Timothy Noah's article was excellent. The best point he made was what a boon a single payer system would be to U.S. companies in re global competitiveness. I have been saying this for years and I've wondered why U.S. companies (other than insurance companies) haven't got on board the universal healthcare train. Just this week the UAW is negotiating a new contract with one of the Big 3 Automakers (I forget which one but it doesn't really matter since once they iron out a deal with one, the others will sign the same deal.) and the biggest sticking point is healthcare.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 05:40 PM

You are welcome, Neil.

Jude, the Senate shenanigans backfired. Read on!

Yesterday, an amazing thing happened. After the Senate's shameful vote, and after President Bush called MoveOn "disgusting," our email started to fill up with messages like this one:

"I'm currently in Iraq. I do not agree with this war, and if I did support this war, it would not matter. You have the RIGHT to speak the truth. We KNOW that you support us. Thank you for speaking out for being our voice. We do not have a voice. We are overshooted by those who say that we soldiers do not support organizations like MoveOn. WE DO.

YOU ARE OUR voice."

And then came the donations. By midnight, over 12,000 people had donated $500,000—more than we've raised any day this year—for our new ad calling out the Republicans who blocked adequate rest for troops headed back to Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:00 PM

Excrement from...I mean 'excerpts' from the Slate article:

"Today, Clinton advocates incremental reform. The best argument in its favor is that it probably won't work and that when it doesn't, the federal government will have an opportunity to take over." ... So, Clinton wants to let the insurance companies suck you dry, and then when you can't pay any more, the government will "take over." But wait a minute. The government runs off tax money, so that means you'll STILL be paying for the health care system after your bank account is empty.

"Elegance: As always, I must explain that this refers not to the elegance of the former First Lady herself, who always dresses to the nines, but rather to her health-care plan." ... Slate tries to get you focused on the wrapping of this wizened old whore. Style over substance.

"How universal? Everybody is required to have some sort of plan. As I've stated before, I don't believe this can possibly be enforced. ("What are you in for?" "Forgot to buy health insurance.") I even have my doubts whether it's constitutional." ... Of COURSE it's not constitutional. But Clinton says she's going to violate the constitution by FORCING you to give your money to her INSURANCE COMPANY BACKERS. That's like someone holding a gun to your head at the ATM machine. It's a CRIME in ADDITION to being unconstitutional.

"How socialistic? Not enough for this pinko. But it does contain the seeds of destruction for private health insurance, at least as configured today. I like that." ... Clinton has proposed FASCISM, yet this electronic rag tells its deluded readers the plan is something else. Are ALL the articles in this thing as blatantly phony as this one?

"Why does no one see the necessity of having one or two right-wing reasons to nationalize health insurance?" BECAUSE CLINTON'S A DEMOCRAT AND THIS PLAN IS CONTRARY TO THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE! If George Bush proposed this it'd be all about "raping the poor," and "the rich get richer." What the hell is WRONG with you Democrats? Are you so desperate to get one of your "team" into a job that you'll support blatant fascism?

My letter to the author: Thank you for the steaming pile of crap that is your article "Hillarycare II." Clinton has said Americans will be FORCED to spend money on health insurance, she has indicated punitive measures for not paying this mafia protection money are on the table, and she wants to shift the burden of insurance from the employer to the employee. She is a state-welfare fascist, and your attempt to divert attention from that fact only makes it more obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:03 AM

In a succession of voice votes that were barely covered by the major media, the Democratic-led Senate has overwhelmingly approved approximately half a trillion dollars for the 2008 fiscal budgets funding the Pentagon's war machine and global US intelligence operations....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/pent-o5.shtml

The Democratic leadership in Congress is preparing to introduce new legislation this week that would permanently legalize the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance, while possibly providing a blanket amnesty for private telecommunications firms that helped the Bush administration illegally spy on their own customers....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/spy-o09.shtml

The Democratic Party leadership in the US Senate has effectively killed proposals put forward earlier this year to close a tax loophole that allows billionaire managers of hedge and private equity funds to enjoy tax rates on their income that are far lower than those imposed on average American workers....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/hedg-o10.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:14 AM

Keeping Democrats OR Republicans honest is like trying to keep a dachshund thin. Just about impossible.

Regarding a universal government-financed health care plan for all citizens: We already have that in Canada, have had it for a LONG time, and they alreadh have it in most of western Europe and some other places too, and it's an immeasurably better and saner and more responsible idea than the corrupt situation that presently exists in the USA, a society that is so backward in this particular respect, regarding health coverage, that it is almost incomprehensible to most people who are not American.

But, hey, if the monkey is used to being lied to, tricked, robbed, and kept in an iron cage, and he still thinks he's "free", why bother him by suggesting any changes in his daily routine, right?

