BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 01:37 PM

LOL!!!

And Julian Lennon. And Peter Fonda. And....

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 05:44 PM

...but what explains Ricky Nelson?

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 05:49 PM

A monarchy goes farther, Bill D, when the monarch is alive. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 07:53 PM

No, Peace, this explains Nancy Sinatra Nancy Sinatra's "Boots" Album Cover

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 08:01 PM

Yeah, that's classic 60's. It ain't folk, but it's classic.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 08:50 PM

Nancy Sinatra. O-o-o-o-o-o-oh, yeah!

(Sings pretty well, too.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:53 PM

... and Angelina Jolie, Michael Douglas, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jane Fonda, etc., etc., Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:54 PM

M Ted, perhaps the reason the Republicans got only 10.6% of the vote in Pelosi's district in 2006 was that Nancy was considered so unbeatable that it would not be cost effective for the Republican party to put forward and support a really strong candidate in that race.    But if polls showed that Pelosi and Sheehan were virtually splitting the Democratic/liberal vote, the picture could change.   If the Republicans picked a rather fiscally conservative (balanced-budget, etc) but socially more moderate or liberal and environmentally concerned candidate -- a la the Governator -- they well might pick up enough independent voters to win the seat.    If Pelosi got 80% last time and there were 10% who voted Libertarian, Green, Independent, etc., maybe a Sheehan v. Pelosi battle would yield the two of them about 43% of the vote apiece -- IF the Republicans had a weak candidate or ineffective campaign.   But an attractive "moderate" Republican with full financial backing of the party (not to mention Karl Rove's dirty tricks like caging, robo-calls, voter challenges at the polls) would have to pull only about 12% from Pelosi and 12% from Sheehan to win with a plurality.

LittleHawk, you're right that we need either IRV or a proportional-representation system for Congress. Since the latter would take a Constitutional amendment, IRV is much more viable option.   And infiltrating the Democratic party is one avenue toward bringing that -- and other liberal policies -- about.
Transforming the Democratic party at the national level will, indeed, take time. But doing it at the local level doesn't have to.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:02 PM

Genie, wake up!!! It's San Francisco--there hasn't been a credible Republican candidate there since 1949--When the director of a Lesbian political dance company has almost as much support as the Republican, it should tell you something important about the nature of the electorate.

And, that aside, ask yourself this question--if the speaker of the house of representatives--the third most powerful politician in the whole government, came from your district, would you replace her with a freshman rep who would have nearly no clout? And would you remove the first woman to ever become Speaker of the House? And the woman who had achieved the highest office ever held by a woman in US gov't? Not no way. Not no how.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:24 PM

M Ted, I hope you're right about the stronghold the Democrats have in San Francisco (that there's not even 1/3 of the voters who would vote for a "moderate, progressive Republican" if the party dug one up.
(I've heard that progressive talk radio stations still have trouble holding onto their spots in the SF area, though, because the money is still mostly on the other side.)

Would I replace the Democratic Speaker Of the House Of Representatives with a freshman who, as you say, wouldhave nearly no clout?
Hell, no.
But I also wouldn't encourage a low-clout newbie to challenge said Speaker in the general election and make her - and the party - spend their resources on campaigning for the speaker.

I'd also much rather the liberal challengers aim their arrows at those whom they disagree with on 90% of the issues instead of those they disagree with mainly on strategy or on only 40-50% of the issues.

"And would you remove the first woman to ever become Speaker of the House? And the woman who had achieved the highest office ever held by a woman in US gov't? Not no way. Not no how."

Of course not. But, while Cindy Sheehan must know that beating Pelosi won't make her Speaker Of The House, I'm not so sure a good number of politically uninformed Sheehan supporters realize that. To hear many of them talk, it sounds like they think Sheehan's beating Pelosi would put the Speakership in the hands of someone whose views are more in line with Cindy's than Nancy's are.   And it sounds like that's why they'd vote for Sheehan -- not just to replace one of several hundred Representatives with a more anti-war one.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 04:09 PM

Hi Genie,

Fun discussion. I must agree to disagree.

" She's rather like the chihuahua who fearlessly goes for the throat of the great Dane. Very gutsy and single-minded. Seldom terribly effective."

