BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Re-poster
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 02:09 PM

Sheehan represents true grassroots rebellion. Challenging the status quo.

While in the "other party," the main contenders for Republican leadership are the son of a mafioso who served time in Sing Sing (Giuliani), and Mitt Romney. The media made a big deal of Romney's win in the Iowa straw poll, while ignoring Dr. Ron Paul's winning of 5 (FIVE) straw polls thus far.

Grassroots Republicans want a change, and Democrats who see Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders selling out want a change. I hope Sheehan runs, and I also hope the Republicans, in their attempt to freeze Paul out of the nomination process, move their primaries up and announce their candidate much earlier than they normally do. This would allow a window of opportunity to form a third party. A true third party, not a joke party headed by a Perot or Nader shill.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 02:27 PM

In a democracy, the mills grind very slowly. That is the nature of democracy. Only in a dictatorship do things happen immediately.

I am amazed (no, I lie—because I've been around awhile and I've seen this kind of irrational impatience before, a lot, I'm not amazed at all), at the irrational impatience that some people display, while at the same time revealing their lack of understanding of the way a democracy works.

They want a particular agenda passed, and when the party that promises that agenda actually gains a tiny majority in Congress on a Tuesday (election day), if they haven't delivered the whole package by Wednesday noon, some folks have a purple-faced hissy-fit and want to form a lynch mob.

When there is significant opposition, you have to negotiate, persuade, and wheel and deal. You can't just issue a peremptory order and have it happen.   Caligula could. Constantine could. Napoleon could. Hitler could. Kim Jung Il can.

But Nancy Pelosi can't.

And Cindy Sheehan wouldn't be able to either!

Democracies are often slow and frustrating, but I prefer to be patient and keep the pressure on than to have to live under other systems where I could be imprisoned or shot for speaking my mind.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: akenaton
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.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 05:03 PM

Don ..I agree some democracies can be slow moving, unfortunately yours is moving slowly in the wrong direction.

The Dems voted to fund an escalation of a war which they promised to bring to an end.

"You never count the time" but every day dozens of Iraqi families lose a daughter, son, mother,father,grandparents. Sometimes it happens all at once.

Does an other year matter to the American and British mothers who will lose their sons as your "democracy" grinds slowly on.

There is no choice between Pubs and Dems ....Labour and Conservative.
There is only Capitalism....... Ditch "Hillary the Hawk" and get behind Cindy....ake

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 05:40 PM

It would 'almost' be worth it to see Cindy flail about helplessly in the bureaucratic morass, trying to change the system that has frustrated cleverer politicians......but not 'quite' worth it.

I would actually prefer a multi-party system here, with enough differences to allow folks to join one they can believe in, but this would require wholesale changes in the electoral laws, campaign procedures, financing system...etc... Maybe someday....

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 05:57 PM

Why would you want to see Mrs Sheehan "flail about helplessly"

What crime has she committed?

Perhaps you think she has not been punished enough by the loss of her son to the war machine.
Do you think the American people incapable of feeling her pain?

Maybe the psuedo-intellectuals who inhabit these pages have become so desensitized that over half a million dead Iraqis and a few American mothers sons are only seen as a necessary a sacrifice to our great "democracy"

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 08:14 PM

She has committed no crime, and if I thought for one moment that she had a chance in Hell of using the political process to actually DO something besides mount emotional protests, I would be sending her contributions! Of course many people feel her loss and admire her guts...even I do...but she is NOT likely to win, and if she did, she has little comprehension of how to use the system.

Why would I want to see her "flail about"? (I did say 'almost' want.. I really don't want to see ANYONE be lost in a high office)....because it might be an object lesson for those who pretend that "tossing out someone you disagree with" accomplishes much....especially when your target has seniority and expertise.

One person who DID seem to come from nowhere and manage to knock off an established Senator was Jim Webb of Virginia, who defeated George Allen last year....but reading his resumé, it is obvious Webb had a lot more than a single issue protest behind him....and he is doing a good job overall in the Senate.

I have 'almost' the same opinion of Dennis Kucinich ...and of Ralph Nader...who are opinionated, but not necessarily qualified...and can serve best by raising issues at rallies, and not by running the country.

....I want results, not histronics...

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 08:59 PM

Ake, the Dems did not vote "to fund an escalation of a war which they promised to bring to an end." They were in a bind. Had they simply cut the funding, that would have left the troops in Iraq in a bad situation. If the troops tried to stay, they wouldn't be able to replace equipment needed for their own survival, and if they simply pulled out, that would release the curbs on a hot civil war that would spread through the whole Middle East, last for generations, and ended in the slaughter of millions of people. And eventually lead to Lord only knows what! That civil war is already under way, but at least, with American forces there, it's partially contained.

