 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 13, 2008 at 10:43:13
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 11/13/08: by Steven Leser Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
1
1
1
The Obama team isn't the only National political leadership team undergoing a transition. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is reorganizing the House Leadership team to include almost exclusively progressive members. As Reported at The Hill (www.thehill.com): (Rahm) Emanuel is being replaced by current Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman John Larson (Conn.), who, while well-liked and generally respected within the caucus, is regarded as far more liberal than Emanuel. And Larson’s replacement as vice chairman is expected to be Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), a former Congressional Hispanic Caucus chairman who leans even further to the left than Larson.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
Becerra, who is now assistant to the Speaker, was the only member of the Democratic leadership to vote against the $700 billion financial rescue bill twice, claiming it “fell short of embodying the elements of an economic recovery package that we need for taxpayers, workers, small businesses and homeowners.”
With Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) poised to remain in his post for a second cycle and possibly assume some of Becerra’s present duties as assistant to the Speaker, centrists are privately worrying that they will be less represented at next year’s leadership table than they were in the 110th Congress.
---------------------------
This shift is an interesting action by a Speaker who had come under serious criticism from the Progressive wing of the party. Progressives were upset by Pelosi's refusal to attempt to impeach Bush and Cheney, her refusal to use the power of the purse to try to stop the Iraq war and by other actions that made it seem that Speaker Pelosi was trying to act in an excessively bipartisan manner.
While not widely reported in the national press, Progressives were sufficiently upset by Pelosi' first term as Speaker that Cindy Sheehan ran against Pelosi in the 2008 General Election and managed to get over 17% of the vote, a strong showing of support by a third party candidate against a sitting House Speaker. Sheehan's measure of support is even more striking when one considers that she was not afforded the possibility of debating Pelosi and was largely ignored by her opponent.
While the team member changes will be embraced by Progressives and other Liberals, it is sure to draw fire from those on the ideological right. Conservative talking heads are eager to try to paint the incoming Democratic Controlled Congress and Executive as 'too Liberal'. Rush Limbaugh is already trying to say that the recession is Obama's fault because of business and finance's fear of Obama's ideas. While other conservative pundits and talking heads aren't so obviously jumping the gun, they are preparing this line of attack for use as early as will be reasonably credible.
Such attacks won't be of much use if the Democrats are successful at reversing the country's economic problems, but if the problems linger or become more severe as we approach election day in 2010 and 2012, you can be sure the "out of touch' and 'too Liberal' attacks will regularly roll off the tongues of every Republican pundit and candidate for office.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 65 comments |
|
Poor Value
Being as how I am helping pay her salary and benefits, I feel the bargain of cost for her services has been poor value. Like every politition ever born, her promises have been reveiled to be empty. by Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:11:39 PM  (0+)
|
|
Pelosi Progressive?
So I'm guessing that she'll be stepping down from the committee herself and appointing someone progressive? Or have we just thrown out the meaning of the word progressive and created a new one? Impeachment? Health care? War in Iraq and Afghanistan? by Zach Roberts (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:14:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Might Dem Congressmembers replace Pelosi?
Does the Democratic caucus vote for speaker when the new Congress resumes? When do constituents start calling on their reps to replace Pelosi? by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:22:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well I have been calling for it for almost a year...
... and so have the 8,000 people that signed my petition to replace her. Add your name if you like. http://www.petitiononline.com/everyman/ by scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:36:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Good idea/implementation could be better
Would it be possible for you to get assistance from a tech or webmaster of one of the groups that use petitions that take the addresses of signators and automatically direct appropriate lists of signators to their individual representatives, so that your petition could do likewise? by ClearEye (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:02:50 AM (0+)
|
|
One seat chairmanship is a "progressive shift"?
The one chairmanship seat you mention is the one Rahm is leaving... and you call that a "progressive shift"? That's just a bit of a stretch don't you think? You love High School Musical, don't you? "Livin the status quo, Livin the status quo! Just want you to know, We're LOVIN the status quo! Thinkin all the same, ...used to be so lame! But CONFORMIN'S NOW THE GAME! SO, we're living the status quo! Yo!" by scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:28:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You are trying to have it both ways...
Either Emanuel is this horrible regressive choice by Obama, and his replacement by a Progressive IS a big deal, or he isnt a bad choice by Obama and then his replacement by somone is not a big deal. Gee, what a surprise, the Democratic Party haters want to have an issue both ways so they can attack Democrats. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:55:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You're logic is like saying...
"You can't have it BOTH WAYS! Either Hitler was evil or Cheney is evil! One is evil so the other can't be!" Pelosi had no choice but to replace Rahm. Pelosi didn't appoint someone like Kucinich. Now maybe this guy isn't as republican as Rahm is. WOW! OMG! How wrong could I have been? Since Pelosi replaced the most republican democrat in the house with someone else, she must have been on our side all along! Kinda silly, huh? Again you are reaching. Which brings me back to the original point of my argument which was, that you seem a little quick to imply that alls well in the democratic party... after one person is appointed... ...in stark opposition to the obvious fact that neo-lib Clintonistas and lobbyists are getting appointed to the White House staff positions left and right. Sorry Steve: Obvious Centrist Spin = FAIL by scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:04:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I love when people try to spin obvious hypocrisy
I'm happy to let people decide who is right based on our comments thus far. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:09:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Haters?