I think that Cindy is terribly effective. She may not get votes but she will influence the politics. This, in the same way that Martin Luther King did, or woman suffragettes, or the abolitionists. If it weren't for Cindy, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Eugene Debs, Robert Ingersoll,
Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Thomas Paine, and so many who operated under principle rather than political expedience, the two-party system would remain useless because no important political idea would be introduced through societal pressure. Politicians are known to follow the lines of least resistance.


"I think there IS a real danger that people like Cindy -- i.e., liberals who form a circular firing squad around the Dems and progressive-minded politicians instead of aiming at the neocons -- will help create Karl Rove's dream of a "permanent Republican majority."

Again, I must disagree. Many Dems are their own firing squad and have shot themselves in the foot by taking reactionary stands rather than innovative and truthful ones. They are too beholden to K Street to have the temerity to stand up to a Karl Rove. Witness the DLC as a case in point. The DLC must share culpability in the support of a Rove by failing to counter and oppose these criminals who run our country.

Cindy and Dennis offer the courage to take on the DLC and the K Street "whores". It looks like Edwards will also close in on the facist corporations.


"I especially bemoan the fact that the Democratic-controlled House seems reluctant to impeach a criminal administration for trashing the constitution.   (Some principles are more important than political expediency. Not to mention that, with Republicans filibustering and Bush's veto pen ever poised, it's unlikely Congress will get anything through, this term, that Bush doesn't approve of.)"

Here I agree with you wholeheartedly.

"MAYBE "they" SHOULD support Cindy, but "they" are unlikely to do so as a unified group."

I recall that Lyndon Johnson was dragged kicking and screaming to the support of Civil Rights. The Kennedys even bugged King's telephone. Eventually they had to answer to the will of the people.

"Pelosi now has enough support from the overlapping groups -- Democrats, progressives, independents, anti-war groups -- to pretty much ensure her retaining her seat in the House.   If Sheehan runs against her as an Independent, it's quite possible the effect will be to split the vote of the aforementioned groups and give the seat to a Republican, who will probably be less acceptable to the liberal/anti-war "idealists" than Pelosi is."

This has been the old bromide from the very inception of the two-party system. That may or may not be true depending on whether these Pelosi Dems can see the light and not give Bush his Surge Money. If they decide to do this and not stand up to the replacement of Gonzo with Chertoff, then they are really no different from the Rethugs. Pelosi has not shown in any demonstrable way that she is an "anti-war idealist". In fact, they have given Bush pretty much everything he wants.


"IRV, in non-trivial ways, is as important to democracy as"what Cindy is doing now. It allows voters' true preferences to be registered, without fear of throwing away a vote by voting for someone who's not likely to place first or second in the race this time around."

IRV is important. The only thing it doesn't do is bring to the fore the princlples that many Democrats of the past have embraced. It is not clear what the Democratic Party stands for any more because they are reluctant to articulate principles in the same way the Rethugs have.

"   Hmm. Perhaps. But let's not forget that there are equally zealous moms and dads on the other side of the fence who have also lost beloved sons or daughters in Iraq.   Being passionately devoted to a cause does not automatically make your ideas workable, much less put them into effect in a practical way."

True but without these idealists and passion, all practical manners of working are useless.
Until the Democratic Party can say with assurance what it stands for, it will remain dormant. Cindy is articulating these principles through her efforts and this is practical because people know where she stands and can respond in whatever way they want.


Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 05:09 PM

Cindy will no doubt have some effect as a gadfly taking on those she sees as misguided or gutless Democrats, but I think she'd have far more effect if she took down a neocon Republican or at least a "blue dog" Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 05:21 PM

Frank, I don't think Cindy's running against Pelosi amounts to taking on the establishment "in the same way that Martin Luther King did, or woman suffragettes, or the abolitionists.

Last time I checked, those people, as well as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Eugene Debs, Robert Ingersoll, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Thomas Paine, etc., did not make the inroads they did by running for elective office against people who were basically on the same side of the political spectrum (but either too moderate or too timid to be ideally effective).

And, whatever you may think about the DLC Democrats, they are NOT the same as today's Republicans, if for no other reason than that they don't depend on Karl Rove and his ilk for support.   Many off them, including Pelosi, can and DO vote against a lot of what the Bush administration and the Republican's try to push through.   