If the thin Democratic majority in Congress had refuse to authorize funding, this, of course, would have provided the Republicans with a really effective "war cry" for the coming 2008 national election:   "The Democrats betrayed our troops in Iraq by refusing to authorize funding! They lost us the war!" The "war" is lost anyway (many U. S. generals are already saying that this thing is unwinnable), but since the Bush administration precipitated this idiotic and illegal war, it's really Bush's responsibility to clean it up. He won't, of course. He'll be off the hook in January of 2009, leaving this colossal mess to the next administration. Next administrations.

Consider what would happen if the Republicans manage to get re-elected in the 2008 elections:   what's next? Iran? North Korea? God (and probably Dick Cheney) only knows, and He doesn't want any part of this.

The Dems tried their damndest to put a time limit on the funding bill (September—next month), but Bush said he would veto anything with a time limit, and the Dems knew they didn't have enough votes in Congress to override a veto. So they were between a rock (Iraq?) and a hard place. They did the best thing they could do with the options available: fund the troops for the safety of the troops and work in other ways to try to wind this thing down.

Cleaning up the mess that Bush and his bully-boys made is not going to be easy and it's going to take time. It's going to take recruiting international cooperation and assistance, and the Democrats are a helluva lot better at that sort of thing that the Republicans have ever been. So best they keep the pressure on, bide their time, and work for a "change of regime" in 2008.

To think they could just yank the troops out right now is just plain naïve, not to mention bloody irresponsible.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 09:42 PM

The reason the democrats are wrong is because they should have the guts and sense to point out that there is no such thing as a quick exit. An exit from Iraq can only be done one way and it will simply take time. Lots of equipment has to be brought back (much much more will be left there) before we can start removing too many troops.

The point is, we need to start on that now. If we dont get started now, we will have to leave everything over there and we cannot afford to leave everything over there or we may as well hand all that equipment to the insurgents, al-Qaida, militias, etc, becauset ehy will own it after we leave.

WE HAVE TO START EVACUATION NOW! It is our Plan B and we need to get it in place and we have very little time as it is. We're not going to be in Iraq for years because we don't have the money or the people short of raising taxes and starting a draft and neither is going to happen.

The surge is not working--it's throwing water on a grease fire. The gains they claim they are making are piddling and will have no effect whatsoever in the long run. I have no faith in Petraeus. He's a yes-man. Bush doesn't hire anything else. Bush is not going to allow them to recommend a withdrawal in September. So the White House has the press build up this "September Report" bullshit to wind the public up with it. Then when it is released, it is simply going to say, "We're making REAL GAINS! We can't stop now! Victory is just around the corner." And YOU KNOW very well the democrats are going to cave in again and give Bush more funding.

They don't want to stop the war. Listen to Clinton. She wants al-Maliki removed. Why would someone against the war who wants the troops to come home suddenly start bitching about removing al-Maliki? Why would anyone against the war give two shits about him? Only someone who intends to give a long-time commitment to Iraq would bother (and, remember, that's going to entail raising taxes and starting a draft). If Clinton gets the White House DO NOT COUNT ON THIS WAR TO DO ANYTHING BUT ESCALATE. Hillary Clinton is not to be trusted.

Nancy Pelosi is a waste of time. Thoroughly useless. She could stay home everyday and no one would notice the difference. She can't stand up to a failed president so she is of no consequence to anyone--least of all herself. So if Sheehan beats her, it would be no great loss. Sheehan might even get something done which would be a real switch. With friends like Pelosi, I'd rather have enemies--at least they're entertaining.

All they have to do is cut off funding. The way to do it without being able to override a veto is gridlock. Now are you crazy lunatics in here going to tell me Congress doesn't know how to gridlock????? The ONE THING this pack of rejects know how to do quite well and suddenly they can't seem to remember how. So they give into Bush instead. And they will continue to give into Bush until Pelosi is removed. She and Clinton do not want to stop the war--have no intention of it. They think the democrats can take it over and win it and if that doesn't convince all Americans of the necessity to end the war now--what will?

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 10:07 PM

"WE HAVE TO START EVACUATION NOW...................All they have to do is cut off funding."

and what will we have then?

Right now we have "a tiger by the tail", and NO ONE knows how to let go... G.W. Bush opened the tiger's cage door, then removed the door... and handed the tiger's tail to the troops and the Congress, with the whole Middle East worrying about what the tiger will do if we let go....

enough metaphor? Got a better one?

