Tags for This Article:

Impeachment (3157)  Impeachment (3157)  Media (3121)  Bush Reasons To Dump Impeach (1886)  Democratic (1771)  Bush Crimes (1387)  Cheney Dick (721)  Congress 110th (545)  Lies Cheney (484)  Conspiracy (417)  Bush Congress Showdown (303)  Israelis (294)  Democrat In Name Only (164)  Democrat DLC (149)  Congressional Crime (115)  Congressional Hearings (82) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ;  (less...)
Add to My Group
December 19, 2007 at 13:42:24

Headlined on 12/19/07:
Ya Gotta Love Those Tough Democrats in Congress

by Dave Lindorff     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 

Tell A Friend

View Ratings | Rate It  

It is clear now that George Bush and Dick Cheney have been pushing hard for war with Iran for months, all the while knowing--and trying desperately to hide the fact--that the entire US intelligence community had established with a high degree of confidence that Iran poses no threat of becoming a nuclear power, and that it is not playing any significant role in Iraqi attacks on American troops in Iraq.

These are acts not of policy but of treason. But aside from Rep. Dennis Kucinich and a group of fewer than 30 backers, you don't hear any calls from the Congress for impeachment. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership are busy squelching any such talk.

It is also well known that Cheney actually slinked behind the State Department's back earlier this fall and tried, on his own, to talk the Israelis into attacking Iran's nuclear facilities in hopes of getting Iran to retaliate and thus drag the US into a war with Tehran.

We now know too that the White House, including key legal aides Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, Harriet Myers and John Bellinger III, were counselling the CIA as late as 2005 to destroy video tapes depicting torture by the CIA, even after several federal courts had ordered the production of such tapes.

As well, we have learned from former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan that Bush and Cheney and their top aides also orchestrated a cover-up of the Cheney conspiracy to out a key CIA undercover operative specializing in the monitoring of nuclear proliferation. That would be Valerie Plame.

These are both clear cases of conspiracy to obstruct justice and of actual obstruction of justice, but aside from Reps. Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez and Tammy Baldwin, there has been no Congressional call for impeachment hearings for these grave crimes.

The president continues to willfully refuse to enact and enforce laws passed by the Congress, and willfully violates others, most recently asserting that he has the power to take money authorized by Congress for one military purpose and shift it to another (something he already did to terrible effect illegally back in 2001 when he withdrew money voted to fund the assault on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and shifted it to a future war he was planning against Iraq).

Although the president's assertion of a heretofore unheard-of, non-existent, and purely un-Constitutional "unitary executive" authority to ignore both Congress and the Courts fatally undermines the whole founding principle of checks and balances built into the government as constructed by the authors of the Constitution, and although his actions turn Congress into nothing more than a debating club, there has been no call from Congress for the president's impeachment.

And as the President and Vice President and their key staffmembers have simply thumbed their noses at investigation after investigation by committees in the House and Senate, even when those committees issue subpoenas, with the president going so far as to say he would instruct his attorney general not to allow the US attorney in Washington to enforce those subpoenas against his staff, thus proving the impotence of Congress and the futility of a policy of "investigations," there has been no cry from Congress for impeachment--the only way to effectively conduct those investigations.

In the face of all these, and of other frontal assaults on American democracy and the Constitution, Congress is behaving as if everything is normal, aided by a national corporate media which simply do not report on the constitutional damage that is being done by this inaction and by the White House's behavior.

Instead, we have the pathetic spectacle of the Congress calling for a major investigation into, what? Steroid use by American professional athletes! That does get media coverage!

I will pause here to give the dear reader a chance to either laugh uproariously or to retch uncontrollably--your, or your body's, choice.

Done? Okay, so what do we do?

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.

This year, only candidates who are committed to impeachment, and to a reassertion of the Constitution as the law of the land deserve to be returned to or elected to Congress. If that means voting for a Republican, vote for the Republican. If it means voting third party or write-in in your district, then do that. If we do not stop the dictatorship that is growing in Washington now, we well end up having to restore popular government by force later, under much worse circumstances.

 1  |  2

 

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
21 comments

Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me
pratliff94Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me

Rob Kall

 

"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, 962 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 6:25:03 PM
 


Richard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.
Richard MynickRichard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.

As accurate as you are, you're still way too optimistic.

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, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 3:01:44 PM
 


Former computer/communications marketing and product strategist. Currently teaching part time in retirement.
Alan MacDonaldFormer computer/communications marketing and product strategist. Currently teaching part time in retirement.

Democrats are not gutless

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 (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 51 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 3:39:22 PM
 


Currently studying in the field of Law. 
unau2kCurrently studying in the field of Law. 

Wow.

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. 


Is it possible for the citizens of the country or her constituents to sue Nancy Pelosi for fraud and not holding up to her oath? I understand that people in Congress are able to vote their conscious, but doesn't breaking the law trump that?! 