Cindy's replacing Nancy -- if it happened -- would be far less of an advance for the Dems than Cindy's replacing a Bush supporter would be.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Re-poster
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 05:47 PM

Those are show votes. Pelosi is a neo-con. Neo-cons are Trotskyite Communists. They infiltrated the Republican party and are currently guiding it, while lying to the traditional Republican conseravtive base.

Pelosi has no need to lie about her liberal politics. She is the same as George Bush when it comes to politics. She supports the growth of big federal government, supports the war in Iraq, and she supports the stripping away of civil liberties for Americans.

Google a speech called "Neo-conned". You'll be reading about Republicans, but the same holds true for Pelosi and her ilk. They are preservers of the status quo.

The Democrats inherited responsibility for the war in Iraq when they voted to add an additional 100 billion dollars to the thing. Sheehan should run a simple campaign--just say, "Nancy Pelosi killed my son."

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 07:35 PM

". . . and that was the latest word from Mars. Now, back to our regular broadcast."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Re-poster
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:21 PM

President Bush made clear in remarks on Friday that there would be no comprehensive program to aid the millions of American homeowners who have already lost their homes or are at risk of foreclosure due to the collapsing US housing market....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/home-s01.shtml

One of the goals of communism is the abolishment of private property. But if that's a leftist, communist goal, why are the right-wing "conservatives" chucking people out of their homes? Answer, both parties have the same goals. The neo-cons are Trotskyite communists. From the speech "Neo-Conned":

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss' books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli's philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree....

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:31 PM

Genie, again we have to agree to disagree.

If you were around during the time of Martin Luther King, the pundits and Dems were saying exactly the same thing about him as they are saying about Cindy today.

I disagree that those who are amoung the DLC are on the same side as Stanton, Debs, Ingersoll, King, Ghandi,Paine etc. There is a prevailing myth that there is a "centrist" position. This is propaganda by appeasers and enablers to the Right Wing. None of the people I mentioned would have been elected but that's not the point. The point is to do exactly what King did, challenge the prevailing authorities of the Right and Left. Remember that most of the Dems of the Fifties and Sixties were not in favor of Civil Rights. This includes Kennedy and Johnson, the latter, who lead the US into an equally false combat predicated on lies about the Bay of Tonkin.

The DLC Democrats may as well be Republicans because they are enablers for this pre-emptive illegal occupation of a foreign country and they support it by giving money to Bush. They will also confirm Chertoff which is the final straw that will break the Party's back. We need Cindy to counter this sell-out.   

Pelosi's votes to counter the Bush criminal takeover are meaningless as long as she and other Dems continue to support the Occupation and the Surge. This invalidates any of the seemingly good social reforms that they purport to advocate. I also remind you that Pelosi said that her first deed once elected in the first weeks of office was campaign finance reform. How is that working for the American people?

I see the weak-kneed Dems as enabling Karl Rove. The old cliche "actions speak louder than words" applies here.

If Cindy were to replace Pelosi, it would send a message that the Democratic Party had found a legitimate voice for Americans who mostly reject Bush's lies.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:36 PM

"Pelosi is a neo-con. Neo-cons are Trotskyite Communists. "

pooh! not only is the definition a silly stretch, Pelosi is not anywhere near it.

"Neo-con" doesn't refer to any party or affiliation...it is a buzz-word invented to be able to slap labels on folks you don't care for...like anyone to the left of Ghengis Khan Reagan.

This "guilt by once being in the same room as..." sure makes it easy to connect a lot of knee-jerk dots!

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 03:52 PM

From Washington Post staff writer Philip Kennicott:

Much nonsense has been written on [Leo] Strauss's political thought—often caricatured as crudely anti-democratic, obsessed with secret meanings and in love with white lies told by powerful men to keep the rabble in line. Some have suggested a dark cabal of Straussian intellectuals secretly pull the strings of the Bush administration — which is ridiculous: The mistakes and false suppositions that led us into the Iraq war are all on the record and understanding them requires no supplemental speculation about ulterior motives or conspiracy theories.

Re-poster, who is, of course, Froth yet again, never met a conspiracy theory that he/she/it didn't love and embrace wholeheartedly.