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 10:26 PM

If the war is still going on by Nov 08, I will vote republican no matter who the candidate is. If the dems aren't serious about ending this war then fuck em. We may as well keep the people in charge who are at least deluded enough to actually believe their own bullshit. The dems know it's bullshit but don't dare do anything to stop it. And we're going to trust a group so weak-willed and timid to deal with ruthless terrorist groups in Iraq????? No! NO WAY!! I'll vote republican before I let that happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 10:36 PM

Let's see if I have this right, 282RA, you are against the war Bush started under false pretenses and utter stupidity. The Democrats now have a small majority in Congress and no authority to do anything except de-fund the trops, and the Republicans have voted down every attempt for almost 8 months to change the situation and DARED the Democrats to stop it, even though many Republicans agree it's a pretty awkward mess....so...it's now the Democrats' problem, and if they don't "do something", you will vote for MORE Republicans to keep running it all, who are even LESS likely to get us out.

Sure...seems like a fine plan....wish I'd thought of punishing the Republicans by KEEPING them in charge and making them take the blame....

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 10:47 PM

BOTH sides are going to keep us there until we get run out. Sorry to say, dems are NOT going to get us out any sooner than pubs. It has nothing to do with not enough of a majority--that's their bullshit excuse that only their minions swallow. They DON'T WANT TO GET US OUT! So we may as well keep the people in there who started it and let them mumble out their excuses once we're fleeing from rooftops. The dems would do the same but at least I won't have to listen to that half-assed whining about how they had no choice to let things end that way. Oh, I don't want to hear it I DON'T WANT TO FUCKING HEAR IT!!!! They were NOT put in office to play politics. They were put in office to end the war and if they really wanted to, they would have by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 10:54 PM

I am sorry that Cindy Sheehan lost her son. That's about as far as I go for her, though--she is not a leader. Her only real qualification for political office is her ability to spout cliches--

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Slag
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 11:06 PM

Hey, lets wrap up WWII first! Get our boys home from Germany, Italy and Japan. Once that's done then we can turn our attention to Bosnia and Iraq. At the current pace that should be, OH, about 2089,... or later.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 11:07 PM

I pretty much agree with 282RA. Both American parties actually are committed to continuing the war and staying in Iraq. That's because they both serve the same larger interests...interests you do not get to vote for or against. It's not much different from Vietnam in that sense. The USA will not pull its forces out of Iraq until the position there becomes, as in Vietnam, simply untenable...both at home and abroad. They will leave when they no longer really have any choice about the matter. They'll make all kinds of excuses about it when they finally do leave, maybe even claim it's a "victory", but it will not be a victory. It will be an utter failure, as was Vietnam.

This is assuming they don't enlarge it into an even bigger war by attacking Iran or Syria...

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 11:17 PM

So you "don't want to fucking hear it!" eh, 282RA? And if they don't do it your way, you're going to vote for the Republicans?

Bloodly great solution, there! (Sounds like a temper tantrum top me.)

What planet are you on, anyway?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 11:21 PM

I'll hold you to that, Ake.

People yelling instructions on what to do NOW and how to do it and why NOW are almost amusing. What you and I and a thousand other people think and insist upon will not make a gnat's difference to those in power and those others who are walking upon hot coals. Thinking otherwise suggests grandiosity.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 01:00 AM

>>So you "don't want to fucking hear it!" eh, 282RA? And if they don't do it your way, you're going to vote for the Republicans?<<

That's generally how it works.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 06:15 AM

"What you and I and a thousand other people think and insist upon will not make a gnat's difference to those in power and those others who are walking upon hot coals."

Yeah, Ebbie. That's pretty much what I keep saying in these threads. It's still pretty much like it was in ancient Rome, really. Tell the public whatever will keep them momentarily pacified...or at least at bay...and provide them with bread and circuses...and distant enemies to focus their anger on. It usually worked then. It usually works now.

We just talk because we enjoy expressing ourselves. And why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:50 AM

Oh yeah, LH, and don't forget to provide them with *credit cards* to charge the "bread and circuses" so by the time they are at retirement age (haha) they, ahhhhh, will still be carrying so much debt to the "bread and circuses" that they'll just have to stay chained to Boss Hog's widget making machine...

As for Iraq, what a joke... People running thru the streets in panic like something outta a 50's horror flick with the thought of genocide in Iraq if and when we leave... Problem is two fold: First, there is genocide now and the Bush/Blair war machine has had its hand in it and second, with Shiites and Sunnis having a blood fued that goes way back they are going to *have at it* whenever we leave be it next week, next year or next century...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 11:00 AM

I don't agree with all that shit!