While these new faces might portend a significant difference in the behavior of the national party's leadership, it may yet be another disappointment. Way too early to tell. And while it's also too early to tell what influence Emanuel will have on the president's actions, it's not too early to be alarmed. I prefer "insurgents" to "haters." I also prefer "apologists" to "loyalists." by More Voices (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:37:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Divisive rhetoric is not pro-party
Guess what, Mr. Leser. The White House Chief of Staff does not make or even advise on policy except as regards the likelihood of passage. In fact, Obama's appointment removes Rep. Emmanuel from the power he's had to use his own judgement to affect legislation, and instead puts his expertise in tactical bullying to positive use. So we can have it both ways. Your hostile language to other Democrats is not pro-party, but would be destructive if anyone took it seriously. Take a deep breath, close your eyes and say "Big Tent" three times. by ClearEye (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:23:08 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I do not think you understand my comment
PM me by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:59:56 PM (0+)
|
|
It doesn't matter if so-called progressives
Are gaining spots within "Pelosi's team." What matters is if these so-called progressives will produce progressive policies or not. by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:29:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sorry, but progress is progress
to get more progressive results, we need more progressives in positions of influence and power. Sure, we want results. But this is also good news. Your threshold for seeing progress is unreasonable. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:42:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Just like it was "unreasonable" to expect...
... Pelosi to live up to the promise to get us out of Iraq? Or how about giving impeachment a fair shot? Maybe you think our unwillingness to support their FISA bill was "unreasonable"? Or perhaps the 1000 to 1 calls against the Paulson Bailout Plan that Nancy Pelosi signed with the biggest of smiles? Is it unreasonable to have wanted them to vote down HR 1955? or the Military Commissions Act? How Patriot Act II? One chairmanship position going to a guy who Leser himself says is just slightly left of Rahm, and that is "progress"? No, I don't think it is "unreasonable" for anyone to want to see a little more evidence before praising Nancy Pelosi as progressive after her track record. In fact, I would call it rather rational. by scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:58:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The real joke is your reaction and trying to have it both
ways, but no one should really be surprised by that. The hatred of you and many others here of the Democrats is so intellectually dishonest it is funny. Funny than any comedy ever produced. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:02:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Steve... I am a lifelong democrat...
...I was invited to assist MoveOn . org in the pre-election calling for Obama. I was even invited to our victory party down here. I am a member of Move On, Progressive Dems (at least I was), World Can't Wait, End the Occupation, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and I run a website that was the FIRST to produce an entire category called "The Real McCain" (a year ago) that dealt with the truth about his capitivity and how he behaved during it. Google "John McCain: Not a Fighter Pilot" it's a good place to start if you want to learn a little bit about the guy you just said hates the democratic party. I love the dems! I love em so much I am willing to stand up to ANYONE that wants to sit back and accept the Blue Dog Dem takeover of our liberal party. Do you understand that? Or is everything just red and blue to you? Because if you can't understand it, I would hate to think I am wasting my time. by scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:12:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: so what
You use irrational thinking in response to me. Your issues are fine. But if there is progress and more left leaning people get into power, that can be good. Until we see, you are just farting the same old tune. And I'm getting sick of hearing it. Pelosi is going down in history as a betrayer who sold us out. Her constituents are fools for supporting her. But before you judge new people, give them a chance. Your failure to do so is... irrational. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:33:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I fail to see why I should support or invest energy
In anything that doesn't produce results. If I buy a computer that has all kinds of bells and whistles but will not turn on so I can use those bells and whistles, why would I want to keep that computer? I would want to return it immediately and get a replacement. If I vote for a "progressive" who has all kinds of progressive policies and progressive values but will not fight for and utilize those progressive policies and progressive policies (like Kucinich or Feingold or Sanders or [fill in the blank], etc.), than why would I want to support them? I would want to see him or her replaced in the next election. Potential isn't worth anything unless that potential unleashes something. My threshold is unreasonable only in the scheme of things. Standards have been lowered. We find those that pursue conventional politics to be outstanding when they are doing what we should expect them to do normally. Bush has seriously lowered the bar and all Obama has to do is lift his leg up over it as if he is stepping over a puddle. Pelosi can pretend the past two years never happened and just actively participate in an Obama administration and all will be well. But, if we expect more from our government (which we have the right to do and should do), than we might start to see this desired progressive shift. Until then, we will have mediocrity which produces insufficient measures for change. Mediocrity carried out by Democrats might stop the downward spiral but will it reverse the status quo? by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:18:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Irrational, huh?
John Larson is a member of the New Democrat Coalition. The New Democrat Coalition is "a congressional affiliate of the avowedly centrist Democratic Leadership Council..." Their issues include, Normalizing Trade Relations with China, H1-B Visa reform, and many other pro-free trade/globilization policies. members of this "progressive" coalition include Bob Grahm, Jane Harman, Nancy Pelosi, and Rahm Emanuel. In 2006 according to the VoteSmartProject, he was rated a -4 by the end the US Campaing to End the Israeli Occupation for his votes and positions that year. The highest rated congressman was Kucinich who recieved a +8. The ACLU seems to love him.. that's good. The American Conservatives Union seems to hate him, that's good. The National Education Association seems to like him, ok, that's good... The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund likes him... Jews for peace in Palestine and Israel really don't like him... However... " Representative John B. Larson repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff." So, is he Rahm Emanuel? No. He is not. Is he Dennis Kucinich? No he is not. But any member of the New Democrat Coalition is hardly "progressive", unless of course you think supporting free-trade over human rights and thinks like NAFTA are "progressive". So, is he better? Sure, ok. Is he "progressive"? I don't think so. And that is based on his voting records, the Votesmart Project, and the fact that Pelosi supports him. Say what you will about my opinion, it is based on logical evidence and is therefore not "irrational". by scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:33:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Oh yeah, by the way...
John Larson is a five term congressman. He's not "new". He has a very long voting record by which we can get a rather clear picture of him. by scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:43:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sheesh!