Don Firth

P. S. And trying to peddle this kind of nonsense is not doing Cindy Sheehan any favors. If she becomes associated with this kind of dip-shittery, no one but a small coterie of nut-balls would vote for her, even if she ran, not against Nancy Pelosi, but against a vulnerable Republican, which is what she should do.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 04:25 PM

"dip-shittery"

*mumble, mumble*...copying that exquisite turn of phrase for future use...

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:47 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Ebbie - PM
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 01:26 PM

"But, Ake, you are still in Iraq. Don't you think you should leave?"


From: akenaton - PM
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 04:47 PM

"Ebbie..We will be gone by the end of this year.
Even in the UK political survival is paramount"

Listen up Ebbie You heard it here first.......

Dateline 2nd Sept 2007   British troops pull out of Basra City, temporary home ...Basra airbase...next stop Kuwait then home.
Who will fill the vacuum? American soldiers.
How did we swing it? We made it clear to Labour that with blair in office and no change in policy they would be unelectable.

How can you swing it?.....Work it out for yourselves...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Re-poster
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 07:26 PM

The "new conservatives" are Trotskyite communists, as identified in the speech above. The list of names is impressive, and all followers of Leo Strauss. Bush's advisors. Republicans have been had.

And on the "other side," Hillary Clinton is supposed to be more liberal, more "socialist." And she wants to nationalize healthcare. National...socialist. Ring a bell? Nazi? National Socialist? Hillary Clinton? Surely I jest.

The labels are all phony. We have one national party in America, and its goal is tyranny. The Senate voted 100-0 to give you the Real I.D. Act, which will require you to carry internal papers just like the Germans had to do under the Nazis. You won't be able to work, drive, bank or purchase without your Real I.D.

The only way to break this system is with a third party.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: 282RA
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 08:56 PM

The bottom line is, folks:

WE WILL STILL BE IN IRAQ THROUGH NOV 2008 AND WE WILL BE IN IRAQ THROUGH 2009 AND 2010.

After that we will be fleeing from rooftops because we'll be out of troops and too chickenshit to start a draft and too chickenshit to serve if they did start one.

And it does not matter who you vote for as far as that goes. But I do know that the dems do not have what it takes to manage or mismanage this war in such a way that the public will not demand their lynching. Pubs can make the same mistakes and be pardoned--understandable errors.

So there's no point to voting dem in 08 if the war is not over and it will definitely NOT be over. No one trusts them to manage this war and they don't trust themselves. They can howl for a change of course until it is put in their laps and then they decide to just keep going the way we're going even though we're losing.

That's why Hillary is all the sudden saying the surge is working. The dems need to keep the war going. They'd rather do that than be called surrender dogs. But if we flee Iraq with a dem president in charge, that's what's going to happen anyway and, before you know it, the pubs will be put back in charge so you may as well vote pub in 08.

The time to vote them out was 04 not 06. The 06 election was too little too late. We missed our window and now nothing really matters. No matter who is in charge, the worst that can happen is going to happen. I'd rather the ones who started it still be in charge to take the public's wrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:12 PM

[[Stringsinger:

...
If you were around during the time of Martin Luther King, the pundits and Dems were saying exactly the same thing about him as they are saying about Cindy today.]]

Let's not confuse "liberal," "socially conscious," "progressive," etc., with "Democrat" or "Republican."   A huge segment of the Democratic party before 1970 were the 'Dixiecrats'. (Wasn't Strom Thurmond a Dem. back then?)   The Republican party had such leaders as Everett Dirksen, Nelson Rockefeller, John Lindsay, etc. -- even Richard Nixon -- who were far more progressive, at least on some issues, than even a Democrat like Bill Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:27 PM

Bill D,
You beat me to the punch in borrowing Don Firth's exquisite terminology! *g*

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:38 PM

[[282RA:
So there's no point to voting dem in 08 if the war is not over and it will definitely NOT be over. No one trusts them to manage this war and they don't trust themselves.]]

Don't know how to break it to you, but the 'war' is not the only important issue in this upcoming election. While none of the Dems except Edwards and Kucinich are yet proposing the kinds of changes we need to out health care "system," pretty much all the Dems would probably do more to improve it than the Republicans would. And several Democratic candidates would probably do things like fixing (or backing out of) NAFTA and GATT, supporting organized labor, dealing with global warming, stopping the hemorrhaging of American jobs, etc., too -- at least better than Guiliani, Romney, etc.