People can make a difference....Don't be so fuckin' defeatist.

Before the war George Galloway was a lone voice in the wilderness, but it never phased him, he kept going against all odds, even into the Senate and now his words are echoed by almost everyone.
Mrs Sheehan can do the same, rouse the American people against the thugs and cowards in both parties.

America dosen't need another party, it just needs a choice and a voice for those who are preyed upon.
America could be a wonderful example to the world on Real freedom and democracy if the people have the will to fight for it....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 11:22 AM

'phased'?? fazed? (Is UK spelling really different?)

into the "Senate"?? Galloway is a member of the UK Parliament, isn't he? You can't compare him to Sheehan simply because they are both idealists.

Ms Sheehan may indeed be able to do some good by "rousing the people"...but she has no credentials for doing it as a replacement for an experienced member of Congress.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Little Hawk...re: " Both American parties actually are committed to continuing the war and staying in Iraq. That's because they both serve the same larger interests.."

how to put it delicately, but succinctly..let me think.....




"B.S.!!" ...there, that about covers it. You seem to think that that accusation, repeated regularly, covers about every political situation you don't care for. ALL the Democratic candidates have indicated their intention to wind down this Iraq business as fast as seems 'safe'...and a couple of them have said they'll do it faster than that...

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 01:15 PM

Yea "safe" as far as their political careers are concerned.

Galloway appeared before a Senate foreign affairs committee and made them look like schoolboys.

You are correct in taking me to task for my spelling, but as one who left school at 15 and as spent all my life in manual labour, I try my best...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 01:29 PM

btw "Ms Sheehan may indeed be able to do some good by "rousing the people"...but she has no credentials for doing it as a replacement for an experienced member of Congress."

I think you will find, that just like UK, the people no longer trust "experienced members of congress"

Mrs Sheehan does not carry the guilt stains of the Republicans or the Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: M.Ted
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 01:43 PM

Cindy Sheehan is a lone voice in the wilderness--unfortunately it is the voice of a loon--

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 01:58 PM

Well do I remember the 1960s. Reasonable people were working within the system for a variety of reforms including civil rights and, in the late 60s, to stop the Vietnam war. They managed to bring both of these things, and a number of others, about. Surely not as quickly as many (including themselves) wanted, but they accomplished their goals nevertheless.

But while this was happening, there were those folks who were convinced that the system was totally corrupt, refused to work with it, and wanted someone to take direct action. These folks were passionate and very big on talk. They would often participate in demonstrations, but they couldn't be bothered to write letters and make phone calls and make their concerns known to elected officials, or work for candidates who reflected most of their views. "To do that," they claimed, "would just support a corrupt system."

I recall one such person (among several, actually—lets call this fellow "J. T."). J. T. hung out in the back booth of the Blue Moon Tavern with a number of like-minded (minded?) individuals, and plotted Revolution. J. T. believed in taking direct action. Now! He somehow came to the conclusion that he could put his message across and Change the World if he bombed a government building.

What government building did J. T. pick? The Federal Court House in downtown Seattle? That would mean having to take a bus downtown. Since he lived in Seattle's University District, the only government building he could think of that was fairly handy to him was the University District Branch Post Office. This was a small (one story) post office building used by lots of university students and local U. District business folks, like the Bed and Bath Shoppe (specialty soaps and lotions), George August Photography, Andy Shiga's Asian Import Shop, a couple of copy shops, several restaurants, and so on.

J. T. constructed his bomb (out of what, I'm not sure), and in the middle of the afternoon, he dashed up the front steps of the U. District post office, set the package down in front of the double doors, and ran like hell. A few seconds later, the bomb went off. It shattered the glass in one of the double doors, left a scorch mark on the concrete in front of the doors, and startled a whole bunch of people. But no other damage. And, thank God, no injuries.

J. T. got about a quarter of a block up University Way and ran smack into Ben Johannson, the local beat cop. Ben grabbed him, wrestled him to the ground, and snapped the cuffs on him.

J. T. spent some time in the slammer, and what happened to him after that, I don't know. In any case, he accomplished nothing except doing less than $100 worth of property damage and endangering a whole lot of innocent people. His name is not to be found in a list of Great Liberators of the World.

I read a lot of the same kind of 2-year-old style temper tantrums here on this thread (and a few other threads) that I used to hear from J. T.