And you wonder why you don't have more contributors. by ClearEye (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:05:40 AM (0+)
|
|
Well, I guess that shifting from working for Bush to anyone
else would be called progressive. However, I'd like to see some real change, and I think that the only way to undo the damage caused by the Neo-Con scum is by removing them from power, and of course, that includes Pelosi. If you don’t understand that computers count votes in secret, see Project Vote Count’s FAQ Yes, Virginia, not only is secret vote counting inherently dangerous, it’s unconstitutional, but no one in power gives a damn! They just want to stay in power by whatever means. If you want to see what the United States Supreme Court has said about our right to make sure that our votes are counted, see Virginia’s Elections Are UNCONSTITUTIONAL?!?! If you’re not sure that our elections have been rigged, but you’re still wondering why so many members of Congress risked the wrath of the voters and passed the banker bailout while tossing millions of Americans out in to the street, see Have American Elections Really Been Stolen? Part 1 in the "Democracy" in America Series – The Proof It was a Top Scoop on Scoop. See it at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0810/S00428.htm If you think that "our" government still follows the rule of law or that it wouldn’t cover up election fraud, see Would Congressional Democrats Cover Up Neo-Con Election Fraud? Part 2 in the "Democracy" in America Series – No Way, Right?!?! This article was also a Top Scoop on Scoop. See it at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0811/S00030.htm and yes, Pelosi has helped cover up election fraud, too. by Mark Adams (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 312 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:48:49 PM (0+)
|
|
My Congressman Voted Twice Against The Bailout Too!
The author of this article failed to mention that my Congressman, Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), voted twice against the bailout package also. Rep. Blumenauer represents a highly progressive area in Portland, OR and he would never sell out his constituency! by disabledvet (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:51:09 PM (0+)
|
|
My Senator Voted Against The Bailout Bill Too!
In addition to my previous comment, my Senator, Ron Wyden (D-OR), voted against the bailout bill. He is highly progressive too. The other Senator, Gordon Smith (R-OR) voted FOR it which led to his defeat last week to Jeff Merkley, another progressive Democrat. With Smith's defeat this leaves Oregon an entirely "blue" state, with a Democrat Governor, Democrat State Senate, a Democrat State Assembly and two Democrat U.S. Senators. Out of 5 House seats we only have one Republican, Rep. Walden from eastern Oregon, which is traditionally very conservative. by disabledvet (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:09:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Shoe on the other foot
So cry Republicans. You did the exact same thing when you were in control. You put all right wing people in place and shut out any progressive agendas. It was "fair" when you did it so it is "fair" for the Democrats to do it. As the old saying goes "Payback is a Mother$@#%" by Paul Kruger (39 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 304 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:18:25 PM (0+)
|
|
"Progressive" would be..
...for her to immediately start Impeachment! Meanwhile, we'd better inundate our congresspeople with "Reminders " like the Downing St Memos, the Unanswered questions about 9/11, the Katrina debacle, Enron scandals, etc etc etc.! by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:19:05 PM (0+)
|
|
If you believe Pelosi you'll buy this watch
See, Pelosi only makes noises like this when she's going for her own political survival. Anybody here forgotten 2006? Anybody forgotten the thousands of times she not only voted in Bush's interests, she turned a deaf ear to US for the last two years. Remember that little tea she was invited to regarding ending the war in Iraq? Remember how she refused to share tea with these concerned citizens? Recall how she said "you are advocates, I am a leader"? Pelosi is interested only in her OWN interest not ours. Why anyone is willing to believe her after sh*tting all over the constitution for years is astounding. by Otay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:43:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Pelosi's true soul emerging
You go, Nancy!! Don't stop there!! Dennis Kucinich for Secretary of Defense! Marta by Marta Steele (44 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 48 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:26:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Progressive
I will see it when I believe it. It's true that it is better to have a conservative Democrat in power than a conservative Republican, but, being a true progressive, it would be nice if we could have a real progressive in charge. I am currently withholding judgment on Obama, because he hasn't done anything yet. But I have had two years to judge Nancy Pelosi and I must say that my disappointment has matched my disgust. I don't know if she was playing politics or if she really believed the rationale for the things that Congress let Bush get away with. The FISA thing was the last straw. I will never trust the woman again. It would give the conservatives fits if the Congress actually did move left, though, since that is what they have been saying since the beginning; that Democrats were going to give us the old bait and switch, pretend to be conservative and then go all liberal. In my dreams.... by Paula Sayles (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 204 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:48:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: oooops...
I meant believe it when I see it. But you all know that, right? by Paula Sayles (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 204 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:50:41 PM (0+)
|
|
One problem: the political center has shifted so far to ...
... the right since St. Raygun sold the people on predatory corporatism that tens of millions of Americans think Pelosi is already a fringe lefty, populist progressive and card-carrying pinko commie rat to boot. Of course, a lot of people think Orlando Florida is a Puerto Rican ballplayer now with the Mets. All field, no hit though -- an anemic .218 for the 2008 season. But back to Ms. Nancy... Despite hopes and expectations that the 110th Congress would wage two years of total, unrelenting war against the Bushies and everything they stand for, she unloaded her weapon and, in the process, signalled the white house that it would be business as usual, with no accountability or oversight from the majority party, and no impediments to the Bushies stunningly overt international crime wave. Below is a rare glimpse into the delusional parallel universe these disconnected swine inhabit. This from an interview with the disgustingly sychophantic Wolf Blitzer, who dropped the suck-up routine for once, probably because he felt safe going after another toothless democrat (boldface mine). So that's the world according to Pelosi, all wrapped up in a single fact-free non-sentence. But first, what the hell is she talking about? Do those words as used in those sentences even make sense? Bushie is practicing "abstinence?" Indicative of the power of mass media and corporate consolidation, John Conyers has actually said several times that he's afraid of starting impeachment hearings because the puff adders on Pox Nuuz would talk bad about him. Thing is, John, they're going to talk bad about you anyway and there's nothing you can do about it. Except what you should have been doing for years, which is resurrecting the dozens of anti-monopoly, trust-busting laws already on the books. But Ms. Nancy's still yammering incomprehensably, so let's see what she's trying and pass off as truth this time. Back in January 2007, just as the 110th congress was doing the peoples' business by making the first round of calls to their very best sugar daddies, CBS reported: by Warren Pease (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:51:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Stop Complaining and Do Something Important
First, click here and read the article about impeachment efforts. Then, write your Representative in Congress and ask him or her to support the impeachment effort. It just takes a few minutes. by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:37:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Complaining?
