Great stuff, Brent!

They are starting to show the stuff that will make the landslide even bigger, standing up to Bush on Iraq and making him back down on warrantless wiretapping.

I'm looking forward to 2008 and even more to 1/20/09!

by Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments) on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 3:41:04 PM
 

Too funny!

The Republicans have arranged for a Democratic landslide in 2008 so that the newly elected Democratic President can issue blanket pardons to Bush, Cheney, and all the other war criminals in his administration.

But this is dependent upon the Democrats living up to their agreement not to impeach Bush and not to end the war -- the agreement they had to make before the Republicans who own the voting machines would let them "win" in 2006.

Having accurately predicted the 2006 "win" and its consequences, I can confidently predict the 2008 "win" and its consequences. After all, I lived through it before during Iran-Contra, and these are the same people up to their same old illegal war, lying, torture, deaths squads, and false-flag terror games. It gets so boring to watch history repeat and repeat itself, that it amuses me to make political "predictions" that are nothing more than foregone conclusions that always come true.

If we had free and fair elections with hand-counted paper ballots at the precincts and no machine counts allowed at all, the majority of eligible voters, the ones who don't bother to vote because they know their votes don't count, would register and vote, and the only Democrat or Republican in the country who could muster more than five or six percent of the popular vote would be Dennis Kucinich.

When Venezuela had its first free and fair election, the two political parties who had maintained a stranglehold on elections there the same way the Democrats and Republicans do here, were barely able to muster 8% of the popular vote between them.

You're going to see two frustrating years when the Democratic base tries everything in their power to force the Democrats to act like Democrats, while the Democrats continue to act like Republicans, voting for everything that Bush wants and refusing to do anything to block his agenda. And then, in 2008, when the Republicans rig the voting machines to let a Democrat "win," they corporate media will say that everyone who was totally disgusted when Gore conceded to Bush in 2000 and snubbed the Congressional Black Caucus attempt to block Bush from taking office, who was sick to their stomachs when Kerry refused to mention any of the important issues in the 2004 race and then broke both his campaign promises by conceding early and refusing to ensure that our votes were counted, and who spent 2007 and 2008 futilely trying to get the Democrats to oppose the Bush agenda, voted for Democrats because they don't like the Republicans.

That's obviously bull. The best way to promote the Republican agenda is to vote for Democrats, and everyone knows it.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 4:54:13 PM
 

We each make our own reality

I feel sorry for you, Mymarkx. Your reality is no larger than what you choose to make of it. Same for everyone, of course, but you have chosen one with a narrowing channel and a dead end.

by Irvthom (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 88 comments) on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 12:06:25 AM
 

Republicans and Democrats.....

The only way this country will ever get straightened out is to dump both parties and start over. Elect Hugo Chavez as Governor of Mississippi and then you'll see some change!!

by larry booth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 301 comments) on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 5:13:04 PM
 

Why would Chavez take a demotion?

We dont have to worry about Hugo Frias Chavez, but we should really worry about our corrupted system of governence and the galloping conservative leanings of our folks in power.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 5:26:53 PM
 

I knew mymarkx would get there first....and he did.

Firstly, and despite the sickly sweetness of this article, heck just reading it gave me cavities,the 08 elections are far off. In politics a month is an eternity and weve got many such months to go. Please hold the confetti and noise makers, dont blow up those balloons quite yet.

While I agree with mymarkx in believing that democrat or republican is simply tweedledee or tweedledum, especially considering the creeping (ok galloping) conservative take over of the democrtatic party's leadership and the over all control of the arch conservative DLC, lets forgo the socialism and revolutionary talk for the nonce. Though it is hard to not criticise the corrupt and awful system we currently see.........

The Democrats have been placed in power, not by a landslide of support for their policies, which are still pretty fuzzy and formative, but by a rushing away from the party of George Bush and his rubber stamping buddies in congress. People are sick unto death of this war and are noticing their homes are not exactly leaping up in equity of late. Jobs are scarcer and pay less and benefits are the stuff of myth...why sonny I remember dental and vision care. Oh gramps you are such a fibber........

These next two years will see if democrats are made of sterner stuff, if they grow a brain that can cope with the endless propaganda that will haunt their every attempt at change, theyve shown no such ability to date. Hell, will they alienate their corporate idols, endanger their potential campaign largess from the CEO's to even try to attempt what must be done or will we see lots of talk, some bills that fail in the Senate or get vetoed by Georgie and little else.

