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 (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 18, 2007 at 3:41:04 PM

  (0+)

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, Jan 18, 2007 at 4:54:13 PM

  (0+)

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, 3 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 12:06:25 AM

  (0+)

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, 303 comments) on Thursday, Jan 18, 2007 at 5:13:04 PM

  (0+)

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, Jan 18, 2007 at 5:26:53 PM

  (0+)

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, Jan 18, 2007 at 5:23:23 PM

  (0+)

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 (103 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Thursday, Jan 18, 2007 at 6:00:04 PM

  (0+)

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, Jan 19, 2007 at 5:13:20 PM

  (0+)

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, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 18, 2007 at 6:09:17 PM

  (0+)

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, Jan 19, 2007 at 5:10:14 PM

  (0+)

-- 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, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 18, 2007 at 6:33:09 PM

  (0+)

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, Jan 18, 2007 at 7:36:34 PM

  (0+)

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, Jan 18, 2007 at 9:15:20 PM

  (0+)

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, Jan 18, 2007 at 8:56:03 PM

  (0+)

... 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 (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 2:09:01 AM

  (0+)

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

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 2:13:08 AM

  (0+)

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, Jan 19, 2007 at 5:19:03 PM

  (0+)

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, Jan 19, 2007 at 11:07:17 PM

  (0+)

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, Jan 20, 2007 at 10:26:53 AM

  (0+)

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

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 20, 2007 at 10:06:25 PM

  (0+)

Why would I want to debate someone who can be counted on to consistently go ad-hominem against me? And, quite frankly, I would much rather you weren't banned and instead addressed your comments to arguments instead of against people who write here.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 20, 2007 at 10:18:45 PM

  (0+)

Do you seriously think we here do not have you pegged? Hypocracy.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Jan 21, 2007 at 9:10:02 AM

  (0+)

just remember, most people understand what ad-hominem is and how distasteful of a debate tactic it is.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 21, 2007 at 3:31:02 PM

  (0+)

Reading your superficial propaganda sans any substance whatsoever, seeing, again and again, your inability to understand that your opinions are not written large and in gold leaf, that calm amd rational riposte deserves similar response instead of blanket and insultingly false indictments of entire groups because one member dares to disagree with your stance certainly makes you very clearly known. Thanks again for continuing to prove my points, most appreciated. The enemy within is the most dangerous. Anyone here is free to research our exchanges, as have I, and note that I follow an editorial of yours with fact and logic, to which you respond, each time, with biting sarcasm, showing plainly that you lack the courage of your convictions and are unable to defend them logically. That I choose to give as good or better than I get may be my failing but it certainly is what you deserve.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Jan 21, 2007 at 3:51:06 PM

  (0+)

Here is a BIG :0)!!! Now I'm faithfully part of the herd. Yeah, I do get your drift, I've made hundreds of comments in articles on much of the same subjects. China shot down a weather satellite that orbits earth at the same distance as spy satellites. Bush was said to of concealed the information from us for a week. Let's patiently wait to see if his evil mind plots war with China.

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Thursday, Jan 18, 2007 at 10:46:21 PM

  (0+)

The bully only picks on the little kids that he knows he can beat, never the big kid. China could destroy the USA in about 20 minutes worth of calls to their central bankers. They would suffer as well, of course, from the world-wide depression that would follow (if we can't afford to buy the sh*t they're making for us, they won't have to make it) but they also would recover much quicker, and wouldn't go hungry in the interim. Bush will only pick on those he can beat -- he's a sociopathic bully.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:59:33 PM

  (0+)

I agree with it all, but please include the fight for local races in 2007 as a way that we as citizens must be stepping up to the plate about. Look at the County Commissioner positions that are open. THese are the people responsible for the endorsement of the failed view that unverifiable electronic voting machines are okay. Let's encourage everybody to work hard to especially replace them. Don't believe the Dems will win in 08 if the voting machine mess isn't straighened out in 07!

by ruth (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, Jan 18, 2007 at 10:56:36 PM

  (0+)

The Secretary of State Project (http://www.secstateproject.org/) because these are the people who can sway elections and if they are corrupt Republicans (oops, sorry, that's redundant) we don't have a chance for a fair election.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 12:06:45 AM

  (0+)