Be that as it may, I don't know enough about Hillary's particular idea of a health plan to be able to comment on whether it's a good idea or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:20 AM

My dad died of liver failure last year. He required extensive hospitalization and treatment in the last few months. In the USA that would have bankrupt this family totally. In this country, it cost us virtually NOTHING...

I don't MIND paying some taxes every year, in order to live in a decent society that has some regard for its sick and dying! I do NOT have to pay taxes to support giant foreign wars of aggression that cost many, many billions of dollars a year. You do. Your taxes go for blood.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Leadfingers
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:23 AM

Quote " An HONEST politician is one who STAYS bought" --Al Capone !

And 100

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Leadfingers
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:24 AM

Damn ! It said 99 when I posted !! Ah Well !!

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 01:15 PM

Hyperbole, LH, is always interesting, but seldom useful. It is very true that the health care system in the US needs a significant amount of reform, especially in terms of coverage for those with lower than average incomes (who are those who most often lack health insurance) and in the context of pharmaceutical costs. However, your example is misplaced. My dad died of cancer earlier this year, and he also required extensive (and expensive) treatment in his last months. His care was paid for entirely through our tax-supported medical insurance program and the family's out-of-pocket expenses were minimal.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 01:35 PM

Well, I'm glad to hear that. I think, though, that it is those in lower income brackets in any society who most need to be protected by a universal health care system. That's the idea behind such a system. The idea is that no one will be unable to afford needed medical treatment nor will they have to purchase expensive insurance from a privately owned insurance company. What do you think of insurance companies in a general sense? Do you think they are good samaritans? I think they're in it strictly for the money. I think they'll do anything they can to weasel out of paying an insurance premium if they can find a way, because they're doing it to make money, not to help people.

Same deal goes for banks actually, but we need them because we cannot trust our fellow man enough to keep our money at home and feel remotely safe doing so...

It's a sad situation indeed. People should not have to fear these sorts of things in a properly functioning human community.

I would far rather pay a normal and predictable amount of yearly tax, along with everyone else, in a reasonably egalitarian manner, and have free medical coverage in return for a portion of it...than be suddenly confronted with a dire medical emergency that wipes me out financially. And so would anyone else with half a grain of sense.

Of course, if you think it's never going to happen to YOU....then that's a different matter, isn't it?

Maybe that's the attituded behind the whole neocon movement in the USA: "It's never gonna happen to me. I'm too special. Things like that just happen to poor people, foreigners, and losers, right? God protects his own, and that's why it won't happen to ME."

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 02:52 PM

What do you think of insurance companies in a general sense? is really a difficult question to answer...rather like asking what does one think of grocers or automobile manufacturers. There are a great many insurance companies, all or which, in one way or another, seek to make some sort of return on the investments of their owners/stockholders. Some are certainly more rapacious than others; the worst are those who are like the sub-premium mortgage brokers, who draw their customers from the ranks of those who have no viable alternatives.

My own best guess (and I'm sure the numbers are out there, but I don't really feel like looking them up) is that the health insurance companies which cover the largest number of people do so through some kind of employer contract - for example, Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Kaiser. Employers and employees share the cost; the employer share is generally well above half. Because of their sheer volume, they are able to negotiate rates with doctors, hospitals and other medical providers that are much lower than what "private pay" people are charged. For example, a physician might charge $98 for an office visit, but their "reasonable and customary" rate is $32, and that's what they pay. By agreeing to be part of that company's provider network, the doctor agrees to accept that fee and not go after the patient for the balance. I rather doubt that this figure ever represents a loss for the provider! The difficulty comes when a patient lives outside a metropolitan area, where there are few providers who will accept an insurance company's payment as payment in full; then the patient gets stuck with the balance. My own experience with Blue Cross is that they rarely question a charged service...other people have had different experiences with other companies.

The Medicare program in the US covers the elderly (65 and over) and a few special category people. It is basically the same as a group insurance program - there are premiums, Medicare negotiates a rate with providers, there are often "co-payments" that the patient must make (over and above what Medicare pays) and not all providers participate in the program - again, this issue is more acute outside of urban areas. Medicaid covers the poor, generally at no cost to them. The largest group that we need to "fix" is those whose income is too high to qualify for Medicaid, yet whose employers don't have a medical insurance program in which they can participate or one which they can afford.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 03:43 PM

Well that's all fine, art. I think in a society that provides universal health coverage from public funding and also provides plenty of opportunity for private-owned health insurance companies...which is what we do in Canada...I think that provides the best of both worlds.

That way everyone has a choice of which way they want to go, right?

The biggest weakness in our public health insurance system in Canada is this: it does not cover dental care. It should. Dental care is very, very expensive, and I have known a good many people who simply could not afford it, and as a result their health was directly affected in a very serious way.

It's a hole in the Canadian system that should be fixed.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 03:46 PM

If Canadian taxpayers pay for their health care through taxes and also pay for private insurance, are they paying twice for the same coverage? Do the two separate programs overlap or complement each other?

