 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16%
|
|
|
Subject: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Ron Davies Date: 19 Oct 06 - 08:40 AM Wall St Journal/ NBC News poll: Congress' popularity 16% The only questions now are: will Republicans come out to support their own individual Congressmen--giving the lie to the poll? Or sit at home? And will independents desert the Republicans in as great numbers as the poll suggests? The Republicans still have a smooth-running get-out-the vote machine. And they still have money--though not as much as they planned on at this point--have had to spend a lot in the past few weeks. The Democrats are ready to cut Bush and his supporters down to size. Strong similarities to 1994--though the Republicans are nowhere near as complacent as the Democrats were then. 10 days to election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Ron Davies Date: 19 Oct 06 - 08:45 AM "Cut Bush down to size" But mostly: stop tax cuts for the rich, assaults on the environment, erosion of civil liberties etc., etc, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:26 PM Spare us the Democratic party propaganda. Want to stop media conglomeration and insure net neutrality? Don't vote for Democrats or Republicans. Democrats stopping "assaults on the environment"? Don't make me laugh. Democrats ending the "erosion of civil liberties"? Hell, even Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act. Want change in the US? Don't vote, or vote third party. Boycott the political duopoly. Refuse to vote until the voting, campaign advertising, and campaign contribution laws change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Amos Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:27 PM Brilliant strategy, Guest. All those pissed off non-voters will make a big difference ingetting the laws changed. Not. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: katlaughing Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:27 PM Washington, D.C. (AHN) - A new poll shows President Bush's approval rating is up from a previous survey, breaking a downtrend that lasted six quarters. In a poll conducted by Gallop, 39.1 percent of Americans approve of the job George Bush is doing in the White House; up from his record low last quarter of 35.8 percent. According to Jeffrey M. Jones at Gallup, the rating "is a significant improvement from his prior quarter's average and marks the first time since his 16th quarter that his average has not declined from the previous time. On the down side, his latest average still rates as the third worst of his presidency and only ranks in the 12th percentile of all presidential quarters since the Truman presidency, placing 214th out of the 244 quarters for which Gallup has data." Hard to see any "significant improvement," esp. when it ranks 214th out of 244. Hope it spirals down to match the 16% of Congress before the elections. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:29 PM Yeah Amos, like everyone voting for the political duopoly has worked so well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Rapparee Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:34 PM Armed revolution! Let the blood of the tyrants encarmine the gutters! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:35 PM KILL THE FCC AND THE WALL STREET URINAL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Don Firth Date: 19 Oct 06 - 01:14 PM I get the impression that GUEST is a bit disenchanted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST,1 Date: 19 Oct 06 - 03:08 PM He/she has every right to be disenchanted. In fact, he'd be scary were he NOT disenchanted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Don Firth Date: 19 Oct 06 - 03:51 PM True, but other that stompping and screaming, what is he/she doing about it? Practically speaking, I mean. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST Date: 19 Oct 06 - 04:24 PM you'll never know. which begs the question: why do you feel a need to to make comments about the person instead of the issues. i'll never know what Don Firth is doing practically or impracitcally about the state of the world either. but then, i don't post irrational and snide comments about him either, just because i might disagree with his position. only slugs and mudslingers act like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Don Firth Date: 19 Oct 06 - 07:04 PM If you're the GUEST I think you are, you do a lot of howling about what a stinkin' mess we're all in. But I never hear you saying much of anything constructive or offering any plans or suggestions as to what people can do to alleviate the situation. Okay, I agree that things are in a lousy state. A really lousy state. I'm doing everything I can think of to change it, and I'm always on the look-out for good, reasonable suggestions from others. I'm sick and tired of people whining and complaining and pissing and moaning about how bad things are, and when asked if they are trying to do anything about it, or even have any ideas about what can be done, they either clam up or they get abusive. You fall into that latter category. Can you do anything other than complain? If so, let's hear it. I'm listening!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: DougR Date: 19 Oct 06 - 07:43 PM The U. S. economy is booming thanks to the Bush tax cuts, the Dow Jones Average broke a record yesterday by breaking through the 12,000 mark, unemployment is lower than it has been in years, predictions are that the Christmas shopping season will be better than it has been in years because people have more money in their pocket (thanks to tax cuts). So what's to be disenchanted about? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Bobert Date: 19 Oct 06 - 07:54 PM Well, I have to agree with GUEST but... ... Fir the first time since Jimmy Cartre I'm not only votin' for a Dem but have given money to a Dem... Why??? Well, the Bushites have become a run-away frieght train that needs to be stopped before we can really look at policy alternatives... Tell ya' what... If Jim Webb, who I have sent money to, wins in Virginia, I'll be a thorn in his side on the issues that GUEST has pointed out need correctin'... One of the first, other than getting tghe heck out of Iraq, is restoring the "public" in public airwaves... This is the good beginning to restoring the information that Tom Jefferson said we all need if democracy is to survive... Right now we are gettin' the corporate fight song and not much more... Will the Dems be able to get out the vote??? I don't know but I have faith in Howard Dean who has been quietly doing the hard work at the precinct organizational level and I think that Howard has a few other tricks up his sleeve as well to counter Karl Rove's October dirty tricks menu... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Don Firth Date: 19 Oct 06 - 09:50 PM That's what I mean. Bobert complains a lot about the state of the nation (as what person with a brain would not?), but he has a plan. He doesn't just bitch and complain. He takes postive action. Way to go, Bobert! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: katlaughing Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:34 AM Yea! Bobert!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Old Guy Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:36 AM It's a slam dunk!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Oct 06 - 06:46 AM First let me admit--yesterday it was not 10 but 19 days to election. I read it wrong. Doug-- They say where you stand depends on where you sit. And it sounds like you sit in the lap of luxury--and can't identify with anybody who doesn't. "What's to be disenchanted about?" How has Bush--and this election is largely turning into a referendum on him--blown it? Let me count the ways. Well, for starters, let's try: Pre-emptive war by choice in Iraq based on false pretenses--and continuing sabre-rattling elsewhere. Trying to both fight said horrendously expensive war and deliver huge tax cuts which lopsidedly benefit the wealthy. Tell me the recent decline in the deficit is likely to continue. Refusal to do anything about rampant corruption and pork-barrel spending--exactly how many spending bills has he vetoed? Refusal to do anything about increasing fuel standards other than jawboning--and in fact opting rather to pillage irreplaceable national environmental treasures--e.g. the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Blatant anti-scientific bias--in favor of some imagined religious strictures against such things as stem-cell research. Making anti-trust enforcement a joke. Strong opposition to anything that might ameliorate the condition of those at the bottom of the economic pile--such as a rise in the minimum wage. Somehow, I suspect others can add to this list. And for giant intellects who believe in the meaningless glib term "the duopoly"--exactly how much of the above list would be the same under, to pick a theoretical example, a President Kerry? I suspect there would have been some drastic change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Don Firth Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:54 PM It seems to be an article of faith among a number of people here on Mudcat and elsewhere that all Democrats are the same, all Republicans are the same, and to make a dismal picture completely hopeless, there is no difference at all between the Democrats and the Republicans. I know Republicans who kneel down and worship at the Shrine of Bush. I also know Republicans who think that Bush is one of the worst disasters that ever happened to this country. I don't know any Democrats who don't, at the very least, think that Bush is one of the worst disasters that ever happened to this country. Most of the Democrats I know deplore the influence of corporations in the political system, and most fall into the category of "liberal" or "progressive," with all that that entails—livable minimum wage, universal health care, effective social programs for the poor and homeless, preservation of the environment, and the idea that we should clean up our own act before we try to tell the rest of the world how to live. Now the Democratic National Committee may be a party looking for a position, and I'm quite sure that a lot of Democrats are owned by big corporations, but they share that characteristic with a substantial number of Republicans. There are a fair number of Democratic politicians who have not been bought and whose integrity and principles are intact. That also holds true for a fair number of Republicans. But of the two, I side with the Democrats because the progressive positions that many of them believe in wholeheartedly, and others at least give lip-service to, are much closer to my position than are the positions taken by the Republican Party. The solution offered by the folks who complain bitterly of the deficiencies of our "duopoly" system is either to refuse to support the system by not voting at all (give up, roll over, and die! That's a great plan!), or to vote for a third party. I won't even talk about the asininity of the first position. The problem with the second position is that it fails to acknowledge the truly unfortunate political reality that third parties rarely if ever draw more than 5% of the total vote, and in a close election, that can cost the imperfect but preferable major party the victory. Self defeating. I would vote for the Green Party if I had any hope they could win. But since I know that the chances are slim to none, I vote for Democratic candidates, who, at the very least, give lip-service to my preferences, and whom I can influence to a degree because some of them know me as a constituent. "But," you tell me loudly, "if everybody voted for the Green Party, they would win!" True indeed! "And," as Eleanor of Aquitaine said in The Lion in Winter, "if pigs could fly, there would be pork in the tree-tops!" Now. A few simple questions for those who maintain that there is no difference between the two major parties: Consider the attempt to blow up the north tower of the World Trade Center with a car-bomb in the parking garage on February 26, 1993, the bombing of the U.S. Embassies in East Africa on August 7, 1998, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden on October 12, 2000, all traced to the activities of Osama bin Laden and al Qaida (with an attempted but only partially successful retaliatory surgical strike—as contrasted with declaring war on and invading another country—by Clinton on August 20, 1998 on a known terrorist target in Afghanistan and a suspected target in Sudan). As the Clinton administration turned the White House over to the Bush administration, in January of 2001, various members of the Clinton administration warned Bush, et al about the danger of bin Laden and al Qaida. The members of the Bush administration didn't want to hear it and blew off the warnings. And they continued to ignore repeated warnings of the same danger made by the various intelligence agencies. Now with that as background, if Al Gore had won the presidency in the 2000 election (there are those who say he did, but that's another argument): 1. Do you honestly think Gore would have ignored warnings from both the CIA and the FBI of an impending al Qaida sponsored terrorist attack on the World Trade Center? 