Are a healthy dose of steroids, to supplement the spinal transplant that they definitely need.

The ratings for congress are sooooo low and the dems deserve them only a tiny bit less than the republicans. At least the republicans have some guts. 

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 1:58:03 PM

  (0+)

"The ratings for congress are sooooo low and the dems deserve them only a tiny bit less than the republicans. At least the republicans have some guts."

Rob, half of Congress are Democrats whom Republicans hate, and half are Republicans who Democrats hate, and the leftovers are hated by the Green Party and Libertarians. Can't expect it to be higher. It is always low for that reason.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 6:25:03 PM

  (0+)

You write, "If we do not stop the dictatorship that is growing in Washington now, we will end up having to restore popular government by force later..."

- That's pretty optimistic. Later, we won't be able to restore anything by force. The dictatorship that's coming down the pike is not going to allow that.  (As you know, they have been preparing to meet the eventuality of citizen unrest.) And generally speaking, "we" don't have the level of consciousness or organization, to be able to put up anything like a fight.

One of the insidious dangers of the 2-party system is that it cripples the population's political consciousness, & thus its ability to resist tyranny. The system programs people to obediently accept actions of the government, regardless of which party is in power. That can work if at least one party is committed to upholding the Constitution -- but it breaks down when both of them are collaborating to dismantle the Constitution.

Most of our population is thoroughly unprepared to deal with a government composed of two parties which no longer adhere to the Constitution. The media, controlled by the same forces which now control the government, is certainly not going to tell them that the Constitution itself is now "quaint and obsolete" (as Alberto Gonzales might say), so most people won't realize what's happening until it's much too late. And the ones who do know will find it hard to take any effective countermeasures. (Most will be reduced to simply arguing whether the Dems are indeed "less evil" than the Repubs -- when the point is that both are as corrupt as corrupt can be.)

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 3:01:44 PM

  (0+)

Many, like myself in the past, think of the Democrats as purely GUTLESS ---- but this is clearly not the case.

The Democrat Party is 'out of whole cloth' an integral and willing part of the ruling-elite global corporatist Empire hiding behind this facade of democracy --- which by all that is holy can only be called 'Vichy America'.

The Democrats, and the MSM which hides their fully complicit role in this 'Three Card Monte' scam of the American people, have turned in an Oscar-winning performance of appearing simply gutless and incompetent ---- but this is entirely an ACT.

The Democrats well acted role in this 'Vichy American' tragicomedy Three Card Monte scam (where ALL the participants, other than the 'rube' citizens, are fully engaged in the scam) is the role of a second 'Lucy' character to alternate with the Republican first string 'Lucy' in continually 'pulling the football away' from American citizens (who are 'played' as 'Charlie Browns') in this continual Three Card Monte movie version of "Ground Hog Day" --- which simply never ends in the land of Corporatist Empire.

This whole sick movie is an Empire Production.

by Alan MacDonald (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 131 comments [43 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 3:39:22 PM

  (0+)

And then Rob can remove this after it's made.

It's Tammy Baldwin---not Baxter.  

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 4:13:55 PM

  (0+)

The article and responding comments are so accurate and on point it's just mind-blowing. I'm just glad to know there are others out here in this Country that do understand where we are at presently and the near future. 

by unau2k (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 1:19:59 AM

  (0+)

by suing her, is by her aiding and assistance to a criminal(s). She is the sole person that has the power to allow Impeachment proceedings to occur...

by unau2k (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 1:24:33 AM

  (0+)

There is an organization called GOOH (Get Out Of Our House) that is calling for ALL in Congress (except maybe Werxler and the ones you mentioned) and start in on what you said about voting third party or write-ins. A representative of GOOH (pronounced "GO") will be on my radio show (www.blogtalkreadio/liberalpro) this Sunday 28 Dec at 10:00 PM EST. Maybe this is the way to change things, however I do agree with Rich M. to a degree. It's at the point where the voting is rigged most of the time and we are playing against a stacked deck.

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:54:40 AM

  (0+)

I didn't laugh uproarously... I retched and retched and retched!

This is a good argument for Term Limits, I believe.

I'm with you.  Get rid of all of these guys...

by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 8:53:45 AM

  (0+)

STOP VOTING FOR BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS!