All this rahrah stuff is just plain way overblown and methinks this celebration is more like whistling in the dark so as not to show fear. Lets see some actual stuff, oh like, maybe cutting of funds for new troop deployments in Iraq, actual in depth investigations of war profiteering and constitutional violations by the executive branch and such like that. Maybe even calling Bush exactly what he is.......inept, incompetent and downright dishonest.

How about making lobbyists obsolete, oh horrors....or real and honest campaign finance reform, a return to countable ballots in elections, and oh so very much more. Then I will join the confetti throwers and party animals.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 5:23:23 PM
 

There Is A Difference With A Democratic Congress

I have been strongly critical of Democratsin Congress from 2002 who have supported theBush policy in Iraq, or privately opposed itbut have not been willing to make a stand.But there is a major difference with aDemocratic Congress, which has begun as atrue opposition, and pressure Republicansto begin to take a stand against the policy.Though we shall see if Republicans will summonthe courage to make their opposition real.But serious opposition has begun and I predictJim Webb makes a brilliant speech when heanswers Bush at the State of the Union. Thereare issues like minimum wage, health care,protection of civil liberties, environmentand global warming, future Supreme Courtnominees, war powers protection against newwars including Iran. This does not mean theDemocrats are perfect, but there is a majordifference and for my money, the countrydodged a major bullet when Republicans weredefeated last November. Had they maintainedcontrol of both houses, the escalation wouldbe much worse without effective opposition andnew wars would even be more likely than todaywith no checks and balances. Brent Budowsky

by Brent Budowsky (84 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 6:00:04 PM
 

we all have opinions

Mine is that this new democratic majority is just like the old democratic minority, cowardly and self serving.

As Steven Lendman pointed out in his excellent article here, one all you neocon democrats should really digest, its all confectioners sugar and will change almost nothing.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 5:13:20 PM
 

Buried the lead in paragraph 25

I finally found it, stuck quietly in the middle of paragraph 25, near the end of this Democrat lovefest...

"...begin a historic campaign for voter registration, voter mobilization and honest elections;..."

The author is like so many of what I call the "Old Guard Democrats" who either valiantly believe that most elections are "fairly honest" or pay lip service to the issue of electoral fraud. Whether they be Kerry and his early-the-next-morning concession after promising all those netizens and grassroots activists that he took money from that he would "not give up until every vote was counted" or lower-level "loyal Democrats" like Busby, Hacket, or most of our Democratic Congress.

They simply DO NOT GET IT. Our electoral system is totally corrupted by massive disenfranchisement (removal from the registration rolls of 4,000,000+ Democrats) and massive vote count fraud designed to favor Republicans and right-wing Democrats at every turn. (Go ahead, flip a coin 10,000 times (like the number of anomalies in any given election) and tell me that it will come up 10,000 right-wing/Republican heads!)

I don't know whether or not "the fix was in" on '06 to quiet down the massive civil unrest that was coming, or whether they simply "mis-calculated" how many votes they were going to need to steal to win -- not realizing exactly how HATED the Republicans had become.

Either way, while it would be nice for the electoral process to be honest and the final candidate selected to reflect the will of the people, that's VERY UNLIKELY if major changes in electoral process are not undertaken IMMEDIATELY. That it wasn't even a discussion point in the "first 100 hours" and probably won't come up until it is WAY too late, I don't have much hope for the 2008 elections being any more honest than the 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, or 2006 elections.

Loyal Democrats who think "the system works" are the most dangerous. They will be the ones standing confused when Corporate Fascism takes over completely. They will have a blank look on their faces and be going... "but the system works... how could we have allowed this to happen..."

And I wouldn't rule out a "temporary suspension" of the 2008 election (in response to some major terrorist attack) if they can't position the right candidates to guarantee that the Corporate State is happy with the final results, WHICHEVER PARTY is elected.

CharlieL
Portland, OR

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 719 comments) on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 6:09:17 PM
 

Bravo

We must be ever alert to the enemy within. For he is the most dangerous.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 5:10:14 PM
 

Cultivating illusions in Democrats is harmful to the public

-- to its understanding of politics, and to its ability to defend its own interests. The Democrats are nothing but the "B" team of capitalism, whom the behind-the-scenes rulers move into place when the "A" team has overreached itself.

Not only are the Democrats not in the slightest degree a force for serious change, their basic function in the system is to make real change impossible. They are one element of the brilliantly-conceived American machinery of political illusion, which is intended to convince the public that it actually has some say in how the country is run -- which it doesn't.

The country is run by the top fraction of a percent of the population, and they run it for their own benefit. They control both political parties and the corporate media. To allow this sort of game to go forward, it is enormously useful to have a illusion like the Democrats -- a pseudo-opposition, an entirely fake "voice of the people."