All bile, bowels, balls, and bull shit. No brains detected.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 02:25 PM

I had the honor of hearing Cindy speak at last Sept's protest in DC. She's passionate & speaks & thinks from the heart & does it as a mother that lost her child in a worthless cause. She unfortunately does not speak with much of a brain. That is a serious flaw with the protest movement IMHO. There are alot of broken hearted or angry folks trying to lead but not with the intellegance, flare & verbal skills of those we had in the 60' but then we were drawing our leaders from the halls the education. She has good intentions but this movement hasn't come up with one Dr King, Eldridge Cleaver, no Bergan Brothers, no Jane Fondas, no Chicago 7's, sadly not even anyone close. It's not that Cindy's not in the right place, she's just not right for the job, we are sorely lacking people who are & these groups just don't seem to be able to find anyone to wear the shoes. On the other hand who in there right mind would want to take on the spot. At least in the 60's there were enough intellegant & passionate speakers & leaders to go around that there were many voices to be heard (& targeted) where today one would be a lone voice, echoing in the waste & it's no wonder that Cindy's been burnt out, to many look to her as a figurehead & she's not even close to a guiding light. We need more & better besides the many groups are too fractured & splintered. I look back again to the 60's & can't help but think that anyone with intellegance wouldn't want to become a leader. The infighting is a flaw that keeps them behind & untill they came co-exist & back each other then who the hell would want to put themselves out in front.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 02:46 PM

Don Firth, you said this so well it bears repeating:

" ... Only in a dictatorship do things happen immediately.

[Some people display irrational impatience] while at the same time revealing their lack of understanding of the way a democracy works.

They want a particular agenda passed, and when the party that promises that agenda actually gains a tiny majority in Congress on a Tuesday (election day), if they haven't delivered the whole package by Wednesday noon, some folks have a purple-faced hissy-fit and want to form a lynch mob.

When there is significant opposition, you have to negotiate, persuade, and wheel and deal. You can't just issue a peremptory order and have it happen.   Caligula could. Constantine could. Napoleon could. Hitler could. Kim Jung Il can.

But Nancy Pelosi can't.

And Cindy Sheehan wouldn't be able to either!

..."
--------------

akenaton , Bill D said it well. Cindy Sheehan is not likely to stop the carnage in Iraq much sooner than the Dems currently in Congress are doing, even if she did get elected.   (And, oh, by the way, why couldn't Cindy work her legislative magic just as well, or even better, if she replaced a Republican?    You still haven't answered why it would be better for Cindy to take down a Democrat than a neocon Republican.)   But she's as likely to bring about the loss of Pelosi's seat to a Republican ( by splitting the liberal/Democratic vote ) as she is to actually get elected.

And you don't have to be a "pseudo-intellectual" to realize that some of the other mischief the Bush-Cheney administration (abetted by the Roberts-Thomas-Scalia-Alito bloc on the SCOTUS and the Republican-heavy Congress) has been up to will result in misery and death for far more people in the not-so-long run if people of good will focus on the Iraq occupation to the exclusion of all other issues.   If the broad powers that this administration has hijacked, in violation of the US Constitution, remain unchallenged, we are headed -- soon -- for a virtual dictatorship or quasi-feudal corporatocracy (fascism) plus the devastation of what makes our planet habitable for humans.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 02:49 PM

I have always stayed far away from violent people like "J.T.", Don. I do not identify with his type at all.

Bill, you clearly have far more faith in the Democratic Party than I do... ;-)

I don't place too much hope in what the candidates say. They all say all kinds of wonderful sounding stuff in order to get votes. It's what they do after they're elected that concerns me, and I think you will find that it's usually not what they said they would do before they were elected....unless they said they would do something really, really stupid! (as in the case of the Republicans)

In that case, yeah, maybe... ;-)

What I am in favor of is not violent acts of revolution by misguided individuals like J.T., but a transformation of political consciousness which lead to the demise of those 2 phony parties, the Democrats and Republicans, which would destroy their stranglehold on the American political scene and result in them being replaced by something far better.

I would prefer a system with NO political parties...none whatsoever...just candidates. All independent candidates. No more damn party politics, because parties sell out to the highest bidder, and the highest bidder is not Joe Public. It has ever been so. Parties are big organization that work for other big organizations...because that's how they get the funding to stay alive and to WIN the next election. It's a matter of practical survival, and that's why they do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Genie
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 02:51 PM

BTW, Bill D,
In Dennis Kuchinich's defense, let's remember that he hasn't run as an Independent against incumbent Democrats in Congress (he's already in Congress) or for the Presidency. I would never put him in the same category as Nader for that reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 03:06 PM

"I would prefer a system with NO political parties...none whatsoever...just candidates. "...etc...