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 9:23:34 AM

  (0+)

This little essay was penned by the same RichM who commented earlier in this thread. Take note of who the Dems represent:

 The Function of the Democratic Party in the Political System:

The Democratic Party plays an indispensable role in society's political machinery. This doesn't mean it has any power, in terms of controlling the state or setting policy. It means that without the existence of the Dem Party, the US could no longer maintain the pretense that it's a "democracy." If the Dem Party disintegrated, the US would be revealed for what it really is -- a one-party state ruled by a narrow alliance of business interests.

In terms of defending the general population against the depredations of this business consortium, the Dem Party gave up the ghost in the mid-1960's. Their threadbare act as the "Party of the People" serves not to defend the well-being of the population, but merely to persuade ordinary citizens that within the official political system's framework, there's at least some faint hope for eventual progressive change. Their focus is not so much being on our side, as convincing us that they're on our side -- without the slightest serious examination of what that might entail.

The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy."

As long as the Dem Party exists, most Americans will believe we have a "democracy" and a "choice" in how we are ruled. They will not despair, and will not revolt, as long as they have this hope for "change within the system." From the system's point of view, this mechanism serves as the ultimate safety valve -- it insures against a despairing populace, thus eliminates the threat of rebellion; yet guarantees that no serious change to the system will be mounted, because the Dems weren't designed to play that role in the first place.


Aren't the Dems The Lesser Evil?

The Democrats are not the "lesser evil;" they are an auxiliary subdivision of the same evil. To understand the political system, one must step back and regard its operation as an integrated whole. The system can't be properly understood if one's study of it begins with an uncritical acceptance of the 2-party system, and the conventional characterizations of the two parties. (Indeed, the fact that society encourages one to view it in this latter way, is perhaps a warning that this perspective should not be trusted.)

Any given piece of reactionary legislation is invariably supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Does this show that the Democrats are "less evil?" If one focuses on the noble efforts of the few outspoken dissenters, it's easy to feel that the Democrats are somewhat less evil. But in the larger picture, Democrats invariably submit to what Republicans more ardently promulgate, & the entire range of official opinion thereby shifts to the right. Thus the overall function of Democrats is not so much to fight, as to quasi-passively participate in this ever-rightward-moving process. Just as the Harlem Globetrotters need their Washington Generals to make their basketball games properly entertaining, Republicans need the Democrats for effective staging of the political show.

The Democrats are permitted to exist because their vague hint of eventual progressive change keeps large numbers of people from bolting the political system altogether. Emma Goldman once said, "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal." Similarly, if the Democrats potentially threatened any sort of serious change, they would be banned. The fact that they are fully accepted by the corporations and political establishment tells us at once that their ultimate function must be wholly in line with the interests of those ruling groups.

Doesn't the presence of the Dennis Kuciniches, Cynthia McKinneys, et al "prove" that the Democrats are progressive? No. The Kuciniches and McKinneys are indeed significantly different from the Hillary types -- but there are compelling reasons not to get too excited about them, either. First, they are used by the party as a "Left decoration," simply to keep potential left defectors in tow. Secondly, the party power brokers will NEVER in a million years let the Kucinich-McKinney faction have any real power.

In other words, the very modestly-sized progressive Dem faction is cynically used as a marketing tool by the national party. They are dangled before your eyes to make you think that the Dems are the "lesser evil" (since the Republicans offer no such Left decorations). The existence of a few decent Dems makes no real difference in the overall alignment of the party, and they will never be internally influential. They are a distraction.


Can Progressives "Take Over" the Dem Party?

The argument is often advanced by progressives that they might be able to "take over" the Dem Party just as the Republican Party was supposedly "taken over" by the Religious Right and neoconservatives. This is wishful thinking, and ignores the actual history and character of both parties.

The Republicans were always the party of Wall Street & Northern manufacturing. The Democrats were the party of the Southern slaveocracy. When the national Democrats defied southern racism by passing the Civil Rights Acts in the mid '60's, the southern states bolted, destroying the New Deal coalition. The Republicans profited from this by adapting to southern tastes, values, & religious/cultural conceptions.

But this was in no way out of character for the Republicans. The far right was able to take over the Republican Party because that kind of alliance was always very much in the nature of the Republican Party anyway. It was compatible with, not contradictory to, the big-business nature of the Republican party. Forming an alliance with fascists, racists & religious zealots ADVANCED the big-business agenda.