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 06:20 PM

I pay into both. There are some differences. Medicare does not cover drug costs or perhaps a private room in hospital. What's covered by Medicare are the basics. Extras have to be got at some other way. Hope that helps.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 06:44 PM

No, I don't think they're paying for the same thing twice. In any case, I am happy to pay some taxes that help protect the general public against illness even if I NEVER get sick myself. It could be spent a whole lot worse than that, I figure.

Anyone who wants to opt for private insurance in addition to our publicly funded medicare, that's their privilege. Some people do get private dental insurance, precisely because it is not publicly covered. I've thought about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 01:54 PM

Washington Post:

Flower-Power Pork

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, October 18, 2007; Page A25

Will the Democratic-controlled Senate approve a $1 million earmark to celebrate Woodstock-era baby boomers, carved out of a bill funding health care and education? It will, because it is sponsored by New York's influential Democratic senators, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer. It will, because they are promoting the pet project of a big-time Democratic campaign contributor.

Nevertheless, as the Senate began consideration of the Labor/Health and Human Services/Education appropriations bill yesterday, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma proposed an amendment to eliminate the earmark. The $1 million would go to the performing arts center of the Bethel Museum in Liberty, N.Y., at the site of the original 1969 Woodstock festival. Coburn argues that a "taxpayer-funded Woodstock flashback" would cut into the government's Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program grants.

That fits a new approach in Coburn's crusade against earmarks. He has told his colleagues that their addiction to pork wastes money that otherwise would build bridges, regulate mine safety and litigate civil rights cases. All to no avail so far. The lawmakers still embrace pork and reject Coburn by the same big margins by which they passed the infamous Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere" in the previous Congress.

Even by congressional standards of shamelessness, the Bethel earmark is extraordinary. "What Cooperstown is to baseball," says the museum's Web site, quoting from a New York Times story, "Bethel could be to the baby boom." Earlier this year, Bethel advertised a "Hippiefest" as a "return to the flower-powered days of the 1960s."

Bethel typifies the earmark epidemic because political insiders are often found pushing pork. The museum is funded principally by billionaire Alan Gerry's foundation, which has annual investment income of $24 million. Federal Election Commission records show that Gerry has donated at least $229,000 to political campaigns, and his wife, Sandra, has contributed $90,000 over the past 10 years (including $26,000 in the last election cycle to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, headed by Schumer). On June 30, the Gerrys gave the maximum $9,200 to Clinton's presidential campaign, three days after the two New York senators put the Bethel earmark into the Labor-HHS bill.

The same appropriations bill is packed with other funding earmarks that Coburn said could have helped children instead. Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa earmarked $900,000 for the Lyndon Baines Johnson Foundation. Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont put in $100,000 for the Lake Champlain Quadricentennial. The two Virginia senators, Republican John Warner and Democrat Jim Webb, inserted $150,000 for the Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center.

Coburn is after bigger game. He is trying to eliminate $3.7 million in grants to labor unions requested by Harkin and Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Coburn also seeks to remove $1.7 million added to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention budget to fund a Hollywood liaison to advise doctor dramas and $5.1 million for "audio visual integration" in the CDC's new communications and visitors center named for Harkin.

In the previous money bill before the Senate, funding Commerce, Justice and science, Coburn tried on Oct. 4 to redirect $2.5 million in earmarks -- mainly for museums -- to fund the prosecution of unsolved civil rights cases. That failed 61 to 31. On Sept. 12, Coburn lost, 63 to 32, in seeking to eliminate six out of 600 earmarks in the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations. These included a new baseball stadium in Billings, Mont. He was beaten 82 to 14 when he attempted to defer all earmarks until defective bridges are repaired.

Democratic party-line voting belies claims of a new climate on Capitol Hill. On the 61-to-31 Commerce vote, for instance, only two Democrats -- Evan Bayh of Indiana and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin -- voted against earmarks. But Coburn also was opposed by 17 Republicans (including Mel Martinez of Florida, the party's general chairman, and the top GOP members of the Appropriations Committee).

After his customary overwhelming defeat on the Transportation-HUD bill, Coburn blamed the Minnesota bridge failure on Congress: "We failed to make good decisions. We failed to direct dollars where they were needed most because this body is obsessed with parochial pork-barrel politics." Other senators hate it when the plain-spoken obstetrician from Muskogee, Okla., talks that way, but they figure hardly anybody -- including the media -- is listening.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 02:05 PM

First we freeze all their assets and bank accounts foreign and domestic.



and keep it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 02:58 PM

from the Washington Post:

Dishwashers for Clinton

Once again, a zeal for campaign cash trumps common sense.
Monday, October 22, 2007; Page A22


DONORS WHOSE addresses turn out to be tenements. Dishwashers and waiters who write $1,000 checks. Immigrants who ante up because they have been instructed to by powerful neighborhood associations, or, as one said, "They informed us to go, so I went." Others who say they never made the contributions listed in their names or who were not eligible to give because they are not legal residents of the United States. This is the disturbingly familiar picture of Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign presented last week in a report by the Los Angeles Times about questionable fundraising by the New York senator in New York City's Chinese community. Out of 150 donors examined, one-third "could not be found using property, telephone or business records," the Times reported. "Most have not registered to vote, according to public records."