2. And had the attack succeeded (as it did under Bush), do you honestly think that Al Gore would have tried to blame it on Saddam Hussein and then invaded Iraq? 3. Considering Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, published in 1993 and his subsequent book and movie, An Inconvenient Truth, that Gore would not have been on the very forefront of promoting laws and regulations to counteract the continuing ecological degradation and global warming—to which the Republicans in general and the Bush administration in particular are so blatantly indifferent (read "criminally negligent")? Or John Kerry. Now I was not enchanted by Kerry. Not at all. But considering his long record as a powerful anti-war activist as a result of his service in Vietnam, 4. Do you honestly believe that, had Kerry been elected in 2004, he would not have done everything in his power to extricate American troops from Iraq in as smooth a manner as the situation allowed, considering the hornet's nest that Bush stirred up there? Okay, those are just a very few of the many similar questions that I could pose. I'd like to hear some thoughtful answers from those who claim there is no difference between the two parties. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 06 - 02:15 PM So Don, no matter how bad the Democrats get, you are going to continue to support them, because you agree with their positions more than you agree with the Republican positions? Where is the integrity of that position? I fail to see it. Go to Moyers on America. Click on the left where it says "The Net @ Risk". Read and watch and listen. How the Clinton/Gore administration sold out our citizenry's public interest in controlling the airwaves. Read about the Democratic lobby hacks who are preaching the necessity of the end of net neutrality. Just where do you draw the line, Don? When is the party so corrupt, that you morally can't support it any more? The problem is, you are confusing winning elections with changing the political system. If all you care about is who is going to win the elections and run Congress or the White House, you are supporting the status quo. If you care enough about changing the political system, you vote to change the status quo. That is why independent third party political parties matter and are important. They don't need to gain majority party status. Jesse Ventura proved that. Single candidates can make a difference. I said a long time ago, I was going to support Russ Feingold for president. He is a Democrat. He is one of a very few Democrats I will vote for. But then, I vote for candidates based upon their positions on issues, not party affiliation. That makes me an independent voter. Despite my loathing of certain politicians, I will not cast "a vote against" a person or a party. I always cast my vote as "a vote for" a person. It is an important distinction, especially for us independent voters. You honestly may not understand that distinction, Don. I realize your hatred for certain elements of the Republican party may have blinded you to political reasoning of independent voters. That is true for a lot of Democrats in the US right now. They are so blinded by hatred for the Bush Republicans, they see anyone who doesn't share their electoral strategy, like Nader, as an enemy of the people. I'll say this again. Our country is going down the tubes because of people like you, Don. People who think winning elections is all we need to do to regain control of our political system. It is much more complicated than that, buy most Democrats I talk to these days don't care. They just want to win elections. They just want to beat the Republicans, and punish Bush and his followers. They really don't seem very concerned about the nation, and it being of the brink. They continue to insist that there should be but one goal: to win in November, and throw the Republicans out of power. That isn't what valuing democracy is about. That is just plain cheering for your team. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Don Firth Date: 20 Oct 06 - 02:39 PM I don't have time to argue this with you now, GUEST, and I definitely agree with much of what you say. Except for your comments about me and my position. YOU are the one who doesn't understand the politcal realities of the situation as it stands. You seem to want a radical and sudden change, and that's just not going to happen. I would like to see something like that happen, but that's not the way things work. Never have, and not this time either. Unless, of course, you're talking about bloody revolution, but that's insane. I lived through the Sixties, I've knew a lot of people who talked the way you do, and they managed to accomplish little more than to alienated the very people who were on their side. Analogy: When a person has suffered a serious accident, he may need major surgery to eventually return him to health. But first, you have to stop the bleeding! You don't seem to understand that. In the long run, we're both after the same thing, but you're approach never has worked and it isn't going to work this time. "Our country is going down the tubes because of people like you, Don." I resent the hell out of that, GUEST. First of all, you're wrong, and second, everything I've seen you post here is angry and devisive. That sure as hell isn't the way to get support for your position. You need to learn something about politics and diplomacy. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Bill D Date: 20 Oct 06 - 02:42 PM "The U. S. economy is booming thanks to the Bush tax cuts, the Dow Jones Average broke a record yesterday by breaking through the 12,000 mark, unemployment is lower than it has been in years, predictions are that the Christmas shopping season will be better than it has been in years because people have more money in their pocket (thanks to tax cuts). So what's to be disenchanted about?" gee, Doug R.....if I read your thoughts correctly, as long as the MONEY is flowing in the 'right' places, everything's just peachy, huh? You do make one BIG mistake though not all 'people' have any significant amounts of extra money! Those tax cuts are 1)barely noticable down here in the lower brackets and 2) are bad for the country in general for the long haul, thanks to the mess Bush has put us in with his profligate spending! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Don Firth Date: 20 Oct 06 - 02:46 PM By the way, I saw the Moyers program a couple of nights ago and am fully aware of all that. But that changes nothing, other than realizing that replacing the Republicans with the Democrats is only a temporary solution. But it will stop the bleeding, at least temporarily. Once that's done, it's up to you and me and others who have the same eventual goal to work together, not fight among ourselves. Fighting between people on the same side was very "radical Sixties" disease. Counterproductive. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Peace Date: 20 Oct 06 - 02:49 PM "The U. S. economy is booming thanks to the Bush tax cuts, the Dow Jones Average broke a record yesterday by breaking through the 12,000 mark, unemployment is lower than it has been in years, predictions are that the Christmas shopping season will be better than it has been in years because people have more money in their pocket (thanks to tax cuts). So what's to be disenchanted about?" How about a $7,000,000,000,000 deficit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 06 - 03:01 PM IT's kind of like borrowing $20,000 on your credit card at 8% annual compound interest, which you can't afford, but doing it anyway and then going on a spending spree saying. "I'm rich!! I'm doing so well!! Look at my new clothes!!!". Some guys never learn the fundamentals of fiscal health, and they go crazy on the subject. They save up 8 grand for a car, but they put it down on a $40,000 V-8 SUV that costs $90.00 to fill up, and gets 11 mpg. The reason is, of course, that they don't want to "send the wrong message". The fact that they are sending a FALSE message never comes home. Sheesh! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 06 - 03:14 PM You are being alarmist, Don. There is not a simple, dichotomous solution to a decade and a half of Republicrat rule, and the selling out of the planet by the US ruling elite. You, and other Democrats like you, claim there are but two alternatives. Vote Democratic to "stop the bleeding" (your words) or "bloody revolution". There is no need for bloody revolution, but perhaps you are not enough of a visionary and creative thinker to see that. You are old enough to remember the Velvet Revolution and Tiannamen Square, Don. It is enough to radically galvanize public opinion sometimes. There are other ways to strike at the heart of the beast, like non-cooperation. The way to take back our government is to make the nation ungovernable. No guns, no flaming radical lefties throwing Molotov cocktails at tanks. The problem with the anti-war protests around the world in the lead up to the Iraq war was it was controlled by middle class activists who weren't willing to go the distance. If the around the world anti-war protest had lasted for weeks into months--if people were willing to take a leave of absence from their jobs to stay in the streets--Baghdad wouldn't be burning today. Bush would have been impeached by now. You have to ask yourself this Don: is voting all I'm willing to do? Because if it is, you are part of the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Don Firth Date: 20 Oct 06 - 03:15 PM During the Sixties, with the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War paramount concerns, there were people who were working hard to bring about changes through legal and political means. They were eventually successful. But while all this was going on, there were the angry radicals who wanted everything right now, and attacked those who were working within the system and whom they felt were not acting fast enough—even though the people they were angry at were actually making progress. These people could get pretty irrational sometimes, and actually retarded the progress that was being made because of their actions. I knew on guy whose solution to all the country's problems was draw attention to the cause by bombing government buildings (!!?). Most people—save for a few like-minded people who were driven more by their spleens than their brains—regarded him as a nut-ball. One day he dashed up to Seattle's University District post office—a government building—and tossed a bomb through the door. There were a lot of innocent people in there, posting letters, buying stamps, checking their mailboxes. Fortunately, he was a lousy bomb-maker, and in addition to this, he was in such a hurry that he tossed the bomb into the foyer (a short hallway) and ran. The bomb went off, broke a few windows, and scorched the walls of the foyer, but no one was injured. He got grabbed about fifty feet from the building by the local beat cop. Those who were opposed to the anti-Vietnam War movement had a field day. "See! That's what these people are like!" He really helped a lot. Brainless twit!! GUEST, your attitude reminds me a lot of that guy who thought direct action was the only way. Learn some political realities, try to figure out who's really on your side, and try to stop having temper tantrums. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 06 - 03:20 PM Richmond, Va: Loud, angry voices greet Bush Hundreds of demonstrators turn up near Science Museum to vent anger at president BY MARK BOWES TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER Oct 20, 2006 (Above) President Bush campaigns for Sen. George Allen, R-Va., rear, in Richmond, Va. (below) Former President Bill Clinton, left, and Virginia democratic senatorial candidate Jim Webb, speak to reporters in Arlington, Va. They came to protest President Bush, Sen. George Allen, the Iraqi war, the National Security Agency surveillance program and most everything else conservative and Republican. They were mostly young and mostly white, and at times very vocal and very profane. For several hours yesterday, a few hundred people gathered across the street from the Science Museum of Virginia to voice their displeasure in words and signs with Bush. "Bush and Allen sitting in a tree, K-I-L-L-I-N-G!" the crowd chanted at one point as they awaited the presidential motorcade. Raunchy signs -- many using language not permitted in a daily newspaper -- were as plentiful as the slogans. When one man tried persuading protesters to be civil and tone down the hostility, he was shouted down with a crude anti-Bush chant. Several took a more tactful approach, such as a well-dressed man in a corduroy sport jacket who quietly held a sign describing Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld as a war criminal. "I'm a swing voter," said the man, Kerry Riley, who lives nearby. "I voted for Ronald Reagan and [am] proud of many Republican people in office, but not the likes of Dick Cheney, President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove. I think they keep real bad company." The Virginia Anti-War Network helped organize the protest, which drew 150 to 400 people at various stages, according to organizers and police estimates. The purpose, said network spokesman Garrie Rouse, was "to get the message out that there are people that are opposed to Bush, the administration and what he represents. That's the main thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Don Firth Date: 20 Oct 06 - 03:20 PM Okay, so you're not in favor of Molotov cocktails. But it sure sounds like you're nostalgic for the Sixties. And I'm doing a helluva lot more than voting. And don't try to tell me about anti-war protests, because I was right in the middle of it. WITH a couple of Democratic politicians, one of whom in particular has drawn a lot of flak for his anti-war position. There's not a lot you can tell me about this sort of thing that I don't already know--and know how to use wisely. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 06 - 03:30 PM Gandhi made India ungovernable with non-violent direct action, Don. The civil rights movement made the South ungovernable through non-violent direct action. And the Vietnam War was ended through widespread non-violent, non-cooperation with the draft, and the student anti-war movement making the nation ungovernable. That's where we need to go AGAIN Don: the streets. That's the price we have to pay if we want to try and take the country back. Is there a chance we will fail? Yes, a very good one. But counting on the Democrats winning elections is a guaranteed recipe for failure. Guaranteed. The cause is lost in the Democratic party for the baby boomer generation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Peace Date: 20 Oct 06 - 03:36 PM IMO, what GUEST said makes sense. One place for protest is the streets. IMO, what Don said makes sense. Another place for protest is through the established channels. IMO, you both may eventually reach the conclusion that the only recourse you HAVE left is to be found in the words of TJ: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 06 - 03:46 PM Belgrade, 1996: The Demonstrations The first protest took place in Nis on 19 November, when the annulment of the electon was still an unconfirmed rumor. It attracted 20,000 people, 20% of the population. Local activists reported that there was a large police presence, including police from other parts of Yugoslavia and Republika Srpska. The first protest in Belgrade took place on 21 November when it became clear that even the Belgrade election results were threatened. After gathering in the central square, the crowd of 50,000 marched past the City Council building to a planned rally near the Parliament. But because the police had confis- cated three sound systems, the rally was delayed, and the marchers moved through the streets in a large circle, return- ing to the center of town where they were addressed from a working sound system at Zajedno headquarters. This then has become a daily ritual, with the numbers growing larger with each passing day. Protesters gather at 3 every afternoon in front of the Zajedno office with whistles, horns, pipes, bells, pots and pans, and even empty beer cans, filled with beans to rattle. After one or two short speeches they start walking. The routes differ slightly each day, but usually they pass by the City Council, Milosevic's presidential office, the state television and the state-owned newspapers "Politika" or "Borba". At each of these places people whistle and shout against the institution, chanting "ne damo pobedu"(we won't give in), "bando crvena" (red gang), or "lopovi, lopovi" (thieves, thieves). A lot of anger and frustration gets especially directed against the state media. There are also sites which bring out great cheers of support and love from the crowd: the offices of independent Radio B-92, and the apartment of an elderly woman who is out every day on her balcony waving a flag and cheering them on. The crowd chants "Grandma," and everyone waves. In the first few days, lots of eggs were thrown and also some stones at the buildings, so that now the TV-building and also "Politika" have broken windows and yellowish facades. Zajedno repeated its call for nonviolence and posted people standing at these places to discourage further attacks. In recent marches, people have been planting candles outside "Politika". The crowd is very mixed. While the first few days of marchers attracted mostly young people, the participants seem to come from all age groups and social classes. The number of young people has grown less as the university student protests have begun (See StudUnt Protest section). At the beginning of the march, there are men with large SPO flags. In later marches, a truck moves slowly at the front carrying loudspeakers, used as a platform for Vuk Draskovic to make occasional speeches en route. Around this wagon there are a great number of people carrying nationalistic symbols: Yugoslavian tricolor flags, posters and banners with the Serbian cross and the four Cyrilic S's, some even wearing different kinds of "chetnik" (Serb nationalist) hats. But in the middle and main body of the procession, the outspo- ken nationalistic symbols fade out, giving way to signs like "Snoopy against the Red Baron", " Watching too much State TV makes You loose Your sight", "A "handful" of 200.000 ...?" (referring to the state tv comment portraying the demonstra- tors as a "handful of people, incidentally passing by"). People in the march are quite friendly, there are lots of smiles, conversations and laughter. Whistle and noisemaker duets happen spontaneously. People tend to start up their own chants rather than following anything coming from the sound truck. There is no sense of latent violence and the crowds are re- markably disciplined. There are virtually no monitors along the route, except at key buildings as mentioned above. A handful of traffic police keep the traffic lanes closed, but for a few days, police stopped doing this, creating small, frustrated traffic jams. Demonstrators spontaneously stepped in to keep the roads clear and tried to ward off those motor- ists angry by the delay. Both the bus drivers union and taxi drivers union are supporters of Zajedno, and thus their mem- bers have adapted willingly to the congestion. At the end of every march, there is a rally with speeches from the Party leaders and messages of support from all over the world. After the first few days, these rallies got smaller in size while the marches grew. This is another sign that people are inspired to protest from their own personal motivations and not because of party politics. The Students' Protest Early in the protests, Belgrade's university students began their own protest efforts. All the faculties are on strike, there are daily student protest marches, and students have set up email communications with students around the world. They are very clear about keeping their protests independent of Zajedno and the political parties, setting their protest marches for 12 noon every day. The Student'Protest '96 commit- tees work day and night. The students'main demand is for the forming of a commission, which will investigate any claimed election irregularity. They also want the replacement of both the University rector and the students' pro-rector because both have made public speeches which denied the protest and incriminated the demonstrators. Beyond these demands the students are hoping for a strong social impact together with the other demonstrations and they hope that their own protest marches act as a motivation for people on an overall level to take part in the demonstrations. One of their leaflets was specifically addressed to their parents, explaining that the students would stick it out alone but they would prefer to have their parents join them. The students