It works like this: the R's don't even pretend to be other than the rapists and plunderers that they are. But the D's are different: they do pretend to be something other than the ruling class servants that they are. They do pretend to "represent the little guy" (even though they don't).

What's wrong with this is that it's fake. It gives ordinary citizens false hopes, and prevents them from getting as angry as they'd get, if they clearly understood that in fact, no one in government represents their interests. That's the crucial service performed by the Democrats in the system -- they make it appear like ordinary citizens have a voice, while in fact, they don't. They make it appear like we have a "democracy" and a "choice" in affecting policy -- but we don't. We can choose only between 2 big-business parties which offer differences in rhetoric & style, but only limited & marginal differences in policy.

There is no such thing as a "Fighting Democrat." Democrats can't fight because at their core, they support imperialism, militarism, and corporatism just as much as Republicans. The CIA and military-industrial complex were both born during Democratic administrations, and the Democrats have supported all the obscene military spending measures, and the dirty wars & proxy wars in Latin America, SE Asia, Indonesia, & the Middle East and Africa every bit as much as Republicans.

Ask yourselves, has there ever been a US administration as blatantly criminal as Bush/Cheney? Why wouldn't the Democrats want to impeach these gangsters for crimes against the Constitution, for war crimes, for war-profiteering? Why wouldn't the Democrats fight in Florida in 2000? Why didn't they even mention the "missing" WMD in the 2004 election, or the torture at Abu Ghraib? Did they not think such things were relevant in a general election?

And even today, with Bush openly defying Congress & the US electorate, do the Dems come forward to say "The president is contemptuously defying the will of the public, as expressed in the November election?" No, of course not. As usual, they are quaking in their boots, hiding under the bed -- seeking "a bipartisan non-binding symbolic resolution" that superficially opposes Bush's escalation, but isn't intended to really stop him.

If the Democrats were the least bit serious, they wouldn't be so concerned with being "bipartisan." (Is it supposed to be some kind of virtue, to collaborate with Republicans?) They are in a position where they could destroy Bush by hammering home the truth about him -- but they won't do it, because they basically support most of his goals. Bush works for the ruling class, and the Dems do too -- that's why they take such care not to harm him.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1231 comments) on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 6:33:09 PM
 

The Great Democratic Landslide Of 2008

The Democrats are the Party of the People, not the Party of the Angels
.
We have our faults, one of which is failure to organize and play offense.

Brent Budowsky offers several exciting and dynamic strategies for solidifying a new progessive, majority, governing coaltion.

The only things he left out are energizing the African American vote and paying particular attention to organizing in the high population growth areas of the urban south and west.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 7:36:34 PM
 

Tell it to Sweeney.

Robert Chapman writes, "The Democrats are the Party of the People, not the Party of the Angels"

The Democrats are not the party of the people, they are one of the two parties of the corporations and the military-industrial complex.

Robert: "We have our faults, one of which is failure to organize and play offense."

Another fault is your failure to oppose the Republican agenda, and your habit of consistently voting for it.

Robert: "Brent Budowsky offers several exciting and dynamic strategies for solidifying a new progessive, majority, governing coaltion."

What a laugh. You can't co-opt the left by remaining on the right. The only coalition the Democrats have ever had or will ever have, is with their fellow corporatists, their Republican colleagues. With few exceptions they went to the same elite schools, belonged to the same exclusive fraternities, are members of the same globalization bodies, own stocks in the same defense corporations, and vote to raise their own pay, decrease their own taxes, deregulate the industries they own stock in, and rarely even bother to throw a bone to ordinary people.

Robert: "The only things he left out are energizing the African American vote and paying particular attention to organizing in the high population growth areas of the urban south and west."

Oh you energized the African-American vote plenty when Gore ordered all Democratic Senators, a majority at the time, to refuse to sign the Congressional Black Caucus petition to block Bush from becoming President. As Gore smilingly counted the fraudulent electoral votes, not only those African-American Democratic voters who had been illegally disenfranchised in Florida, but also every other African-American Democratic voter in the country became energized. Many of them have left the Democratic Party and joined the Greens. Some of them have even run for office as Greens. As long as your idea of energizing African-Americans is to kick them in the face and then tell them how much you care about them, you're going to be sincerely perplexed at why they don't return your love. And unfortunately for you, someday they just might.

Of course African-Americans weren't the only ones who became energized by the way the Democrats ignored Democratic voter disenfranchisement in Florida in 2000, in Ohio in 2004, and all over the country in both races, and also in 2006. Many progressives of every heritage became equally energized. We watched the Democrats as they just seated two Republicans in 2006 races they had clearly lost. Actions speak louder than words. The Democrats talked about holding investigations and doing recounts, but what they DID was seat the Republicans.