Probably the single biggest reason we need a non-Republican President in 2008 is that Ginsburg and Stevens will probably resign from SCOTUS (if they don't die first). Possibly Breyer too.    Another Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, or Sam Alito on the court could do irrevocable damage to our nation, our democracy, and the earth as habitable for humans.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:54 PM

Oh, Genie....I agree with you. I almost wish you hadn't said it, 'cause I don't like thinking about it. A court with more Thomases & Scalias would be bad, because they are dangerous....one with more like John Roberts would be devastating....because he is BOTH smart and dangerous.

Hold on Ginzberg and Stevens!

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: 282RA
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 12:29 AM

>>Don't know how to break it to you, but the 'war' is not the only important issue in this upcoming election. While none of the Dems except Edwards and Kucinich are yet proposing the kinds of changes we need to out health care "system," pretty much all the Dems would probably do more to improve it than the Republicans would.<<

Oh, come on, for Christ's sake! You must think people are stupid. Of course, the dems aren't going to do anything about it! They've had plenty of their people in the White House and held a majority in Congress for over 40 years and nothing changed. And it's not going to change now. If they're too scared to stop Bush or end the war, I'm supposed to believe they're going to handle health care??? BASED ON WHAT????????

And, of the dems, the ONLY one I trust is Kucinich and, needless to say, he has no chance of winning his party's nomination. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for George W. Bush. It'll be like he never left office. You mark my words! You hear me? YOU MARK MY WORDS!!!!

>>And several Democratic candidates would probably do things like fixing (or backing out of) NAFTA and GATT, supporting organized labor, dealing with global warming, stopping the hemorrhaging of American jobs, etc., too -- at least better than Guiliani, Romney, etc.<<

As I recall, it was the democrats who gave us NAFTA. No, they're not going to change it.

>>Probably the single biggest reason we need a non-Republican President in 2008 is that Ginsburg and Stevens will probably resign from SCOTUS (if they don't die first). Possibly Breyer too.    Another Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, or Sam Alito on the court could do irrevocable damage to our nation, our democracy, and the earth as habitable for humans.<<

Things were falling apart long before those clowns were ever sworn in. And things will continue to fall apart whether they are there or liberals are there. The only real change they can make is to abortion laws and I don't care about abortion one way or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:17 AM

282RA, NOBODY could be as bad a Dubya (except maybe Cheney).    I doubt that many in the Republican party would have pulled the stuff he and Cheney (with Rove pulling the strings) have done -- e.g., warrantless wiretaps, trying to rescind habeas corpus, and essentially naming himself dictator (with the corporate foxes guarding all the cabinet-level henhouses and the dept of justic being filled with political operatives).   Yes, I'm frustrated that not enough Democrats have tried hard enough to block Bush's power-grab, but I really don't see a new Republican President doing much of anything to roll back those over-reaches. Bill Clinton, for all his corporatist leanings, did put Bruce Babbitt in as Sec. of Interior and some other honorable and sensible people in some other cabinet positions. He also nominated Ruth B. Ginsburg.

Oh, and I really do expect John Edwards to move forward with some important changes in health care (e.g., making Medicare available to all, thus giving the private insurers some stiff competition), if he's elected.

Sorry, but the fact that the Democratic party's stand on a lot of matters has been too weak, too disorganized, etc., does not mean the country would be just as bad off under them as under yet another neocon Republican regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:23 AM

Oh, and it was Bill Clinton, with a Republican-dominated Congress, who gave us NAFTA.   One of the worst policies Clinton ever pursued.

That doesn't mean the Dems on the whole support NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT -- especially now that we're seeing so plainly and painfully what those poorly-regulated treaties have wrought.

25 years ago the people of the US weren't screaming so much about the horrible state of our health care "system," about how the middle class is getting screwed by the corporatocracy, etc.   

The perfect is the enemy of the good.   Throw all the Dems under the bus just because they're far from perfect, and I fear we're heading for disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:32 AM

[[Things were falling apart long before those clowns [Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas] were ever sworn in. And things will continue to fall apart whether they are there or liberals are there. The only real change they can make is to abortion laws and I don't care about abortion one way or another.]]

Guess again, my friend.