By contrast, for progressives to take over the Democrats would be an unprecedented departure from the party's character. To understand this, one must first recognize that the sole Dem claim to being progressive is rooted almost entirely in the New Deal, itself a response to a unique crisis in American history. FDR recognized that to avert the very real threat of massive social unrest and instability, significant concessions had to be made to the working class by the ruling class. Government could act to defend the weak, and to some extent to rein in the strong, but this was all in the longterm interests of defending the existing social order.

Before FDR, the Dem Party had no progressive record whatsoever; and after FDR, though the New Deal coalition survived until the mid-1960's, it did so with a record of achievement that was restrained compared to the 1930's. After passing Medicare in 1965 the party reverted to its longterm pattern, and since then, there has again been no progressive record to speak of. The party's progressive social reform was thus concentrated mostly in the 1930's, with some residual momentum lasting until the mid 60's. The party's "progressive period" was thus 1) an exception to the longer term pattern; 2) a response to a unique crisis; and 3) has in any case been dead for over 40 years.

The word "progressive" refers to the commitment of a political party to defend the interests of the working class (aka the overwhelming majority of the population) against the depredations of the ruling elite. Not only is the Democratic Party unable and unwilling to engage in such a fight, it is unwilling even to pronounce the fight's name -- "class warfare." Marx is understandably reviled by capitalists for his annoyingly accurate perception that the capitalist class and the rest of the population have a fundamental conflict of interest. Capital seeks only to maximize its return; return can certainly be enhanced by using the machinery of state to transfer costs and burdens to the weak and vulnerable; thus rule by capital is intrinsically inimical to the basic interests of the majority of the population. There is no escaping this reality.

American public discourse attempts to paper over this vexing truth with fatuous happy talk, such as, "By working together, we can make make things better for everyone!" This is a lie. When capital controls government, government is no more than a tool used by elites to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. This kind of arrangement cannot possibly "make all boats rise" over the long term. Only the yachts will rise. If there is no political mechanism for opposing plutocratic rule, the strong will continue to squeeze additional wealth out of the weak until a) the weak become desperate and rebel, b) the weak are crushed and become permanently enslaved, or c) the strong begin suffering more from guilty consciences, than reaping enjoyment from additional wealth -- and therefore relent. (Very few instances of this last are known in recorded history.)

For the Democratic Party to even begin to serve as a vehicle for opposing the absolute rule of capital, it would at a minimum have to be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists between the interests of capital and the rest of the population; and of expressing a principled determination to take the side of the population in this conflict.

A party whose controlling elements are millionaires, lobbyists, fund-raisers, careerist apparatchiks, consultants, and corporate lawyers; that has stood by prostrate and helpless (when not actively collaborating) in the face of stolen elections, illegal wars, torture, CIA concentration camps, lies as state policy, and one assault on the Bill of Rights after the next, is not likely to take that position.

by coyote (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments [25 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:00:41 AM

  (0+)

You may want to read these articles by me, 3 are here on opednews the other on my blog

They all touch on and some in great depth the nature of the diversion from crimes to baseball minor offesnes if even that. The Bonds issue is much like the Clinton Impeachment.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:10:16 PM

  (0+)

Rob, you took the words right off of my typing fingers, RIGHT-ON!

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:16:17 PM

  (0+)

Sir:
Fine comment/article, so why not now or next time instead of a long and excellent answer, write an article and link to a short answer? You and I are certainly convinced of the same ideas, which are the reality, and you put it lucidly and excellently. My hat is off to your well contrsucted argument.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:26:47 PM

  (0+)

http://www.gpln.com/timesawasting.htm

by Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 1:49:55 PM

  (0+)

 You guys are so far off base, who in the world in the right mind would listen to you. It is hyperbole on top of hyperbole,

from the Article

"Clearly the Democrats are a bunch of gutless buffoons unworthy of anyone's vote next fall. They have demonstrated that they haven't the political sense of a donkey or the will of a jellyfish, and if left in control of the House and Senate, will continue to allow the growth of unfettered executive power next year, whether under a Democratic or Republican president. My own representative, two-term Democrat Allyson Schwartz, doesn't even talk about the administration's constitutional crimes. She's on about "tax relief for the middle class" without even mentioning the president's collossal waste of $500 billion--actually several trillion dollars counting interest and future costs for care of the injured--caused by the illegal and disastrous Iraq war.....The only answer left to us is to throw them all out."  

from quotes, 

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 6:53:51 PM

  (0+)

"Iraq War-- Democrats against, Republicans for."