First, for the record, I do not have anybusiness coming from the Democratic Partyand if I did, or ever do, would disclose it.I do know a number of very senior Democrats,offering ideas as appropriate, especially mostrecently, from the day George Bush announcedit, urging Democrats to unequivocally opposethe esclation surge. I am one of twocontributing editors to Fighting Dems NewsService, an honor, but unpaid! Regardingthe CIA there are two issues I would mentionhere. The most important is having full andhonest Congressional oversight, which we didnot have in the Republican Congress and willhopefully have now. Honest oversight meansthe Intelligence Committees have access toALL necessary information and nothing iskept from them. This is a mandatory checkand balance against unwise actions and alsoprotects the integrity of intelligence officersfrom political pressures that distort intel,as we saw in Iraq WMD. Lets watch Iran wherethis danger today is real. The second probleminvolves attempts to create alternative intelpower structures that seek to bypass theoversight and can involve less than qualifiedor ethical operations or people. Two exampleswere Rumsfeld's creation of a counter-CIAwithin DOD and contracting out, outsourcing,to private sector intelligence. Both canbe dangerous, both must be restricted, bothmust be subject to FULL oversight and therule of law. There are other issues, thoseare two that are vital. Brent

by Brent Budowsky (103 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Thursday, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:17:44 PM

  (0+)

Brent: "First, for the record, I do not have any business coming from the Democratic Party and if I did, or ever do, would disclose it." Thank you. I never actually said that you did, I just said that judging from your occupation and your puff piece, you might. How Leser took that as an over the top personal attack is beyond me. Brent: "I do know a number of very senior Democrats, offering ideas as appropriate, especially most recently, from the day George Bush announced it, urging Democrats to unequivocally oppose the escalation surge." Thank you for that also. I am truly grateful that someone who has the ear of senior Democrats would have the courage to try to communicate this to them. I hope that they will listen, and perhaps even act on that advice. Brent: "I am one of two contributing editors to Fighting Dems News Service, an honor, but unpaid!" Uh, please forgive my ignorance, but what is a "Fighting Dem?" Brent: "Regarding the CIA there are two issues I would mention here. The most important is having full and honest Congressional oversight, which we did not have in the Republican Congress and will hopefully have now. Honest oversight means the Intelligence Committees have access to ALL necessary information and nothing is kept from them. This is a mandatory check and balance against unwise actions and also protects the integrity of intelligence officers from political pressures that distort intel, as we saw in Iraq WMD. Lets watch Iran where this danger today is real." That does sound like a good, important, and even urgent idea. Unfortunately, the problem, judging from the past 30 or 40 years, is that in order to be on an intelligence oversight committee, a legislator needs the proper clearances in order to be able to access classified information, as almost all CIA internal documents are classified. In order to get such a clearance, they have to sign an agreement not to share such information with anyone who does not have the same clearance. The way this works is that if everyone on the committee has the clearances, and manages to get access to documents proving that the CIA has been doing something illegal, unconstitutional, and which they have been specifically barred by Congress and the Supreme Court from doing, they cannot share this information with anyone outside the committee, not even their colleagues in Congress outside the committee, no less their constituents. So if they try to stop the CIA from continuing some illegality, they would have to either go to court, where the case would be dismissed because the court wouldn't have the necessary clearances to view the evidence, or try to pass legislation, which is almost impossible when you cannot provide your colleagues with the reasons for the legislation because it is classified. Not to mention the fact that the CIA has been known to lie to Congress and to intelligence oversight agencies, the fact that they happen to be trained in how to lie, and the fact that they also have the capability of forging documents. Brent: "The second problem involves attempts to create alternative intel power structures that seek to bypass the oversight and can involve less than qualified or ethical operations or people. Two examples were Rumsfeld's creation of a counter-CIA within DOD and contracting out, outsourcing,to private sector intelligence. Both can be dangerous, both must be restricted, both must be subject to FULL oversight and the rule of law. There are other issues, those are two that are vital." I agree with you. But since it is almost impossible to have oversight of conventional intelligence agencies, it would be much more difficult to have oversight of privatized intelligence agencies, since everything they do would not only be classified, but would also be proprietary trade secrets. You can't force a private corporation to reveal their trade secrets because then they couldn't be competitive, so it would interfere with the "free" market. (For a explanation of how the free market works, please see John Perkins' book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman.") Besides, as General Smedley Butler pointed out a long time ago, our military exists primarily to protect private business interests that private U.S. (now globalized so that they don't have to pay taxes here) corporations have in other countries. And our intelligence agencies exist to protect these "American" interests by any means necessary. So being the cynical, negative, meanspirited (I've been called a lot of other names on opednews, but I haven't flagged anyone for personal attacks), shortsighted person that I am, I rather doubt that attempts to communicate and cooperate with George Bush, Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman, Diane Feinstein (whose husband is a defense contractor), and others in the White House and Congress about overseeing the way that our military and intelligence agencies protect their foreign investments, might not be too productive. But I'd love to be proven wrong. --Mark

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 4:26:51 AM

  (0+)