We're just talking about reality and disagreeing about what is reality and what isn't. This is a political discussion. There's no need to cut in and ask people to quit "complaining." Why not just promote sending letters next time instead of undercutting a conversation? by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:08:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You do realise of course...
...that Conyers said that at the Take Back America Conference... in March of 2008, right? You do know that he has since then held a hearing that wasn't a hearing, and he has stated repeatedly that he will not aggressively attempt to bring impeachment hearings against President Bush, right? We flooded the White House with letters for impeachment. We wrote and signed petitions, the largest one being what, nearly a million signatures? We called and we applauded when Kucincih or Ron Paul talked about it and Conyers got sick to death of people with video cameras in his face for months everytime he went out the door asking about impeachment. I mean, you do remember all that right? Do you remember all the opposition to the Paulson Bailout Bill? Flooded the congress with letters and jammed up the switchboards. And this was before an election. Right before an election. And do you know what they did? They ignored us and voted for the Bailout anyway. Now, Conyers is 2 full years away from his next re-election bid, and he may even retire after this term. So what exactly do you think that letter will do for us? I'm just curious? I mean we shouldn't discuss the reality of the situation we are in, in a "progressive" blog site. No! We should "shut up" and send "letters"? Is that basicly the jist of it, or did I miss something? by scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:23:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Pelosi is a Fraud and Has Committed Fraud Upon US
At some point a line must be drawn in the sand... Here lies the End of the "stretching" of the Truth, the Terms -- the table will be turned. Gotta have a boundary or you've got no integrity. It really does have to be black or white to achieve discernment of "progress". Pelosi fractured and amputated any semblance of a "remedy of impeachment" at a most critical juncture (to use a word form Bush, Snr). This is unforgiveable. She is a traitor and deserves the harshest censure and penalties of this nation for her actions. Period. The fact she still holds any power or prestige is a gaseous flatulation of the judgement of non-critical people. Anything she touches or postulates is tainted with the stench of her "priors" {law enforcement term} by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:23:15 PM (0+)
|
|
She said what?
Against my better judgement I'm going to go out on a limb here and speak my mind. Gee ... a first ... ahem ... Maybe I am a fringe. a card carrying member of that 2%, as Steven calls them. I always rather liked being associated more with bikers 1%, but two is good. I may have "cognitive disorder" - was that it Rob? - I couldn't argue against disorder, I'm sure I have my PHD in disorder. And "cognitive", ha, hell, I wouldn't stop there, call me unreliable, undependable, and hopelessly in love with you too ... ... through all that - I have made certain observations, and as skewed as they might be, I'm sure either of you will tell me where I'm wrong. I am of an opinion that, however they say they're "leaning", left/right, "middle". on top, on bottom, it really doesn't matter since both parties long ago left us. Whatever they say is basically lip-service to placate those gullible enough to believe them. Now, now ... Rob, I'm not going "negaholic" here on you ... although because of things I think I've been perceiving, I have been rather depressed for some time ... but our mission here is not to be "drug store psychologists", we're here to discuss subjects like adults, right? ah, but I ramble ... anyway back to inane politics - and my meager opinion So, if one would of come to a conclusion that since both parties members - outside of those few token "fringe" they keep around to placate those it would, and otherwise ignore and ridicule - have become so totally corrupted that not only should we not look to them for signs of leadership, but we should view them as our sworn mortal enemies. I know that's extreme - and some of you say you know, or have at least been in the same room with, many of these power-brokers, Pelosi, Conyers, you've studied politics, have degrees, get to interview authors, and many people of influence, and than you have to get on here and deal with an ideal-brained, old-fart suffering his 19th nervous break-down ... I feel for you. ... but ya' know what they say - you open to the public and put a "welcome-mat" out ... ah! ... there I go again, tst, sorry ... politics Yeah, after 04', certainly after 06' it should have become as clear as walking-in on one you love, to see her in bed with another man, that this romance was over. But no, no ... old beliefs and Edward Bernays was too much for so many, even maybe those that should know better, but, we're not here to judge. Anyway, some of us, (at least 2% - right Steven?), feel that paying much attention, beyond using it like one would use information coming from a known enemy. Typically one finds, one of the best things to do is believe just the opposite of what they say. This is what one would do when at war. Ah, no! WAR! How negative can you get!!! I know ... damn me. But you see ... I just can't help stop hearing and seeing what looks like war. It hasn't got "hot" yet, but like any good war, those that are waging it planned well, and like Tun Sui's: Art of War; " ... best victories are bloodless", seem to be close to winning this one. They seem to be winning it by convincing enough people that they have people's best interests at heart, when nothing could be further from the truth. Now, how can I say that? Because, they don't answer questions when asked, or when cornered, give answers that defy logic, and than go about business that has every inclination of benefiting them and screwing us. So, some of us - I'm projecting here, hell, maybe I'm alone - wouldn't be the first time ... anyway - some of us think that these little she-said/he-said press conferences are simply side-show events to deflect us, throw us a bone, or at least talk about bones, and really don't mean all that much. I don't mean to demean others opinions. If you say you know these people and they mean well ... okay ... I just don't see it and if you could point out to me something more than lip-service, and what looks like otherwise just more slick PR to keep us quiet as they steal trillions in front of our faces and tell us it's none of our business where the money went, and, oh, byw, "... we've been totally transparent with you." - yeah, just don't ask where the money went ... Some of us want to know why they have hundreds of fully staffed FEMA camps, with over 2 million coffins staked around them. I'm not being too paranoid am I? Its just that it looks a lot like those concentration camps they had during a war we had once before. Again ... I just want some answers, and I'm not hi-jacking this post asking this, because it goes directly to what questions we should be asking these so-called leaders you're putting your trust in. Why should I care what Pelosi says, unless it's, "I'm sorry, I beg your forgiveness, and these are the names of the people that forced me to do all these things against your best interests. These are the people that planned and executed 9/11. This is when I knew the Iraq war was bullshit, and what they paid me to vote for it," among hundreds of other crimes she's committed? Of course I'd want to know other things too, but I doubt Pelosi, nor any of the other shill, left-leaning, right-leaning, standing on their head puppets for the international bank/corporate/New World Order/Illuminati scum will answer. I know, I know ... you know these people. They're not that bad, you say ... prove it. Better yet, let them prove it. Someone, somewhere tell me why I should believe a GD thing this women says? Some of us thought that after 06' - enough was enough. We knew we didn't have any more time to waste dicking around with people that are trying to kill us. Some of us knew the housing market would crash, along with all the rest back then too, and we thought, incorrectly, it appears, that not this time, surely people will flock to Kucinich, or Paul, or a 3rd party and divorce ourselves from lies, turn off our TV's, and take to the streets and take them back! but no ... too many fell for the crap again - those hopeful 80% - was that the percentage Steven? And some of us feel that time is even shorter now. That if we make it to 2012 what we've seen so far will be trite. That no matter what Obama is going to do conditions might be such we won't be counting votes so much as bullets and bodies. Extreme, I know ... you could go a long way to making me feel more comfortable and normal, like you guys, if you could just answer me what they've got planned for all those coffins? Maybe the next time you see Pelosi, or whomever she's happy she says she's appointing to whatever post we're supposed to care about. Ask them for me, will you? by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:37:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: A-friggin'-men.