This appears to be another instance in which a Clinton campaign's zeal for campaign cash overwhelms its judgment. After the fundraising scandals of President Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign, the dangers of vacuuming cash from a politically inexperienced immigrant community should have been obvious. But Ms. Clinton's money machine seized on a new source of cash in Chinatown and environs. As the Times reported, a single Chinatown fundraiser in April brought in $380,000. By contrast, 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry raised $24,000 from Chinatown in the course of his entire campaign.

As with the warnings it dismissed about the mega-bundles being brought in by fundraiser Norman Hsu, the Clinton campaign saw the red flags here. After the April fundraiser, when some of the donors' stated occupations seemed out of line with the amounts they were giving, the Clinton campaign wrote to contributors asking them to confirm that the money was their own. In the case of seven $1,000 contributions, donors did not respond and their checks were returned, according to the campaign. The campaign says that the others, including one who told the Times that he did not give the money, reaffirmed the legitimacy of their contributions.

It's certainly true, as campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson says, that "Asian-Americans in Chinatown and Flushing have the same right to contribute as every other American." The campaign argues that it did what it could to ensure that contributions were legal. The alternative, the campaign says, would be to prevent those with foreign-sounding names from participating in the political process. But there's another alternative: to strengthen a vetting process that seems geared more toward justifying the acceptance of checks than toward uncovering problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 01:39 AM

A Democrat dreamed it up, the Democratic congress is passing it. The Democrats are trying to make anti-government thought illegal:

On October 23rd of this year, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 passed 404 to 6 in the House. This bill is proposing an expansion of Homeland Security with the objective of spying on citizens whose political or religious beliefs might lead them to commit violent acts. And we are not referring to the attack of Megan Williams or the numerous police murders of non threatening civilians. No this is solely about spying on political dissidents whose politics were shaped through a critical analysis of US Foreign or Domestic policies.

The stated purpose of this bill is to first assemble a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence. Secondly, they will create a university-based Center of Excellence to study radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

Their definition of what defines radical and terrorism are very vague, and can be manipulated to serve several purposes. In the bill itself, it says homegrown terrorism means "the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence" by a native citizen of the United States. It is this definition that is leaves so much of this bills purpose, open to interpretation....

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=43&ItemID=14396

Excellent timeline at:

http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-Bill_of_Rights_Attack_Timeline

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: GUEST,Started the thread
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 01:15 PM

...The real venom in Pelosi's comments was reported by Washington Post Capitol Hill columnist Dana Milbank, one of those in attendance at the press interview. While Pelosi invariably maintains a publicly smiling posture, he wrote, "her spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic 'base' over her failure to end the war in Iraq."

"Look," she said, "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things—Buddhas? I don't know what they were—couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."

Pelosi continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."

Pelosi is married to a multimillionaire investor, and her comments were charged with social resentment as well as political hostility. The antiwar protesters are not only unwelcome because they expose her hypocritical pretense to opposing the Iraq bloodbath—they are dirty, ragged and disreputable, and irritate the neighbors.

Pelosi's remark—imagine that riffraff "sleeping on my sidewalk"—is reveals the enormous social distance between the masses of working people, housewives, students who oppose the war, and the privileged ruling elite. And her disparaging reference to the First Amendment demonstrates the hostility of a big business politician towards the democratic rights of the working class....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/pelo-o15.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Keeping Democrats honest
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Dec 07 - 04:38 PM

"Emanuel's aides said he was willing to talk to Sheehan and her cohorts, but he and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and incoming Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) headed inside the Cannon Caucus room when it appeared the shouting would not stop...."

First of all, Emanuel and Hoyer had plenty of opportunity to talk to and with Cindy Sheehan but made their position quite clear that they were opposed to her. There was nothing left to do but protest their ignoring of her. The Democratic Party headed by the DLC have no intention of honoring the dissent by many of the Democratic base as being valid. They have stated that the progressives will just have to go along with their decisions about how the Party should be run because they have no alternative.

No, the alternative is not to support the Party regulars like Emanuel and Hoyer. If the base abandons the Party, it will be because the DLC with Emanuel and Hoyer no longer reflect the values of the Democratic Party. The DLC'ers are looking more like Republicans every day. There's not much difference between the stated views of Hillary and Bush.

Frank Hamilton