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make such patently false declarations? You produced a long list of supposed "differences" between the parties, but a long list is no more valid than the list's elements. And your elements are typified by your laughable claim that the Democrats are "against" the war.

Please, let's hear you explain in what sense the Democrats are "against" the war. Why do they keeping funding it? Why did they give critical support to the 2002 IWR? Why did they run a pro-war ticket in 2004? Why did the "top tier" of candidates this year all say they couldn't promise, if elected, to end the occupation by 2013? And if Bush is so terrible (and he is, of course), why won't the Democrats impeach him? Don't you think the evidence of Bush's crimes & lies is strong enough to warrant impeachment?

Similarly, your claim that the Democrats are "pro-workers", while Republicans are "pro-big business" -- you're living in a dream world. Why did the Clinton admin pass NAFTA (with Gore conspicuously championing it), as one of their first acts in office? Why did the Clinton admin pass the Telecom Act of 1996, and "welfare reform"? Why did the Democrats go along with Bush's tax cuts for the rich?

For that matter, why don't you explain to us why the Democratic Congress has not seriously opposed, let alone defeated, a single Bush initiative since they took over both Houses last year. 

You're the one living in a world of illusions.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 10:38:28 AM

  (0+)

RichardM, Fair Questions. :

I can take time to explain if you wish, but before I do are you saying that anyone who voted to give Bush authority to take action in Iraq is no different today (12/21/07) than George W. Bush and the Republicans? If you are, there is nothing I can explain to a mentally blind person.

First Paragraph : "Laughable…" (really does not deal with the argument. To belittle is not to deal with the issue, but I will deal with it very simply).

Take any one of the Democrat candidates and say that they all have the same position as the top three Republican candidates is a false claim that is not laughable, but tragic and dishonest. You know differently, so do I and so does every reading this. If anyone of the Democrats running plus add in Al Gore or John Kerry or Howard Dean, if they had been President since 2000, we would not be in a war with Iraq. Any sane person can see this.

Paragraph Two. "Why Democrats did not oppose the War in 2004?" "And has Bush done things where he could and for which he probably should be impeached?"

Because we were in a war and John Kerry said plainly he would end that war. No one listened because of the homosexual Marriage, Abortion, and the Swift Boaters. Remember, Colin Powell's warning before the war, "If you break it, you own it." Many believed and still do that we are responsible to leave Iraq better than we found it.

From what I have read that you have written and your comments, I will make a deduction which is in my question to you, "Are you saying that this is the reason you helped to elect George Bush by not supporting and voting for John Kerry?"

I am for impeaching Bush, but it is not high on my radar. I remember how the Republicans tried to impeach Clinton and it made him the most popular President since FDR. I am not about to rescue Bush by trying to impeach him. He will go down as the worst President in history and the Republicans will be replaced in all three branches of government in the 2008 elections with good prospects of placing two more liberal judges, if not three, on SCOTUS during the next eight years. I will trade that for impeachment any day. Bush is simply not worth it.

Paragraph Three: "No difference between Democrats and Republicans on labor and big business," you claim?

I suggest a good history course on American History from 1910 to 2000. It would enlighten you greatly. Second, tell me about the Republican tax break: Who proposed it? Who voted against it? Tell me about the Clinton's "Single Pay Family Health Plan of 1993" where every family in the US would be covered and the most any family would pay was $350 per month. Who voted for it? Who voted against it? Ever hear of Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich and The Republican's "Contract ON America." Clinton got done what he could get done despite false accusations of Whitewater, Filegate, Vince Foster, and Clinton Chronicles, and then the stupid fellatio episode with Monica Lewinski. Talk about thinking through your gonads. Tell me what was the deficit when Clinton left office? What is it now? How many wars did we start while Clinton was in office? Shall I go comparing Clinton's eight years with Bush's eight years, or Clinton's eight years with Ronald Reagan's eight years. You can read my above comment and my last comment before this one, and you say there is no difference. How tragic.