Like Bush, Cheney and the rest of the neocon gang, Pelosi simply belongs behind bars... or at the end of a rope. by Donald Rankin III (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 60 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 3:15:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Pelosi has done enough damage
Her judgement can no longer be trusted. The best thing the democrats can do is get rid of her as soon as possible. Conyers also must go. Sorry. The Democrats should take whatever advice she gives to them and do exactly the opposite. Do I sound bitter? You better believe it. by Nick van Nes (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 596 comments [150 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:40:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Pelosi is the new Benedict Arnold
Pelosi has only one equal at the Capitol, that is Joe LIEberman. I doubt many trust her, and she needs to be replaced. Sure, now she's taking a progressive stance, she saw the results of the election like everybody did. She's no count and should not stay in power. by Dusty Nathan (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 69 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:56:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Steven Leser wrote (and Rob Kall joined in)
I am going to be blunt as befits the importance of the defects in the the thinking of Kall and Leser. These men whilst thinking themselves to be progressives are not, in my honest, considered opinion, actual progressives at all. Philosophically or logically if one prefers I don't think either Leser or Kall could call themselves progressives - I don't think they could articulate a statement about what a progressive is, that would be accepted by progressives around the world. Leser and Kall are not bad men. They are not foolish men. But they are not progressives. Ultimately, both Leser and Kall have demonstrated that they will go-along to get along. They are advocates of lesser evil thinking. The way to be a true progressive is to take ones own ego out of the consideration. A progressive has to be a about progress. Thats not just personal progress (egoism) or national progress its human progress. Anybody that puts the election of Obama as a higher priority than the maintenance of the Constitution isn't, logically, being a progressive. America needs the rule of law more than it needs any particular Presidential candidate. Kall, to his credit has worked hard on some causes that, if they had been successful, might have had progressive consequences. Leser is almost entirely interested only in the progress of Leser (that's not wrong so much as short-sighted and a goal that most of the people who aren't Leser cannot possible share.) All of us individuals with our various biases and perspectives will be dead in about 100 years. But the ideas and principles we espouse may take root (if they are of sufficiently wide appeal) and still be around in 100 years or a thousand years IF they are really PROGRESSIVE ideas. I have been threatened with bans by both Leser and Kall from time to time and I might get banned at any time by either of these men who will not have to justify what they do to anyone other than themselves. Leser and Kall are not bad men. But its important that this be out there as a challenge even. They are not philosophically or logically progressives. Challenge them to articulate their philosophy or worldview, get them to write an essay or paragraph on what being a progressive is, and I am confident I will be able to show how both Leser and Kall have actually been regressive in the effects. Not only don't they live what they talk, they literally don't understand what they talk. The ultimately don't know what a real progressive is. They haven't been able to decouple their own egos enough. Why does this matter? It matters because false and wrong headed progressives divert energy and effort. It matters because politically which questions get asked and discussed determines which questions get considered and reflected upon. On the watch of contemporary adult Americans like Leser and Kall, an American President has tortured and committed war crimes against international law. Both those men are smart enough to know that. Yet both those men act as though those thinks were not of more importance than other parochial concerns. The world (not just me - I am not writing from ego or self interest), the world, the human world, needs a rule of law in order to avoid war. And the world had a system in the United Nations just as US citizens had a system in their constitution. The two systems actually worked together intellectually very well. But the two systems were not intellectually understood. Leser doesn't like racism. Leser is glad that a black man is President. I agree with him on those things. But Leser has facilitated by his choices and his political prioritising a world in which the actual human rights of minorities around the world are more precarious. When impeachment was important Leser found talking about single issues boring and tedious. Well the most important issue might be tedious to an egotist but it is still the most important issue. Pelosi ISN'T a progressive. A progressive would never take impeachment off the table. They would never utter the words "impeachment is off the table". Leser doesn't get that. And Kall who is a Democrat first doesn't either. Neither party nor nation can be put ahead of principle when the principles are fundamental to the social contract that is necessary for all humans to have any chance of peace. To be a progressive Kall would have to be willing to become anti-American at some point. (Like when torture or aggressive invasion was acceptable to a majority of his nation). Or otherwise he would never take a stand on principle against his own nation. And that was exactly the problem the people called good Germans couldn't get passed. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:32:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Funny as it sounds
I agree with Mr. Paatch here. I wrote about madame Pelosi before ( ears and all:) and the PERSON WHOM CINDI SHEEHAN WANTED TO OFFSEAT cannot be trusted, period. I trust Cindi's judgement. I am not sure if the particlular litmus test Mr. Paatch mentiones ( to be ready to become anti-American) is the one which anyone of us could pass with flying colors. Everyone dies alone and acts alone in front of his own conscience. But I agree with him that progressive thinking must include constant vigilance and absolute independence. As such the very fact that madame Pelosi is suddenly elevated to some progressive status is frightening. Even more frightening is thee reappearance of the Clintoninan Crows like M. Allbright and also the reemerging of Hillary Clinton. So we should prepare to the 'winter of our discontent' and in all fairness Rob and Steve should at least acknowledge that. I am going to write an extended article about those new doubts of mine. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:59:40 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I've written several articles on what Progressive means