I'm willing to buy your vision, Brent. It has the sound of a possible reality. Too many of those who write here are somewhat like trolls, though of a different sort. They have 'analyzed' recent history, and come up with a jaundiced view on just about everything involved with American politics. I, myself, have been seriously contaminated by the same vein of jaundice, and am still struggling with it. But there is a deeper vein running through our long history, one with a vision that keeps bobbing up within the muck, one that has managed to surface with the Civil War, with the anti-trust legislation of more than a century ago, with the Labor Movement of the years surrounding it, and yes, with the surge of an enspirited counter-culture not many decades back. It's out there today, waiting for the uplift of events. It's out there in some of our current politicos like Kucinich and Feingold, along with that huge swath of people who did, after all, manage to punch this recent election through, with new political groups like MoveOn and TrueMajority, that were the very manifestation of grass roots newly arising. It had NOT been killed off by what the naysayers had already been referring to as a dead Left, for all future time. It's too bad that these political trolls, here, have locked themselves so tightly in their current pessimism, their 'sophisticated analysis', that they cannot see what they are doing to THEMSELVES as they try and 'enlighten' the rest of us. Thanks for your perspective, Bruce. It has helped ME, for one, to steer clear of that fate.

by Irvthom (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 12:47:26 AM

  (0+)

There are two main groups of people here. People who want to be part of the solution, and people who desire to always be part of the problem. It is easy to see who they are. The people who are part of the problem see nothing good and everything corrupt with the Democratic Party. Anything or anyone praising the party or a member of the party is part of some global conspiracy theory. Besides the obvious and intentional ignorance of the many differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties and their elected officials, one of the more interesting things to emerge about this 'problem' group is a stigmatization and villification of anything bipartisan or any compromise between the two parties. At the same time, this group claims to be anti-war. Let me say this clearly, you cannot be truly anti-war and politically be against communication and compromise with rival political groups amd parties. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. Even Gandhi reached out to Adolph Hitler TWICE in an effort to avoid war and I cannot imagine two more different people with different politics and world views. This group here that constantly berates the Democratic Party would no doubt have classified Gandhi as the same as a Nazi for the gestures. Their uncompromising, cynical, paranoid and ultimately destructive views and comments are a good illustration of the types of things that themselves lead to confrontation and armed conflict.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 1:56:09 AM

  (0+)

After six years of reaching out in a spirit of bipartisanship, and having your microphone unplugged, the lights turned out, the Republicans walking out and barring you from using hearing rooms, don't you think that it might be time to stop communicating and compromising and start opposing the war? Especially when you have a majority? Why start out by saying that impeachment is off the table and that you intend to continue funding the war? I'm sure you don't want the Democrats to appear to be negative, uncooperative, or vindictive about a mere 3,000+ U.S. troops and by some accounts more than half a million innocent (they never attacked us, didn't have WMD, and had nothing to do with 9/11) Iraqis, or about the biggest national debt in history, or about something as unimportant and insignificant as torture, the elimination of habeus corpus, or the erosion of civil liberties and the elimination of checks and balances from government. Gandhi thought that if he just told Hitler what he was doing wrong, Hitler might have an epiphany, shut down the death camps, cease his wars of aggression, and be willing to communicate and compromise. Hitler wasn't and didn't. Gandhi was wasting his time. Hitler had about as much respect for Gandhi as Dick Cheney has for Senator Leahey. I don't want my representatives to communicate and compromise about torture, I want them to stop the torture. If you think that communication and compromise is more important than stopping the torture, we have a difference in values.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 3:48:39 AM

  (0+)

including allowing Jeddah to be leader of India instead of his original choice if that would have avoided India's division and all other compromises. He would not have approved of the political orthodoxy that seems to rule you any many like you here. He would not have engaged in the silly "not liberal or progressive enough" arguments in which people like you engage. He would have attempted to form a coalition to get his goals accomplished, not divide and only deal with people who believed in exactly what he believed or were exactly like him. Can you imagine if he would have tried to do so? Who else would have been in his coalition? That is your folly and the folly of many like you here. By enforcing a standard of orthodoxy, you are limiting your coalition to an ineffective size.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 8:51:06 AM

  (0+)

Steven: ".....you are limiting your coalition to an ineffective size." The coalition of Republicans and Democrats who pushed through the war, the Patriot Acts, torture, the Military Commissions Act, and much more, is extremely large and extremely efficient. The only problem is that they are ignoring the will of the American people, destroying the Constitution, and making the U.S. look like a monster in the eyes of the world. Monsters are large, and they may be efficient, but few people wish to be dominated by one. --Mark

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 8:42:49 PM

  (0+)

... one where you have to win elections in order to govern.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 20, 2007 at 10:08:28 PM

  (0+)

Gandhi never voted for anything that Hitler did. Gandhi never funded anything that Hitler did. Gandhi never expressed a willingness to support Hitler's agenda in any way, not even so that they could communicate and compromise. All Gandhi did was write to Hitler and ask him to stop the genocide. Comparing Democrats who continued to vote for the war even after they knew that there were no WMDs, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and that they'd been lied to, Democrats who voted to authorize torture, and Democrats who gave Bush 32 standing ovations, with Gandhi, is, at least in my opinion, inappropriate. Flag away, kid. --Mark