Hmmm...interesting idea, but you KNOW that if they didn't label themselves, the media would. It's just too much trouble saying "one of those guys who propounds X,Y,Z and Q...but not A,B,C and J.."
...and do you think INDIVIDUALS would not sell out in various ways?

At least with the party system we have them adhering to 'some' sort of identifying platform and set of ideals.

(I knew a college prof. who advocated NO grades...none. When we asked him how he would handle requests from potential employers for recommendations. etc... He said "I'd tell them what I thought!"...I was afraid to ask him how it would be handled if he forgot..or died.)

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: M.Ted
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 04:39 PM

If there were no political parties, it wouldn't last long--candidates and politicians would gravitate toward the people who held their same world view--all the dingbats in one corner, all the fascists in another, pretty much what we've got now--

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 05:06 PM

Just to add a dose of reality, most estimates say that it will take at least two years to withdraw from Iraq, without retaining any kind of ongoing role in whatever you choose to call the debacle.   Just for example, if all 160,000 troops lined up at the Baghdad Airport, they would fill something like 500 airliners. That would be quite a car bomb target! This does not consider the fact that a very large proportion of the equipment owned by the US military is currently in Iraq and it must be relocated back to the States. It took much longer than that to withdraw from Vietnam, and we dumped much of our equipment into the South China Sea.

Of course, starting sometime soon would be a good idea...

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 05:25 PM

Yes, that does sound realistic to me, Art. It's not easy to extricate oneself from a large war, as many occupying forces have found throughout history.

Bill, you said, "do you think INDIVIDUALS would not sell out in various ways?"

Yeah, sure I think so. So what? It would not be as bad as a whole party selling out, it would not be as well organized or as hard to attack, and it would not be as easily covered up, since you could go after any one of those individuals without an entire party machine covering his ass (or cynically sacrificing him, while really changing nothing).

I didn't say it would be perfect, Bill, I said it would be better than the divisive party systems we have now.

I believe the party system is as ridiculous and unnecessary as the absolute monarchies we all once took for granted (not very long ago, historically speaking), and one day it will be seen that way, just as monarchies are seen now as an archaic notion.

Most people are unconscious conformists. They tend to think that what they already have is the best way to go. History tends to prove them wrong as the centuries roll by.

I note that there were no political parties depicted in the advanced society envisioned in the Star Trek shows, but there was a large representative government that functioned rather like ours does, but it was not artificially divided into perpetually warring political groups called "parties". It decided things by discussion and consultation among all seated members in a parliament, followed by a vote. That, in my opinion is the sensible way to do it. I find the whole institution of political parties, frankly, to be detestable. It encourages every form of divisiveness and corruption of the political process. It turns political life into war on a continual and unremitting basis. This is a stupid thing to do.

I regard it the way Patrick Henry regarded the British monarchy in his day. Think about it.

Maybe there's another way to go?

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 06:33 PM

I'd prefer a system with half a dozen political parties... And I'd like the makeup of our government to reflect the percentages of each of these parties... At least then everyone would have some voice... What we have now is winner take all... It ain't working because it disenfrachises one heck of a lot of people plus...

...if you had mix of ideologies there would be more ideas thrown into the discussion... More ideas means a greater pool of options... A greater pool of options generally makes for better policy decisions...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:16 PM

Half a dozen would definitely be better than 2. It would result in more meaningful dialogue and more cooperation than a 2-party system does. If several parties must work together to pass legislation, they are forced to seek solutions together, and that encourages compromise and a mulitiplicity of viewpoints.

There's only one thing worse in a voting culture than a 2-party system, and that's a one-party system...as in the case of Communist Russia or China....or Nazi Germany. In other words, the more monolithic the party structure, the less democratic the process.

Yes, winner take all is a very bad system upon which to base a society (though not a wolfpack). A healthy society is built on compromise, not domination by the most powerful group over the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Greg B
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:37 PM

Ms Sheehan isn't running to win, or to serve, if she runs.

Rather, it will be to throw a monkey wrench into the gears of
the political 'machine' where the opposing party gets elected
and then rolls over to 'expediency.'

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:39 PM

It was stated:

>Cindy will run...she'll get interviewed a lot and wave her banners...she'll get defeated....but >she MAY do more harm than good by putting unachievable goals in front of the voters and >skewing the vote in some awkward way.

If this attitude would have prevailed during the Civil Rights Movement under King the Movement would have been dead in the water.

There is an assumption here that voters are stupid. Voters know who Cindy is.

As for skewing the votes, this has already been done by Diebold, E.S.and S and other slipshod voting machines.