The neocon/corporatist bloc on the SCOTUS -- I won't even call them "conservative," because in many decisions they show contempt for the Constitution, at least the Bill Of Rights -- not only can take away a lot more of our liberties, but they've already gone pretty far in that direction. Talking about our rights to peacefully assemble to petition the gov't for redress of grievances; protection against unreasonable search and seizure; due process of law; the federal gov't stepping in to overrule state gov't decisions such as medical majijuana, Dr-assisted suicide; protection of our environment; etc.

The very fact that the Rehnquist court allowed Bush v. Gore to be heard, instead of sending it back to the state court where it belonged, shows how out of bounds some of these justices can be.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 09:30 AM

NOBODY could be as bad a Dubya (except maybe Cheney).

Ya wanna bet? I'll cover it.

You need to have more faith in the Republican Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: 282RA
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 11:45 AM

>>NOBODY could be as bad a Dubya (except maybe Cheney).<<

Including all the current GOP runners, so it will be no problem for me to vote for one of them next year. I'm goddamn serious, the dems cannot manage this war--it's out of control. Why they'd rather inherit it than end it is telling me these people are not very smart and are only playing politics and dead and maimed Americans can all go to hell.

>>Oh, and I really do expect John Edwards to move forward with some important changes in health care (e.g., making Medicare available to all, thus giving the private insurers some stiff competition), if he's elected.<<

Elected to what?? President?? He has no chance. Hillary Clinton is going to get the nomination. I think I'd rather see a republican as president than her.

>>Sorry, but the fact that the Democratic party's stand on a lot of matters has been too weak, too disorganized, etc., does not mean the country would be just as bad off under them as under yet another neocon Republican regime.<<

And stop trying to scare people with this neocon shit. Nobody runing right now for the 08 race is a neocon--it's a failed strategy and no pub in his right mind would dare attempt to align himself with it.

>>Oh, and it was Bill Clinton, with a Republican-dominated Congress, who gave us NAFTA.   One of the worst policies Clinton ever pursued.<<

And president Hillary is going to roll back her husband's policies? Those are not going to be touched by either party.

>>Throw all the Dems under the bus just because they're far from perfect, and I fear we're heading for disaster.<<

Is that supposed to be a logical argument??? Hell, let's just forgive Bush and Cheney for their imperfect management of the war then, for shit's sake!

>>Talking about our rights to peacefully assemble to petition the gov't for redress of grievances; protection against unreasonable search and seizure; due process of law; the federal gov't stepping in to overrule state gov't decisions such as medical majijuana, Dr-assisted suicide; protection of our environment; etc.<<

Right. And none of these were at issue until Bush came to power.

>>The very fact that the Rehnquist court allowed Bush v. Gore to be heard, instead of sending it back to the state court where it belonged, shows how out of bounds some of these justices can be.<<

I didn't know Rehnquist was a Bush appointee.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 12:11 PM

282RA, your frustrations may be valid but I doubt that your 'solution' will attract many followers. So go ahead and vote for a Republican- it won't make a bit of difference in the wash.

It was, of course, not Bush but Nixon who appointed Rehnquist. And we all know of Nixon's slavish devotion to the US Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: 282RA
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 02:09 PM

>>So go ahead and vote for a Republican- it won't make a bit of difference in the wash.<<

Exactly. Let the people who started it finish it and let them take the heat they so richly deserve. Dems are idiots for wanting to inherit this war.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 02:22 PM

Yeah, 282, but remember....they are playing the game they have been taught to play all their lives. They're trying to win the World Series, for gosh sakes! Try telling a baseball team to throw the game and lose the Series...

That's exactly what it's like. It's a game. Both parties are trained to do everything possible to win it when the playoffs come around. That is their reason for being.

I agree that the Democrats would be fools to want to inherit this stupid war...but has that EVER stopped either one of those parties from trying to win the next election? No. And it never will. If they were inheriting the end of the world and the complete and utter destruction of all they hold dear, they'd still be out there trying like hell to win the election.   They don't know what else to do. The game is bigger than they are.

When this war is finally, irrevocably lost...I too would rather see the Republicans take the blame for it. You bet I would.

Still, I don't think I could stomach voting for them.