So long as the Democrats continue to support and even to show preference to Republicans over their fellow Democrats, we will remain energized. Because we know that unless the two-party stranglehold on U.S. politics is destroyed, we will never have a real voice in government.

Opednews is still building up its readership and therefore is still tolerating posts by Greens and by other bona fide progressives. Once it reaches the level Rob desires, he may then decide not to tolerate anything here that wouldn't be tolerated on more established left gatekeeper sites like DU and dKos. But when Rob posted that when Greens run for office it "hurts the left," he made it clear that he is not on the left himself.

ONLY when Greens and people on the left run for office, do the Democrats have to face challengers who oppose the war, favor impeachment, and oppose the corporate agenda. It may hurt them to have to be exposed to and even on occasion have to compete with a genuine left agenda, but it certainly doesn't hurt the left. And everybody on the left knows it. So long as the Democrats' only challengers are their Republican colleagues, they don't have to worry about the left. They assume that we have nowhere to go, so they take us for granted.

We do have someplace to go. Some of us vote Green, some vote Peace & Freedom, some vote Communist, Anarchist, Workers' or other parties on the left, and the majority of all Americans don't bother to vote. Given a choice between an elephant and an ass, they'd rather mow the lawn, do the dishes, or watch the game. Telling people that they have only two choices, a greater evil or a lesser evil, isn't going to energize anybody who isn't evil.

Except for energizing us to oppose your brazen and unconstitutional attempts to limit our choices and prevent us from voting for good instead of for evil.

The Democrats aren't the Party of the People. They are one of two parties representing, sponsored by, and funded by the corporate elite for the purpose of screwing the people. And believe it or not, most people know when they're being screwed.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 9:15:20 PM
 

Question Brent

Brent you wrote an interesting article, as someone who wrote identities for the CIA you might shed some light on a subject that really burns my britches. Take in consideration I know things could never be perfect. But with a powerful CIA that is very close to being completely above the laws, just how can we put a cap on them. I fill this is where G.W.Bush had strayed from reality, because of his fathers ties in the CIA. It only takes one bad apple in a bushel, you know. Currently they kidnap [suspected] terrorist, and torture and likely murder some in the process. I know there is no easy answers to such questions, because in some ways they do save innocent lives by doing what's considered wrong. This however is a international war crime, that this country has hunted down Nazi's and invaded other country's for doing just that.
I do think that it was a boneheaded plan and should be stopped at all cost to those involved, we have become what others view as evil.

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 8:56:03 PM
 

Comment is hidden

Ah yes, he does marketing and he disagrees with YOU, so...

... of all the companies and agencies in the country and world, he MUST be doing marketing for the Democratic Party! Of course! It is so simple, why didn't I think of that?!?!

Why attack his comments when you can attack him as somehow biased and compromised WITHOUT HAVING ANY REAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT?

by Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments) on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 2:09:01 AM
 

P.S., I am the one who flagged you...

... that ridiculous comment about the author being biased was way over the top for me.

by Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments) on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 2:13:08 AM
 

I never got to read the hidden comment

but I do see your penchant for silencing folks here. Why is it, I wonder, that you never, ever, not even one itsy bitsy little time deal with the numerous specific arguments we on the left level at your beloved party?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 5:19:03 PM
 

Click on my name in any of my comments, Ardee,

and it will take you to my author's page when you can email me. If anyone asks, I'll be happy to email them a copy of my deleted comment so that they can judge for themself whether or not it was a personal attack.

I copied it as soon as I noticed that it was flagged.

--Mark

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 11:07:17 PM
 

Thnak you sir, for the offer

but I have full knowledge of the tactics of this neocon DLC supporting rascal. He has attempted to get me banned from this site in the past. So much for free speech,huh?

I have tried, honestly, to debate this fellow but, when fact and actions are cited in denial of his position he simply does not debate. Instead he leaps into impossibly complex positions to insult liberals, progressives and leftists. He also insults rather easily yet takes much umbrage at a riposte of his own tactics upon him. A shame and a fraud, sadly.

Do you note that, when he failed to convert us, Schmookler showed up, upon his failures we now see Budowsky. I wonder who is next, Himler, Goebbels. who knows?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, January 20, 2007 at 10:26:53 AM
 

And I am going to keep flagging you...

and anyone else who addresses arguments against the person instead of the argument.

by Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments) on Saturday, January 20, 2007 at 10:06:25 PM