...But even if a lawsuit doesn't hold water, it does make a statement.

Just a question...

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


Currently studying in the field of Law. 
unau2kCurrently studying in the field of Law. 

What I mean...

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, December 20, 2007 at 1:24:33 AM
 


Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site.

Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.

Former Chairman of the Liberal ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Timothy V. GattoTim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site.

Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.

Former Chairman of the Liberal ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Right on the Money

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, December 20, 2007 at 7:54:40 AM
 


A sentient being trapped in the American political diorama.
coyoteA sentient being trapped in the American political diorama.

The Function of the Democratic Party

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, 73 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 10:00:41 AM
 


Professor Bagnolo is a Renaissance man: Cultural Anthropologist, Architectural designer, painter, writer, novelist, theologian. As a child prodigy, abed with polio for almost two years, with an off the charts IQ, reading at the graduate level by 5th grade, offered an opportunity to skip three grades at age 8.Later He was a recipient of an Art Institute scholarship at age 11, a Ford Foundation Fellowship in Anthropology and in Painting and a merit scholarship in art, and was appointed a Graduate ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Professor Emeritus Peter BagnoloProfessor Bagnolo is a Renaissance man: Cultural Anthropologist, Architectural designer, painter, writer, novelist, theologian. As a child prodigy, abed with polio for almost two years, with an off the charts IQ, reading at the graduate level by 5th grade, offered an opportunity to skip three grades at age 8.Later He was a recipient of an Art Institute scholarship at age 11, a Ford Foundation Fellowship in Anthropology and in Painting and a merit scholarship in art, and was appointed a Graduate ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

DAVE

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, 1311 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 12:10:16 PM
 


Professor Bagnolo is a Renaissance man: Cultural Anthropologist, Architectural designer, painter, writer, novelist, theologian. As a child prodigy, abed with polio for almost two years, with an off the charts IQ, reading at the graduate level by 5th grade, offered an opportunity to skip three grades at age 8.Later He was a recipient of an Art Institute scholarship at age 11, a Ford Foundation Fellowship in Anthropology and in Painting and a merit scholarship in art, and was appointed a Graduate ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Professor Emeritus Peter BagnoloProfessor Bagnolo is a Renaissance man: Cultural Anthropologist, Architectural designer, painter, writer, novelist, theologian. As a child prodigy, abed with polio for almost two years, with an off the charts IQ, reading at the graduate level by 5th grade, offered an opportunity to skip three grades at age 8.Later He was a recipient of an Art Institute scholarship at age 11, a Ford Foundation Fellowship in Anthropology and in Painting and a merit scholarship in art, and was appointed a Graduate ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

chlamor -Coyote

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, 1311 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 12:26:47 PM
 


Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me
pratliff94Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me

Your world of Radical Illusions

 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, 

Rich M 

"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."

 

amacd,

 

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'.

 

from Hirschorn,

"STOP VOTING FOR BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS!"

 (I would say that is exactly the problem, but not way Mr. Hirshorn means it. Yes, vote straight party always, and never any other way, get involved in the Party on a local level to change it on a national level- Phil)

 

from Coyote and Rich M,

"....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....)"

 

My answer is what I just gave a lady on another article:

 

No difference between Republicans and Democrats? You have to be kidding; surely you are too intelligent to be that ignorant.

Education: Democrats are against Vouchers in religious, Republicans for. Democrats pro-public education, Republican anti- public education.

SCOTUS-- Compare Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.

Graduated Income Tax-- Roosevelt Program that Democrats are still far and Republicans are against.

National Health Care without Profit in Medicine--Democrats are far and Republicans are against.

Current Presidential Candidates-- The worst of the Democrats better by leagues than the best and brightest of the Republicans.

Separation of Church and State-- Democrats are far, Republicans against.

Women's Choice in abortion-- Democrats far and Republicans against.

Presidential Choices-- Democrats voted for Al Gore, Republicans voted for George W. Bush. No difference? Are you crazy?

Presidential Choices-- Democrats voted for John Kerry, Republicans voted for George W. Bush.  No Difference? Are you crazy?

Worker and Management-- Democrats pro-workers, Republicans pro- big business.

Capital Punishment-  Democrats against, Republicans for.

Iraq War-- Democrats against, Republicans for.

Environmental Law-- Democrats for, Republicans against.

Tort Law--  Democrats AGAINST, Republicans for.

Anti-monopoly laws-- Democrats for, Republicans against.

Anti-trust laws-- Democrats for, Republicans against.

I have not touched on the military, Social Security,  civil rights, and a dozen other things.

You guys are living in a world of radical illusions.

Phil

 

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 6:53:51 PM
 


Richard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.
Richard MynickRichard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.

Ratliff summarizes the party's positions on Iraq as

"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, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments) on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 10:38:28 AM
 


Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me
pratliff94Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me

Reply to RichM : Fair Questions

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. T