Hell of a quandary. But I can't vote for them anyway, because I'm Canadian, so it's a decision I'll never have to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 02:53 PM

If it were only the war at issue here I too might say, A Republican started it, let the Republicans figure out how to get out of it.

However, there are many other issues, issues that will affect our country and our world for decades if not longer. Even our status in the world is an issue. But there are many others, as given above by Genie and others.

T'row de bums out!

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:43 PM

I can certainly understand the frustration of a number of folks here about the ineffectuality of the Democratic Party within recent years, and I share it, which is one of the reasons I favor Dennis Kucinich. But I am not so naïve as to think he has much of a chance. There are, however, a couple of other good candidates.

Anyone who has any delusions about a third party having a ghost of a chance in the coming national election is living in a dream world, and as attractive as a idea of a progressive third party moving in, shouldering the Democrats out of the way, and winning over the Republicans is, it just isn't going to happen. Get over it!

And the idea that it will make no difference whether the Democrats or Republicans get elected in 2008 is just bloody ignorant! How much of a difference is what is at issue.

I know that my two Senators and my Congressional Representative (all three Democrats) are working like beavers to end the Bush administration's idiotic junket in the Middle East in as rational a manner as possible (and there is no general agreement between anyone on how best to do this). And I know that Jim McDermott was opposed to this war well before it started and has been a passionate advocate for both election reform and an all-inclusive national health care system for years and is not about to give up. So I am sure as hell going to work to see that they get re-elected.

Since your only real choice is between the Democrats and the Republicans. If you really do want to see this war brought to an end in as short a time as is decently possible, and see such things as national health care brought into existence, it sure as hell isn't going to happen if you vote for the Republicans. That would simply be a "people's mandate" to just keep doing what they've been doing. Whether it actually is or not, it will certainly be interpreted that way. And if you decide that you're just not going to bother to vote at all, then sit down and shut up!.

Okay! How to get the Democrats to do what you want them to do.

I've already answered that. Or rather, someone else has explained how to do it, and I have already posted a link to that explanation. Some people either have not bothered to read it or simply dismissed it because it means that instead of just sitting around and bitching, they have to get up off their butts and actually do something! That's more that a lot of people—often those who bitch the loudest—care to exert themselves to do.

I will even go so far as to same them the trouble of scrolling up to find the link. I'll re-post it for the convenience of everyone:

CLICKY.

Now! Read it! Heed it! Then stop whining and GET TO WORK!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:45 PM

If only there was a way to throw both lots of bums out. That I would like to see.

What I would do if I was an American is, I'd simply vote for the individuals in my area that I had the most confidence in...assuming I had confidence in any of them.

And for President? Well, we'll have to wait and see who runs. What worries me in the case of Hillary running is that she might get elected, in which case I would probably have an even harder time arranging that dinner date with her that I've been trying to set up for the last few years. And if I did arrange it, I'd have to put up with secret service men watching us. That would sort of spoil the mood.

(I've already talked to Bill, by the way. He's okay about it...) ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:34 AM

Don, I think you don't understand Cindy. She is not expecting to win really but she is sending an important message to the "do-nothing" Dems in Congress. If it were Newt Gingrich, he would be walking out with the Rethugs to shut down Congress. Pelosi has managed to get bills to the floor that should never have been there. The fact that the Dems are not walking out or raising hell about what is going on gives them little credibility. They are playing Party politics.

Three points the Dems have to do to be credible.

1. End the Occupation in Iraq.
2. Demand campaign finance reform.
3. Curb K-Street and do a Teddy Roosevelt and bust the fascist corporations.

Then the other important issues can be addressed and their solutions will have teeth.

If the Dems confirm either Lieberman or Chertoff as AG in place of Gonzo, it's all over for them. You have to get that.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: M.Ted
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 01:14 PM

Maybe my memory is failing me, but it seems like some of the folks in this very discussion thread used to say things like, "There is no real difference between Bush and Gore--".

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 01:50 PM

Yes, indeed, M. Ted.   I think those who kept repeating that like a mantra back in 2000 would never admit it now. But they do insist on saying that it makes no difference whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in office. Those who won't learn from history will continue to babble incoherently.

And true, most of the campaign financing for both Democratic and Republican candidates comes from the big corporations, and that's where election reform comes in. But you will note that while the corporations try to cover their bets by contributing to both sides, they much prefer the Republicans. So they think it makes a difference.