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=1992 This includes a now non-functional link to a previous article on the same subject but that entire article is included at the bottom of the above link. One of the things that I always find is people like you who think that they own the label and own what it means and derive some sort of odd joy by pronouncing others non-Progressives. Weird stuff. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 7:56:32 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well, I don't care what those articles say,
because I have seen your definition by your regular comments.... According to your posts, Progressive means swallowing all of the Democrat cool-aid no matter how much evidence there is that it is all a bunch of CRAP! You are a piece of work my friend.... Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:35:08 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Scanning for anything of substance... nope
Have a nice day by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:58:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: steven leser
Just what is the "substance" you are looking for? An echo back of how wonderful it will be when Pelosi appoints all those progressives? Oh come on, how naive can one be? When she or Obama start picking true progressives on the order of a Kucinich or Feingold, maybe then she will have my rapt attention. Until then, I see it as nothing more than corporate dlc business as usual. The woman has to earn my respect and my scorecard says she's still not worthy. by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:23:03 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ah, come-on, lay off Steven ...
... it's obvious he's trying real hard to take Colmes place on Hannity and Colmes, should he ever retire. I mean he'd be a perfect fit for FAUX Noise, he even has the look, and his name pretty much says it all. So give the man a break. We may be able to see him on TV one day and go, "hey, I use to dis that guy" by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:12:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Pelousi
can re-shuffle the deck all she wants, put as many 'progressives' in new positions as she thinks it will take to lower the level of criticism, but until she relieves herself of the reins of power, those in new positions will be powerless. The position of Speaker carries many perogatives, including committee assignments, determining bills that will be heard, overall agenda, bills passed out for committee hearings, etc, so a long run of progressives may look nice, but until they have power to act, well, just so much window dressing. I am not sure, however, that I am willing to wait for the new Dems to show their true colors. Can we stand more Democratic leadership of the nature of which we have had for the last two years? Remember, Rahm Emmanuel engineered the 2006 'progressive' election and look at what we got for it. The Dems are just practising the old shell game shuffle on us as it appears now. by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 675 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 7:58:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The same thing I always ask for if not provided...
links... proof... facts by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:01:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Wake up and smell the coffee brewing
The efforts at redundant recitation of Democratic complicity in the collapse of this country would take far too long and most of us, not, of course, including you, are well aware of the damage done by Democrats. If you want facts, go back and actually read entries made by many of us and try, finally, to grasp their import instead of being a True Believer and major apologist for the 'Rats. You supposedly cite your own facts in many instances but they so frequently are figments of your fevered imagination that most of us have stopped wasting our time with your rantings. Good night and good luck by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 675 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 2:03:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: the same...
Odd. Thse were exactly what I wanted from your article that started this conversation. by thom hera (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 5 comments) on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:22:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I set you a challenge you could have chosen to accept
but didn't. Nowhere in your linked article do you articulate a worldview or a statement of principles of YOUR own that YOU have formulated that YOU are confident would appeal to all people who want progress worldwide. Like Pelosi you seem to think the United States is the world. That is a very serious and dangerous oversight for Americans to be making at present. The world not only could get by without a single living US citizen, it might actually get to the point that we might choose to because you force us to. From the standpoint of humanity in the aggregate we might already be at the point where the non-existence of 300 million Americans (a mere 5 percent of the human population) might be better for the planet and the rest of the people on the planet than their existence. The loss of 300 million American opportunists might be a saluatory lesson for the rest of us. Certainly we have within the rest of us the capacity to recreate what was intellectually meritorious in historical America. America is utterly unnecessary for understandings of civilization and progress and contemporary Americans may be a burden the rest of humanity is better of not bearing. I suspect I could recreate from memory, and from an understanding of political philosophy and logic, more of your US Constitution and system of government than you could - and I am not an exceptionally talented individual. I'm not a racist - I like people. I like variety. There seems to be little unique in the American cluster of humanity. One would hardly need a single American genome in any gene bank put together to preserve diversity and its seems with messers Venter and Watson that we already have two. I probably know Rob Kall and Steve Leser better than their great great great grandchildren would if they are to ever to have any. If they are to leave behind them a world in which they could have any. If you Americans make it impossible for us foreigners to be on friendly terms with you because you don't keep your promises to us then heck maybe we can just eat you. Please eat healthy Steve and take care of yourself, Rob looks like he might be getting a little low in terms of protein content and high in terms of lipids. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:17:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yes, I did actually. You clearly did not read the article...