are well organized and have prepared themselves for possible violence from the police. Designated monitors walk in front and along the sides and in the case of a clash with police, participants are prepared to all sit down in the road en masse. The protests have been very creative. After the state media accused them of being destructive and fascist, they built a brick wall in front of the Federal Parlia- ment building and sprayed on it: We are not destructing but constructing. Police In Nis, in the first marches, there were high tensions from a strong police presence, including some with automatic weapons and riot control equipment. But the police have been largely absent from the protests in Belgrade, and there have been no police incidents. However, according to independent newspapers, 32 persons have been arrested and are accused of damaging public property. On Sunday, 1 December, state TV broadcast a speech by the presi- dent of the Federal Parliament, who called the demonstrators fascists and warned that police would no longer tolerate these demonstrations for reasons of security to both traffic and buildings. The warning had an opposite effect: An estimated 80.000 people were on the street the next day, in spite of heavy snow. Apart from a few policemen regulating the traffic there were no police to be seen, but we were told, that about 2.000 special police sealed off the way to Milosevic's villa. There are sympathizers among the police. The independent newspaper, Nasa Borba, printed a letter of support from 65 po- lice to protesters in the city of Kraljevo, reassuring their fellow citizens, that they would not go against them but rather protect them from other police of a different mind, especially those from other towns. Local Media While there has been a great amount of international media coverage of the protests, the Belgrade media coverage has been small. This includes two indpendent daily newspapers, "Nasa Borba" and "Demokratija", and independent radio stations, Radio B92 and the student radio Index. The radio stations were jammed for several days and were finally shut down. Although their signals only reached a small geographical range, this elimination of independent radio brought out a new surge in demonstrators: the following day, there were 200.000 marchers. The government retracted from B92's cancellation the next day. The two newspapers have been reporting widely on mass demon- strations in other towns of Yugoslavia as well as Belgrade. "Demokratija" is a new creation, published by journalists who left another independent daily "Blic", after its Austrian owner Peter Kolbl wrote a public letter stating that the demonstrators were not respecting democracy. Until that point "Blic" had been covering the demonstrations extensively, with an increase in circulation from 30.000 to 200.000, but Kolbl was apparently under pressure to protect his investments. "Demokratija" is being backed by the Democratic party and selling well. Activists Belgrade activists in local NGOs who Balkan Peace Team spoke with expect very little from Zajedno except for a change from the Milosevic regime. Many consider the coalition quite dubi- ous and unreliable, and with nationalistic tendencies in each of the member party leaders, either for real or out of tempo- rary strategic reasons. Activists have a variety of assessments regarding the pro- tests. Members from Women in Black clearly say that they are not supporting Zajedno, but they take part in the demonstra- tion each and every day, because they see them as a hopeful sign that people have lost their fright of speaking out, particularly after the large demonstrations in 1991 and 1992 which were crushed by government tanks and ended in violence and death. They hope for a change. The Women in Black are worried about a lack of concept and strategy in the Zajedno's handling of the demonstrations. Women in Black have been creating and distributing leaflets at every march with sugges- tions what to do in a case of violence and how to apply nonvi- olent resistance. Each leaflet contains 5 suggestions derived from Gene Sharpe's list of 200+ forms of nonviolent action. WiB members have also offered their ideas to the striking students and Jelena Santic from Group 484 has been speaking at daily student forums. Other activists have taken a more cynical perspective, choos- ing to stay away from something they see as a "walking Zajedno-rally" or attending only on those occasions when it seemed important to stand up to the police threats. Feminist activists have added to the critique, pointing out how strong- ly the demonstrations are characterized by nationalist male chauvinists. _________________________________________________________ If they can do it there, under communist control, why isn't possible to do it here? Over to you, status quo Democrats... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Don Firth Date: 20 Oct 06 - 03:58 PM "Status quo Democrats" GUEST, one of the first things you need to do is stop thinking in bumper-stickers. It stifles real thought. I'm gone for the day. Things to do. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:03 PM I'm sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Don Firth Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:08 PM Ah! But one quick question before I go for the rest of the day (guitar students coming this afternoon, lessons to give). Take it to the streets? Non-violent protests? General strikes? FINE! Whatever works (as long as it's non-violent). But the elections will go on, and someone is going to be elected. What are you going to do on election day? Talk with you later. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Peace Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:11 PM One thing all folks who think there is something wrong with America have gotta do is find some common ground. The mistake of the Sixties wasn't that there was protest in the streets or in the board rooms of corporate America. The mistake was that they got convinced they were mutually exclusive. I lost all kinds of 'friends' when I went "Clean for Gene". There was no need for that. There is no need for that today, either. If divide and conquer worked in history, why do you not see it working now? You will be beaten that way. By the Neocons, and by each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:16 PM I'll be doing what I do every election Don: voting FOR the candidates I believe have integrity, voting on the referendums on the ballot, and leaving the races with no candidates that offer a decent candidate alone. I always vote strategically. Just like every citizen should. Not for a party, but for what you actually believe in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:18 PM Which reminds me of a little personal anecdote. Nearly every single time I've ever marched, walked a picket line, attended a demonstration, etc. there is ALWAYS at least one jack ass who drives by yelling "why don't you assholes go vote?" Indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Peace Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:19 PM And THAT is refreshing to hear. I had a buddy who voted for McCarth in the 1976 election. I mentioned to him that McCarthy wasn't on the ballot and couldn't win. He replied, "He will win in my house." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 06 - 04:45 PM Here in the US, we have an oft-maligned and neglected document which is a cornerstone of our government. It is called the Bill of Rights, and includes the first 10 amendments to our constitution. It really irks me that people like Don Firth presume that exercising our First Amendment freedom of assembly rights to protest the actions or inactions of our government, should be viewed so negatively. Don't y'all think the Founding Fathers thought the right to freedom of assembly might have been so important, that they actually made it the FIRST amendment? For a reason, maybe. I'm reminded of the saying that middle class Americans aren't really against war, they are just against the wars they might lose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 06 - 05:26 PM I didn't see Don say anything implying the Bill of Rights should be viewed negatively. It seems to me you may be projecting on him your own negativity toward others. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 06 - 05:34 PM WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- Most private contractors keeping tabs on billions of dollars in governmental spending for the U.S. House Appropriations Committee have been let go. With about 60 investigators gone, the shakeup leaves only 16 full-time employees in the unit, USA Today reported. Committee spokesman John Scofield said that the quality of the unit`s work had been questioned by leaders of the Republican-controlled committee. Scofield said the ongoing investigations include the $62 billion federal relief package for Hurricane Katrina. The cutback came about a year after Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., opened the Katrina review promising 'a wide-ranging assessment and analysis of disaster spending.' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Don Firth Date: 20 Oct 06 - 06:12 PM "It really irks me that people like Don Firth presume that exercising our First Amendment freedom of assembly rights to protest the actions or inactions of our government, should be viewed so negatively." What the hell is with you, GUEST? When did I ever say anything like that!?? Bloody NEVER! Amos is right. You seem to be projecting your own anger and negative attitude onto anyone who doesn't see things quite the same way you do—even if they DO agree with your basic position. NOW HEAR THIS!! I have been there! I have done that! And I'm perfectly willing to do it again! In the Sixties—and it the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, there were a number of demonstrations, marches, and protests in Seattle. I was there! I particularly remember a silent march from St. James Catholic cathedral in downtown Seattle up to St. Mark's Episcopal cathedral on Capitol Hill (a few blocks from where I live). It was eerie! 30,000 people marching silently. Believe me, that was much more powerful and impressive than all the yelling and chanting that some people seem to think is necessary. Demonstrations. Candlelight vigils. All of that. I was there. And I will be there again should they occur. Don't preach to the choir, GUEST. And don't badmouth a choir member who was singing in the choir while you were probably still bawling in diapers! And I don't vote straight party line, either. But I DO vote for the candidate whose position is nearest to my own who actually has a chance of winning. There's a great deal to what Peace says, 20 Oct 06 - 04:11 PM. For one example out of the many possible, secular liberals and progressives often will have nothing to do with religious liberals and progressives even though they have common cause, because the secular progressives thoughtlessly lump all Christians with the fundies and evangelicals. If they ever got together, they'd be at least as powerful a force as the conservatives and the evangelicals have proven to be, and probably even moreso. This sort of nit-picky squabbling is self defeating. Liberals and progressives have a great talent for shooting each other in the foot over negligible differences. The conservatives got a clue a few decades back, set aside their differences, and concentrated on their common goals. That's why Bush is in the White House now. So how dumb are we, eh? (Back later. Probably tomorrow.) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 06 - 07:05 PM You are the one who said it was either voting or bloody revolution, and then had the audacity to suggest demonstrating and using direct action was akin to using violent force. In fact, you said: "But while all this was going on, there were the angry radicals who wanted everything right now, and attacked those who were working within the system and whom they felt were not acting fast enough—even though the people they were angry at were actually making progress. These people could get pretty irrational sometimes, and actually retarded the progress that was being made because of their actions." You then went on to rant about some mad 60s bomber who apparently ruined the 60s anti-war movement for you. That sure sounds to me like you were trying, through guilt by association (and a tried and true tactic used by liberals to squelch support for the use of organized protest, street theatre, direct actions, etc), to connect any suggestion of using tactics other than the ballot box, to violence. Frankly Don, we already have the mass media and the political establishment doing that for us. We don't need the Mudcat Democrats doing it too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Peace Date: 20 Oct 06 - 07:13 PM Yo, bros. It does look to me as though we are all on the same side of this issue. Any chance we can all start posting like it? Because right now there are a few Repubs who frequent this place laughing their collective asses off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 06 - 08:14 PM See, here is where I part ways with you and Don. I don't see "sides". The Republican party is being used, just like the Democratic party is being used, to further the agenda of the US kleptocratic elite. In my opinion, anyone who believes in one party or the other, or that the duopoly is "the only solution" just plain doesn't get it, and is as dangerous as Rush Limbaugh gobbling handfuls of hillbilly heroin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Peace Date: 20 Oct 06 - 08:16 PM You misunderstand me. I do not give a rat's ass for either Dems or Repubs. Neither have shown a fucking thing worth voting for in decades. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Oct 06 - 11:24 PM OK, well it's time for a little realism. This November in the US there are only 2 parties who have a chance at gaining seats in the Senate and House. Right now the Republicans have control of both houses. I thought I had detected a bit of dissatisfaction with this situation. If so, there is only one way to do something about it this year---and in fact a good opportunity to do so. And it's not by whining about the terrible unfairness of the "duopoly". I wonder if you can guess what US citizens can do in 18 days to change the situation--and no longer have Mr. Bush calling shots--on such aspects as undeclared pre-emptive wars at his whim--and the other aspects of his rule that I listed earlier. Any US citizen who does not vote to defang him by removing his supporters--by voting for the only opposition candidates who can do so--who, mirabile dictu, turn out to be Democrats-- in November is hereby asked to be so good as not to whine about anything political for the next 2 years. And you're invited to take "Kill the FCC" and like-minded sentiments back to the stupid violent fantasy where you found them. Thank you so much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 06 - 11:15 AM Paul Krugman (NY Times) writes: he only types of legislation the Democrats might be able to push through are overwhelmingly popular measures, such as an increase in the minimum wage, that Republicans don't want but probably wouldn't dare oppose in an open vote. But while the Democrats won't gain the ability to pass laws, if they win they will gain the ability to carry out investigations, and the legal right to compel testimony. The current Congress has shown no inclination to investigate the Bush administration. Last year The Boston Globe offered an illuminating comparison: when Bill Clinton was president, the House took 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether Mr. Clinton had used the White House Christmas list to identify possible Democratic donors. But in 2004 and 2005, a House committee took only 12 hours of testimony on the abuses at Abu Ghraib. If the Democrats take control, that will change — and voters should think very hard about whether they want that change. Those who think it's a good idea to investigate, say, allegations of cronyism and corruption in Iraq contracting should be aware that any vote cast for a Republican makes Congressional investigations less likely. Those who believe that the administration should be left alone to do its job should be aware that any vote for a Democrat makes investigations more likely. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Don Firth Date: 21 Oct 06 - 01:58 PM Ron, you have a knack for cutting right through to the heart of the matter (20 Oct 06 - 11:24 PM). And Amos's post immediately following pins it down even more. Worth re-reading both posts. GUEST, you seem to be determined to misinterpret what I say. It is not "either voting or bloody revolution," and I never said it was. In the Sixties, while some folks were working within the system—and making progress—there were lots of sit-ins, marches and demonstrations that were keeping the pressure on and aiding those working on the inside. In the meantime, there were the relatively small number of bomb-throwers and self-appointed revolutionaries out there who were trying to turn the peaceful demonstrations into riots. In the so-called "Battle of Seattle," the WTO riots in November, 1999, there were some 40,000 people peacefully demonstrating. In the meantime, there were about 200 self-appointed revolutionaries running amok, smashing plate glass windows, tipping over cars, and starting fires. They got all the national publicity and completely undercut the message of the 40,000 peaceful demonstrators. Apparently you missed where I said above that I have participated in marches, demonstrations, and vigils, and I've seen all of this in action. Marches, demonstrations, and vigils can be very effective if they remain peaceful. I described one of the demonstrations I've participated in recently: the silent march prior to the invasion of Iraq that started at St. James Cathedral in downtown Seattle and ended with a candlelight vigil at St Mark's Cathedral on Capitol Hill. This was a well-organized protest against the impending war, and some 30,000 people participated. But keeping demonstrations and protests peaceful is essential. One of the potential dangers of demonstrations is that a small number of rabble-rousers can sometimes turn them into riots, and this must be carefully guarded against. I've known of instances where a few revolutionaries tried to get others to organize demonstrations so they could turn them into riots. This is why I am a bit suspicious of people who are a) obviously very angry, and b) eager to take their anger to the streets. So I tend to wonder a bit about you. I am not dedicated to the Democratic Party. I'm not a member of any party. When I said that I support and vote for the candidate who most closely reflects my position, and who actually has a chance of winning, it usually turns out to be a Democrat. There are often Green Party candidates who are closer to my position, but when I ask around, very few people have heard of them. Now, that's the pits! But that's the way it runs. I know they aren't going to get more than a small percentage of the votes, so I vote for the best viable alternative. So please refrain from your constantly misrepresenting what I say. By the way, did anybody watch "NOW with David Brancaccio" on PBS last night? The subject was election reform and regulation of financing. Clicky. Not all Democrats and Republicans (Senators, Representatives, and local politicians) have been bought by the lobbyists and corporations. If one is willing to listen with an open mind (but still maintaining a healthy skepticism) what was said on the program contradicts much of what has been said in this thread about "duopoly." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:40 PM Here's a nice summary of the situation. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WSJ Poll: Congress: 16% From: Don Firth Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:56 PM Great commentary, Amos! I spotted it on another thread and listened, but I think it deserves to be posted in enough places so that no one can miss it. On that other thread, I posted a scene from one of my favorite movies/plays, A Man for All Seasons. I think this brief but intense conversation should also be posted in as many places as possible. So here goes. The same things Sir Thomas More says about laws in this scene also apply to constitutional protections: William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!Don Firth |