"Why the Democrat Congress have not passed…."

I can explain it very easily. There are forty-nine Republicans in the Senate and there are forty-nine Democrats. If one Democrat crosses over to the other side or either of the two Independents crosses over to the other side, it is a fifty-fifty tie. Guess who gets to break a tie vote in the Senate, yours and my hero, Vice-President Dick Cheney? Until 2008, the Democrats will hold on defense and attack here and there while hoping Joe Lieberman sits tight. 

Now, shall we talk about your world of illusions? As a typical intractable idealist, you do not know how nor want to compromise. What you see in George Bush from the Right, you would do the same from the Left. I am a Liberal Progressive Democrat rooted in Pragmatism. Win when you can, tie if you cannot win, and lose as little as possible when you lose. You fight each battle as if it is the war. I try to fight each battle hoping I can survive to fight another battle tomorrow until the war is over. If it means sleeping with enemy to get my way or not lose the war, I will. I will win in the long run for the vast majority of people are pragmatist—what works, use it, as long as the ends does not justify the means in ultimate issues. As much as I disliked Reagan, probably more than I do George W Bush, he was a master of the pragmatic. He just would not admit it. The Religious Right ideologues would have abandoned him without a moment's notice. He played them. They did not play him.

Phil

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 4:38:31 PM

  (0+)

Some one just gave me a hundred bucks. I must run over to a single Mom's house to give her the hundred bucks so her kids can have a Christmas like the other kids on her block.

Lots of my kids are having a Bush, Republican, Libertarian Christmas. You know where she would be without governmental housing or if one of her kids or if she gets sick? Get government back to helping people like FDR did a long time ago. He was a Democrat, too.

Be right back in about an hour!

Be back to listen to your crying. Please no arugmentum ad hominen, just facts. You know what correct arguement is.

Phil

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:01:17 PM

  (0+)

I WORKED FOR JFK IN ILLINOIS. FDR was my hero as a kid, but the fellows who passed the bills about which you speak are all DEAD, and most of Dems we have left are either quiters (Gore), cowards (Pelosi and take your pick) traitors (Like Lieberman and those who voted for the Military Commisions Act of 2006, the Patriot Act, the War in Iraq, The Revision of the Bankruptcy Act, the 409-6 vote in favor of the HOMEGROWN TERRORIST VIOLENCE ACT and a jillion more Neo-con wet dreams.)

The men and women now holding office in either party lack integrity, honor, honesty patriotism, empathy and seek only to line their pockets with lobby bribe cash. Democracy is indeed an illusion..

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:34:38 PM

  (0+)

Sorry about the delay, I am not angry, I do not mean to be mean, but what you people wrote was not meant to be satire or humorous hyperbole, you wrote seriously and you wrote what you mean, and all of you are grossly unfair and play a little loose with the truth:

Peter,

 Since all you are agreed that ALL the Democrats are "all a bunch of spineless, gutless, yellow bellow cowards" according to the comments mentioned in the article and the above comments. Let us see who are these yellow belly Democrats,

but first, Peter, Who is dead? FDR is dead, but his programs are alive and well with the Democrats defending them against the Libertarians and the Republicans: the most important is the graduated income tax which helps in the redistribution of wealth and  the other one is social security... 

Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg , both alive and well. Al Gore is still around the last I checked. I think Senator John Kerry is still kicking with three Purple Hearts, two Bronze Stars and a Silver Star on his mantle, alive and not a coward. I guess Teddy Roosevelt and Taft were responsible for the Anti-monopoly and Anti-trust Laws which again have Democrats trying to protect them and the Republicans trying to destroy them.

Consider that out of the past fifty-six years, the Republicans have had the White House the last thirty-six; it is no wonder we have problems.