But I will make it more simple for you. I believe in: 1. A Living Wage 2. Universal Single Payor Healthcare 3. Social Safety Nets for the unemployed similar to those in France or Sweden 4. Free top quality education to the Bachelors degree level. 5. Against war unless we are attacked, no preemptive war. I think you get the general idea. The difference between myself and someone like you or Mr. M is that I understand the electorate and what is possible with that electorate. I've lived in places like Wichita Falls, Texas and Colorado Springs, Colorado and Tampa/St. Pete and I know what the people in those places believe and it is VERY different from other places I have lived like Los Angeles and New York. Chances are that most of you who spend most of your political time castigating Democrats live places where you are comfortably ensconced in blankets of like minded progressives. I understand that what is necessary to bring about the achievement of progressive goals is to change the electorate, not our politicians, not our media, but the electorate. THAT is a tough job and it is much more tough than any here are willing to deal with otherwise that is what you would be spending your time doing, not spinning your wheels attacking Democrats. Here is an experiment for you. Get a piece of paper and cut a strip 1 inch wide and 10 inches long. Then cut another piece 1 inch wide and 5.1 inches long. On the 10 inch long piece, label the first 1/2 inch from the left 'P'. Label the next leftmost 3.8 inches 'D'. Label the next 2.2 inches IC, the next 3 inches CR and the final .5 inches F. Label the 5.1 inch piece "Goal". So, now what you have is a 10" representation of the electorate. you have your 5% progressives to the furthest left, you have your 38% Democrats, 22% Independant centrists, 30% Republicans and 5% Fascists. You also have a 5.1 inch piece that represents how much of that electorate you need to win a national election. Try covering different parts of the 10 inch electorate to determine which groups you need to bring along in order to win the election. When you understand this experiment, you will understand how I approach politics. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:17:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Read over your own comment carefully and mine and you'll
see that your comment is couched as if the only political agents that you are aware of are US domestic voters. Republicans and Democrats are capitalised in reference to national political parties not classes of political groups from a world population. I challenged you to articulate a vision or a worldview or a set of principles that could have appeal to progressives the world over. I did that because I think you are too parochial and that as parochial as you are, you are actually dangerous to your country and the world just like Nancy Pelosi is dangerous to your country and the world. And just like Karl Rove was. You so much dismiss the political capacities of foreigners, their rights and your responsibilities too them, that the only way they can factor in your political calculation seems to be in terms of exogenous shocks. Or is it really your view that the 9-11 attackers didn't effect US domestic politics? I think they did. I think they showed that your liberals and libertarians are not liberals and libertarians for humanity so much as they are liberals and libertarians for themselves only. And this by the way is where you classification system comes undone even domestically - people don't stay in your neat classes they jump out of them opportunistically. You didn't defend the US Constitution as a higher priority than you supported Obama Steve and that is why you are not a progressive. You not only didn't articulate a progressive vision you didn't defend the progress that had been achieved by previous generations. For you, the election of Obama was more important than the impeachment of Bush. So you were missing in action, or worse, running interference when impeachment needed every thinking American to be at work in the defence of existing rights. You were a poor stewart of the wealth of your political birthright. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:01:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Rep. Maurice Hinchey also voted against the bailout twice
And regarding Carson, no DLCer, by definition, is progressive. The DLC was formed to influence Democratic policies to appeal more to the corporate world. If that's where you stand, fine, but that position is not progressive by any meaningful definition of the word. There has long been a struggle amongst Democrats over which direction the Democratic Party should take. Calling one side or the other "disloyal" is destructive and over the top. by ClearEye (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:04:05 AM (0+)
|
|
What kind of a "Progressive"
would line up with a Speaker of the House, who must be counting on a Bush "Pardon" to stay out of prison? by Samuel Bryan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 168 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:13:34 AM (0+)
|
|
btw
Steven, you sound much more like an apologist for the corporate controlled dems than you do a progressive. Making excuses for them and telling others to basically shut the hell up for finding fault with them for throwing their liberal base under the bus time and time again is not my idea of progressive thinking. Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em. by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:33:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: See my above post with the experiment.
That says it all. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:20:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Take note of the vast majority of our reactions...
... and you will see that 95% of the individuals who have taken the time to respond have done so in accordance to the notion that not only is Pelosi NOT taking even a slight "shift toward the progressive" but quite the opposite in fact. This might tell you something, if you were to listen. The fact is, most of us "dems" would fall into the category of "radicals" or "leftists", no matter how you try to spin it. Our leanings and ideolgy are not up for sale and no amount of PR spin is going to be able to influence us. That might work with some, like at ThinkProgress or Crooks and Liars, but I would imagine their is a different crowd haunting these halls. Look at your ratings up their. Judging from the number of comments and the fact that someone put this article on the main headline page for a day or so, I would imagine that you probably got quite a few page views on this. And it looks like only one person gave you any ratings at all (and my guess is that that was the same person who put this on the headline in the first place.). I think one person aside from Rob agrees with your strained conclusion. One. Out of how many that have commented? This trend is NOT unique to this article. You will notice that the VAST majority of comments around here drift WAY LEFT. Do you and your PR statistics tell you something from that input? It should... It tells us that our Party has been hijacked by the sold-out-business-minority in our midst and that WE are the VAST majority. How many times did you find yourself writing before the election that we had to live in the "real world" and pick the "lesser of two evils"? How many people out there really wanted Obama in the first place? He was hand selected by MSNBC/CNN/GE/DLC/DNC... to win. Period. He was never OUR candidate because he has NEVER honestly held our values dear to his heart. His values are all about HIS progress. Something Mr. Leser here certainly has in common with Mr. Obama. The fact is, Nancy Pelosi is not "progressive" and neither is Mr. Obama, Rahm, Biden, Reid, or Larson. They are the DLC/ New Democrats Coalition of the republican wing of the democratic Party. The people have spoken quite elequently on this thread and the only ones throwing around insults have been those very ones who tried in the begining to spin something "progressive" out of this clearly conservative transition. Like all disingenuos arguments, they will leave the realm of logic and reason because they cannot hold up under that critiria. And though Rob says to me that he is getting sick of reading comments like the MAJORITY left here on this subject, one might hope that at some point Rob comes to understand that it is not us he should blame about how much people are already disappointed in our "change" transition. Might I suggest his anger is a bit misplaced. We are the majority here. We are the majority in this country. We are the majority in this world. And it is time we began to understand that and the power that comes with it. by scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:17:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: 95% of 2% is what you are talking about...