No, Frank, I definitely do understand what Cindy Sheehan is up to. And I agree with your three points. I've been thinking for some time now that I would like to see Teddy Roosevelt reincarnated and in office.

Don Firth

Subject: Dems v. Republicans and the US Supreme Court
From: Genie
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 02:33 PM

If you don't think there's a difference between Democrats -- even DLC Dems like the Clintons -- and the neocon Republicans, consider this:

The 5 justices on the Rehnquist court who made the outrageous decision in Bush v. Gore (even the decision to hear that case, which should have been thown back to Florida) were all appointed by Republicans.

Rehnquist appointed by Nixon
Justice John Stevens appointed by Ford
Scalia appointed by Reagan
O'Connor appointed by Reagan
Kennedy appointed by Reagan
Thomas appointed by Bush 41
David Souter appointed by Bush 41
Breyer appointed by Clinton
Ginsburg appointed by Clinton

True, sometimes (as in the case of Souter) the appointee surprises and disappoints the President who nominated him/her. (Souter came very close to resigning from SCOTUS over the Bush v. Gore decision because he considered it such a slap in the face to the Constitution.)   But the ones who can just about always be counted on to make decisions that favor big corporations, the rich, the religious right, and the Republican party -- regardless of the Constitutional justification -- have all been appointed by Republicans.

There's a huge chasm between Breyer and Ginsburg (Clinton appointees) and Stevens (appointed by rather moderate Republican Ford), on the one hand, and Scalia, Thomas (Reagan and Bush 41 appointees), at the other extreme.

Now that Rehnquist has been replaced (by Bush 43) by the even more extreme Roberts and
Sam Alito (Bush 43) has replaced the more moderate O'Connor, even the appointment of another justice like Kennedy or O'Connor could be a disaster if that appointment was to replace any of the justices who seem to value the Bill Of Rights and the rights of ordinary individuals over those of big business (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter).

It's very likely that one or more of those four so-called "liberals" on the court -- so-called only because the others are so far to the extreme right -- will leave the court in the next 4 to 8 years.   Quite possibly all of them could, because of their age and the state of their health.   

We cannot afford another Clarence "never-justify-or-explain-your-decisions,-just-vote-in-favor-of-the-neocons" Thomas, John Roberts, or Samuel Alito on the court. (Even Scalia occasionally honors his own sense of allegiance to the Constitution and breaks with the outrageous policies of the Dubya administration. And Kennedy seems to be less of an idealogue than even Scalia.)   

I realize that it's the Senate that confirms justices, not the House Of Representatives matters too.   But when I hear (alleged) liberals saying there's not a whit of difference between Democrats like Clinton (either one) and most of today's Republicans, I beg to differ,   There have been some HUGE policy differences between Bill Clinton and Republicans like Regan, Bush 41, and Bush 43.   And there have been some huge differences in legislation passed by Democratic-controlled and Republican-controlled Congresses.   

Let's not forget that one reason the Dems haven't accomplished a lot, legislatively, since Jan., 2005, is that the Republicans in the Senate keep filibustering and Bush keeps vetoing.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: M.Ted
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:52 PM

People who don't think there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats are alienated from the political system. And, for them, it is true, because neither serves their interests.

The mistake is to believe that some "independent" or "maverick" or "outsider" will clean house and give them what they want. For one thing, everyone who makes it to the ballot under a party banner got there from the inside. For another, once you join the party, you have to make nice with the permanent guests.

Corporations, unions, polical action committees, business associations, religious groups and special interest groups aren't going to leave town because Cindy Sheehan
(or anybody else) gets elected to anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:18 PM

I think the problem is not that there is no difference between them, but that there is not enough difference...specially when it comes to backing certain primary areas of both foreign and domestic policy. They may talk differently, but their actions speak louder than their words.

I have in any case indicated that I would vote Democratic if I were faced with the choice of picking between them.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:29 PM

since the discussion has moved into general comments...

Conduct of the media-part 1

part 2

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: M.Ted
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 01:08 AM

Here's a specific comment--Cindy Sheehan's comments on Israel have earned her endorsement and support from a surprising, and likely unwelcome quarter--American Nazi Idol