Now what about ALL these GUTLESS COWARDLY SPINELESS YELLOW BELLOW DEMOCRATS in Congress? Really? Are you blowing smoke or just trying to sneak a Libertarian vote in? I wonder. Let me list a few of these Gutless, Cowardly, Spineless, Yellow Belly Democrats:

1. Dennis Kucinich (real gutless wonder I am sure because he is a Democrat),

2. Barney Frank (we know all homosexuals are effeminate, gutless wonders and he is a Democrat),

3. John Conyers (couldn't stand up to our Granny according to the article and the comments); 

4. Charlie Rangel (a coward if we ever saw one, right?),

5. Lloyd Dogget (being born and raised in Bush country, he should have some guts, but he is a Democrat coward). You mentioned Kennedy, well how about

6. Ted Kennedy and that other

7. Kennedy up in Rhode Island, we know how cowardly the Kennedy people (JFK, his brothers Joe and Robert)

8. Christopher Dodd, I am sure he stood up last week all by himself except for that cowardly Kennedy because his wife told him, too, right.

9. Joe Biden and

10.  Barak Obama both cowards;

11.Jim Webb of VA is a yellow belly, too. We had much rather have that guy he defeated for the Senate than him; and don't forget that other new cowardly Democrat in the Senate,

12. Jon Tester.

13. Don't let the false wounds of Daniel Inouye fool us, you guys believe he is a cowardly Democrat and that makes him a coward. I guess like

14. John Kerry's medals his are fake. Daniel Inouye's wounds were received fighting up the "Boot" with the famed "Go for Broke Regiment" is just a myth as they were supposed to rescue the "Texas Lost Battalion" surrounded by Germans in the French Vosges Mountains.

According to you, guys, it is not true that his unit was the most decorated American unit in WW II and you guys can "Swift Boat" his medals as the "Swift Boaters "did Max Cleland and John Kerry that other Democrat coward who lied about receiving THREE Purple Hearts, Two Bronze Stars and a Silver Star. 

I guess you, guys, claim Democrat Senator Daniel Inouye did not really receive the Medal of Honor and if he did it was an accident because all Democrats are cowards and Daniel Inouye is a Democrat.

What Daniel Inouye's MofH citation says, "Extraordinary Courage," it really doesn't mean it according to according to you, guys. How could one person fight at Pearl in the attack in 1941, rescue the "Lost Battalion" in 44 to get a Silver Medal and be around at San Terenzo to capture a key bridge in 1945 for another Purple Heart and the Medal of Honor.? Inouye's MofH citatation reads and I quote exactly,

"With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions."

Daniel Inouye spent 20 months recuperating from those wounds so you guys can call him GUTLESS, COWARDLY,  SPINELESS, YELLOW BELLY. Why? He is a DEMOCRAT.

Yea, guys, you would really have us to believe his arm is hidden under that empty sleeve and really was not blown off? He is a coward.

I know you, guys, are very careful with your words and you would never falsely accuse anyone of being a coward unless you really believe it. Are you that mentally unbalanced or incompentent or morally deficient?

Who else's reputation can we besmirch just to win political points? I don't know very many in the House, but I know more than I am going to list. Here is a sample list in both the House and Senate whom you, guys, call GUTLESS, COWARDLY,  SPINELESS, YELLOW BELLY.

As low as your opinion of President Clinton is, get this one thing straight, he never accused President George H. Bush of being a coward and he never accussed Senator Bob Dole of being a coward, both decorated WWII heroes.

Here is a list of people I like in Congress you, guys, call cowards:

Akaka, Daniel K.

Inouye, Daniel, 

Biden, Joe R 

Dodd, Christopher 

Harkin, Tom 

Feingold, Russell 

Kennedy, Edward M

Kennedy, Patrick J. 

Kerry, John

Leahy, Patrick J 

Mikulski, Barbara A 

Obama, Barack 

Tester, Jon Webb,

Jim Wyden, Ron 

Sanders, Bernard 

Conyers, John Jr 

Cuellar, Henry

Gonzalez, Charles A.

Hinojosa, Rubén

Ortiz, Solomon P.

Reyes, Silvestre

Rodriguez, Ciro D. 

Cummings, Elijah E. 

Doggett, Lloyd 

Dingell, John D.26

Frank, Barney 

Hoyer, Steny H. 

Jackson-Lee, Sheila

Waters, Maxine 

Kucinich, Dennis

Obey, David  

Rangel, Charles 

Wasserman Schultz, Debbie 

Waxman, Henry

The bomb thowing with false accusations causes others to turn from your arguments by the droves. Argument must be "here a little, there a little; word upon word; line upon line;" until the argument is so structured that it cannot be torn away by the emotion of either love or hate.

Phil.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 2:20:20 PM

  (0+)