Cindy needs to send a strong message to Pelosi whether she wins or loses.
The message is that some Democrats are compromising our civil liberties, supporting an illegal occupation of a foreign country and are allowing this fraudulent erstwhile "president" to trash the Constitution.

Cindy is waking the people up. That's the banner of true democracy.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:51 PM

Ditto, Frank, ditto...

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:58 PM

I haven't cared for Pelosi from day one, and I am on record with that statement a few times on Mudcat. I am glad that Sheehan is doing what she is. The Democrats have been sleeping with the enemy--in this case the Republicans--and it's time the Dems were led to understand that their dismal support of so many of Bush's activities has not gone unnoticed by everyone. I agree with Frank's statement 100%.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 10:31 PM

Election reform is what is needed, particularly reform in campaign financing. As long as it takes millions of dollars to finance even a local official's campaign for office, and tens of millions of dollars for a candidate for national office, I don't see that there is much hope of getting the big corporate backers out of the system. Other than to pass a bunch of laws. But—

Who is it that has to pass these laws? The legislators who have to depend on this source of money to get elected to office in the first place! Does the word "Catch" and the number "22" come to mind? Even the legislators who want to reform campaign financing—and eliminate the corrupting influence of lobbyists with deep pockets—find that they are dependent on these moneys if they are to get into office in the first place and then have a ghost of a chance of getting re-elected. Monkey on the back.

It ain't gonna happen, not because all that many legislators necessarily want to keep it going, but because the whole system as it currently works depends on it.

I have recommended a particular book a number of times here in these political discussions. From the nature of said discussions (including this one), I know that not all that many people have read it. But with dim hope, I'll recommend it again:

CLICKY #1

Everybody, including some fairly knowledgeable people, think they know what democracy is, but damn few really do. This small book—a mere 12 bucks, and a very easy read—is full of surprises. When you've read it, you will have a much better understanding of it. You will also understand why the United States is not really a democracy. And you will learn what you can do about it. Get the book. Read it. At least read the last chapter, "Are Americans Ready for Democracy?"

If we want to have a real democracy in this country, it will take time and a lot of work. And it will happen only if people demand it. We are still that much of a democracy.

In the meantime, in order to accomplish things in the system as it stands, I can find no better method than one put forth in a article I have also recommended here many times.

I know that, as many times as I have recommended this book and this article, not all that many people here have worked up enough energy to read it. I know this because of the things that people keep saying. Anyway, the article is this:

CLICKY #2.

Will anybody actually read these two items?

Probably not. That's one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in.

"Democracy is a terrible system of organizing a society,. but it's better than any of the others."
                                                                                                                      – Winston Churchill

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 11:09 PM

Yes, Don, that is the essential problem! As you put it (I will paraphrase what you said):

Who is it that has to pass these laws?...(meaning: Election reform laws, particularly reform in campaign financing)....? It is none other than the very legislators who have to depend on this source of money, millions and millions of dollars, to get elected to office in the first place! Does the word "Catch" and the number "22" come to mind?

Yes indeed, the word Catch 22 definitely comes to mind. Immediately. That's why I hold out little, if any hope of the present party-based electoral system reforming itself in any meaningful fashion.

Does this mean I am hopeless? No. It simply means I find many other things in life around which to be inspired by hope, that's all. Life is not solely about the USA's electoral system...thank God! ;-) If it were, I think that virtually all hope would be gone... And I do not jest when I say that. But I smile...because my hopes, as I said, rest elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 11:11 PM

Isn't this interesting! We have, on this issue, divisions not usually seen among the Mudcat coterie. Folks who usually agree are disagreeing pretty seriously.

I see very little comparison to "the Civil Rights Movement under King.." (and I was up to my neck in that one!). At that time we were largely fighting what some segments of society were doing to other segments...'partially' aided by neglect in High Places.
   Now we have folks in High Places accused of not doing enough to cure a problem that they agree NEEDS cured. I have seen attempts to curtail this Iraq conflict by Pelosi and other Democrats voted down because there flatly was not enough votes.
   Now there are outcries that if members of Congress can't pass measures to end it, they should a least......well, I'm not sure...stomp about and shout? They tried keeping the Senate up all night to make a point about the Republicans' intransigence ...all it got was sleepy indifference.

I'm sorry, Peace, but I don't see "..dismal support of so many of Bush's activities..." I see member after member condemning the sneaky way Bush is pursuing this mess...I see them struggling to vote ANY sane way on bills with clever amendments designed to make any vote against the war look like contempt for the troops. I see frustration and anger as Senators & Representatives look for a toe-hold in a system which REQUIRES a 60% majority to get the right things done....and I 'think' I see an undercurrent of "...well, if we can't easily vote to MAKE it right, we can at least make it clear who is dragging their feet and hope for a bigger majority in '08."