I am sure if I started posting on Stormfront I would get close to 100% disagreement with me on everything I would write. Should I change my views to match theirs because of that? Would you change yours? by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:31:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Mr. Leser:
According to your own experiment up there, the number of progressives in the electroate would be 5%, not 2%. Right? Where does that number come from? Poll numbers? Taken by which poll and paid for by whom? Did it come from the evaluation of the election results; an election where centrist dems spent the last three months BEGGING "progressives" to hold their nose and vote for "the lesser of two evils"? The point I am making here is very simple: no matter how much the republicans in sheep's clothing try to tell us that the party has moved their direction, the fact is, it hasn't. It has really moved further to the left. Let's try a little experiment, shall we? Go watch any videos of Obama right before the election. What is he talking about? Helping Big business? Signing the Columbian Free-Trade Agreement? Hell no. He even has to flat out lie about his "universal" health-care plan in order to keep dems on his side about it. The fact is, far more of "us" lean WAY left than we do right. Take yourself for instance. If what you write above in the response the the other commenter is correct, even YOU lean way over to the left. So it is reasonable to say that perhaps someone's poll showing that the majority of dems live in some middle "democrat" area and we "progressives" are way out numbered, perhaps that number is either outdated, or just a flat out lie. But that isn't the main issue here. The point is, your article was poorly researched. Sorry, but it was. Larson is a DLC/New Democrat Council member; he is NOT progressive. When you suggest that Pelosi would have anything to do with filling the his VP seat onthe Democratic Caucus, that is an ELECTED position, so she can't "fill positions" or that position, in the first place. and your conclusion is therefore seriously crippled... "While the team member changes will be embraced by Progressives and other Liberals..." We are the "progressives" and the Liberals, and it is clear that 95% of us (now closer to 96%) do NOT "embrace" that "shift", because quite frankly, there is no Shift. Not to mention the fact that you disengenuosly attempt to protray Larson as the only dem who voted twice against the bailout bill. As is evidenced by the several commenters who put up names of those that did vote against it twice. The one name they left out? Dennis Kuicinich, who by the way, is certainly a "leader" in the House. Now what you wrote might get better reviews at sites like TP or Crooks and Liars, but I think you will run into well informed readers there as well. by scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:30:03 AM (0+)
|
|
Mr. Leser
People elected into trusted government positions are servants to the people (WE, YOU and ME). They are NOT our leaders. They are OUR servants. Entrusted to uphold OUR Constitution. When they do not, it is OUR responsibilty to demand they do so. When Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table" she verbally broke that trust. Period. When we were given Obama or McCain, we were again told that the Naders and Pauls and McKinneys et al are just s*** disturbers. Not worthy to be leaders. Perhaps that is why they are not worthy. They want to distrub their s***. I know bartenders, homecare providers, parents, cops, dry cleaner owners who care more for their customers than OUR so called leaders care for their constiuents. I am tired of all this. I am tired not of you Mr. Leser, for I find much about you to be good and caring (I personally trust you are honest), but of those, like you do here in this particular post, suggest a forgiveness, when it is to me, closer to blindness. Honest people. To serve. People who have the humility to share. That's what we are missing. It is all we have left sir. Without honesty, we have s***. Mr M. is not far off when he says "prove it to me". He may be oh so negative in his daily bent, but he darn well is willing to talk about it. Well, Pelosi is darn well not. We are hurting ourselves with all our hissy fits here and what we have given up to those who asked for our trust and betrayed it. Just my opinion, but one third of us here on OEN I would argue, are more than qualified. You Mr. Leser kick Pelosi's a**. Let's be honest here. peace by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 3:07:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Speaker Pelosi
Personally I like Speaker Pelosi. She is just what this country needs. Remember that historical trip to Syria that she took? That took a lot of courage and accomplished a great deal. And Senator Reid? A fine man. I have been to Searchlight NV and anyone who can come from a place like that to the US Senate deserves our admiration and respect. Oh sure, they both have their little faults but over all they do a good job in my opinion. Why only 85% of Americans think that they are not doing a good job is beyond me. by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:45:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Progressive IS as Progressive Does
There is nothing that Pelosi could say by now, nor is there anything that she could say and she may very well have painted herself such a corner during her reign that there is nothing that she can do. If she is so boxed in that she can DO nothing, and can't DO anything, then she cannnot even begin to grow, much less harvest any fruits, most likely not even one raspberry, that there may come to be any healthy, healthful fruits in her basket by which we can come to know her anew. Surely though, she now cannot, dare not, quit clinging to the rot and therefore can't begin to produce new fruit, anyhoo. by G Achin (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 110 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:53:20 AM (0+)
|
|
I'm sitting out here in left field--where else?
Liked the article, Mr. Leser, and don't have time to parse the comments. But I certainly salute all who commented. To define who is veering progressive and who doesn't get it keeps the words flowing. That's fine. Here's my take: A lot of people worked hard for a lot of different reasons to change the course of US government. Pat ourselves on the back, and now let Obama be president. We elected him and in a less than perfect way we allowed Pelosi to be Speaker. She is the keeper of the lawmaking machine. I want to see laws made, some changed, and many executive practices investigated. Here's the way I see the nation's problems at this time. The US government is bent if not broke. Plain old-fashioned spoils system, hefty military expenditures and popular runaway consumerism has pretty well done us all in. Whether Pelosi or her replacement, we at last have a House of Representatives which paid attention to us "folks." And we hurt. We don't know a Blue Dog from a PDA or even the DLC, but we want change. Mr/Ms Speaker has to stop playing nice with the caucuses and make them all into Democrats. To "progress" to such a stage makes a Speaker really progressive. Maybe we will find it easier than some of us think. I hope that's the motive Obama had to put Raumbo in the White House office. by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1851 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:14:40 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Inspiring (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