...but it seems that some of us see that, and some don't. Some are advocating..."DO, something, damn it, even if it's wrong!" I personally think that the biggest mistakes are made when that attitude prevails.
   I hope Pelosi & Harry Reid don't prove me wrong....I'd like to think they ARE really hamstrung and that they aren't stupid enough to pull the 'defunding' gambit and be sorry later...

This IS a no-win situation, and BUSH and his cronies put us there....and they are laughing up their sleeves at Democrats accusing each other of not figuring out how to get out of the mess and in-fighting with each other in the year before the election!

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 11:24 PM

Yup, it's a no-win situation all right. You cannot vocally oppose an ongong war effort in the USA (or most other places) without being smeared by the government for being "unpatriotic" and "not supporting the troops".

That's why there's that old saying: "patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings"

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:03 AM

Bill, the Dems did nothing organized to curtail the Iraq War. So far there is no serious and organized impeach Bus/Cheney--at least that I can find. If you feel I have affronted the Democrats, well, I have. But not unjustifiably (I don't think). That they are somewhat 'cleaner' than the Republicans I agree with. Lots cleaner? Nope.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:28 AM

The Democrats are like the Lite Beer version of good old Republican Ale....a bit less percentage of intoxicant...a bit milder flavor...a bit paler and more frothy...the same godawful taste in your mouth the morning after. ;-) And it's all brewed at the same place: Financial Oligarchy Brewers Inc.

It's nice to switch brands now and then, though, just so you can feel like you're having a refreshing change.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: GUEST,Re-poster
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 01:51 AM

The Democrats on this thread are almost parroting Rush Limbaugh with the "can't cut and run" rhetoric. Amazing. The Democrats are adopting the parlance of the fascists they claim to hate. The Democrats think they are going to inherit the White House now, so suddenly a bit of murder and mayhem seems to be the right thing. I hate Democrats. At least Republicans are honest about their fascism. "Better a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian." (Moby Dick)

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:50 AM

"At least public opinion in the UK forced Blair to leave office." – Akenaton.

Dream on my little anarchist.

"the process of proving in court what Bush & Cheney are 'guilty' of is not easy" – Bill D

Exactly right the onus of proof is on those who up until now have relied on half-truths and total misrepresentations upon which to state their case, none of which would stand up to any real examination.

"The defeat for Labour in the Scottish Assembly elections, (first time in 50 yrs) meant that Blair had become a liability and had to go." – Akenaton

So terribly wrong Akenaton – as usual – the results in Scotland had more to do with disaffection for Labour's performance in Scotland, nothing whatsoever to do with Tony Blair.

"The Scottish electorate have become so sickened by Blair and his administration that they are now on the verge of splitting the UK by voting for Scottish Independence." – Akenaton

So sickened in fact that you forgot to mention that two-thirds of those who voted in Scotland voted rather determinedly against splitting the UK – True?

Unfortunately for Scotland and the entire UK for that matter none of the "opposition" parties in Scotland voted for the Nationalists discussion document on Scottish independence, they should have done, they should have pushed for a referendum on it. Had the vote been confined to Scotland it would have been defeated beyond doubt. However, and this is what the majority of the population of Scotland fears most of all, if the referendum on ending the Union with England were nation wide, the English, I believe, would cut Scotland adrift in an instant.

"Maybe the psuedo-intellectuals who inhabit these pages have become so desensitized that over half a million dead Iraqis" – Akenaton

Substantiation please that over half a million Iraqi's have died as a result of the actions of the USA and the UK. If you cannot find any then please stop waving the figure about like a flag.

"Galloway is a member of the UK Parliament, isn't he? You can't compare him to Sheehan simply because they are both idealists." - BillD

A temporarily suspended Member of Parliament for the moment (Or has he completed his 18 days), you can't compare them anyway, Galloway is a bare-faced liar, a poseur, accustomed to the adulation of gullible fools. I believe that Cindy Sheehan is quite sincere, and certainly not a liar. People are ostensively elected to represent the interests of their constituents, and as such are very poorly served by single issue candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Sheehan vs. Pelosi
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:55 AM

100!

Enjoy, enjoy.

Here is another place where your passionately stated views can prove once again how right you are, and how wrong, how pathetically wrong and irredeemingly stupid are all those who don't see it your way! ;-)