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 4:43:24 AM

  (0+)

That should be Steven, not Stephen. But at least I didn't call everyone who supports the Democratic Party, "uncompromising, cynical, paranoid." I don't usually engage in such over the top rhetoric. I prefer to cite examples and to use logic and reason, rather than childish name-calling. Would you please clarify why you think that, "This group here that constantly berates the Democratic Party would no doubt have classified Gandhi as the same as a Nazi for the gestures." As I pointed out, Gandhi never voted for, funded, or in any way supported Hitler's policies. All he did was write to ask him to stop. Has any Democrat written to Bush to ask him to stop the torture and genocide in Iraq? Or are they much too busy communicating and cooperating with him by voting to fund and pass everything he asks for? Saying that anyone who criticizes the Democrats "would no doubt have classified Gandhi as the same as a Nazi," seems to be a bit illogical to me. Could you clarify your reasoning? What you seem to have done is to first conflate people who voted for torture and war crimes with someone who never did any such thing, and then say that people who criticize those who voted for torture and war crimes, "no doubt" would not only also criticize someone who had never done any such thing, but would also classify him as a Nazi. Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote?

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 5:31:02 AM

  (0+)

The type of person who would write the below letter bears no resemblance to the nasty and accusatory way you and many others address those of us who chose to work within the Democratic Party to try to achieve progressive objectives. To Herr Hitler July 23, 1939 As at Wardha, C. P., 23-7-'39 DEAR FRIEND, Friends have been urging me to write to you for the sake of humanity. But I have resisted their request, because of the feeling that any letter from me would be an impertinence. Something tells me that I must not calculate and that I must make my appeal for whatever it may be worth. It is quite clear that you are today the one person in the world who can prevent a war which may reduce humanity to a savage state. Must you pay that price for an object however worthy it may appear to you to be? Will you listen to the appeal of one who has deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success? Any way I anticipate your forgiveness, if I have erred in writing to you. I remain, Your sincere friend, M. K. Gandhi HERR HITLER, BERLIN, GERMANY

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 9:10:52 AM

  (0+)

Steven: "The type of person who would write the below letter bears no resemblance to the nasty and accusatory way you and many others address those of us who chose to work within the Democratic Party to try to achieve progressive objectives." Nowhere in Gandhi's letter does he offer to support Hitler's policies, vote for Hitler's policies, or form a coalition with Hitler in a spirit of bipartisanship. Why do you consider voting for the Bush agenda to be a form of working to try to achieve progressive objectives? Gandhi never supported Hitler or his agenda in any way shape or form. He just asked him to prevent a war for the sake of humanity. Gandhi didn't vote for that war, fund that war, or give Hitler standing ovations. Comparing the Democrats to Gandhi is inappropriate, and vilifying anyone who criticizes the Democrats for consistently conceding to Bush, consistently voting for the Bush agenda, and consistently refusing to represent the majority of Americans who are opposed to the war and torture that the Democrats voted for and voted to fund, opposed to the dismantling of our civil rights that the Democrats voted for, and opposed to the Bush agenda in a way that the Democrats never have been, is hypocritical. If the Democrats had never voted for or voted to fund the Bush agenda, and had openly opposed it, you could compare them to Gandhi. If the Democrats want to be compared to Gandhi, why don't they stop funding the war and start openly opposing it for the sake of humanity?

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 11:47:10 AM

  (0+)

and let people decide for themselves.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 2:06:38 PM

  (0+)

he is comparing Ghandi with you, and not with the Democrats.

by Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 657 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 21, 2007 at 6:49:08 AM

  (0+)

I believe that you are in error in calling those who criticise 'trolls'. Not only in error but perhaps in need of more exhaustive reading of many of the posts of those on the left who do much more than criticise. I have seen many fine suggestions for political action outside of the auspices of the two major parties and much exhaustive research and thought by some here. Unlike Leser, whose knee must be exhausted having jerked every time someone notes a democratic party failing and who never, ever offers any suggestion other than blind loyalty and obedience and refuses to acknowledge the myriad of facts supporting criticisms of his beloved party, many of those on the left actually do think outside the box, and come up with , not only critiques, but concrete suggestions as well. They certainly do not need such slander from you, not that it bothers me, but fairness is what it is.... Every democratic vote for this war, for the No Child Left Undamaged disaster, for the other Bush fiascos, deserve criticism. Every failure of democrats to speak out for all these years deserves mention, every DLC wooing of the same corporatists who have so damaged our legislature and our economy needs noting. Every single one.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 5:36:37 PM

  (0+)

First somebody would have to flag them, and most liberals and progressives are opposed to censorship, so nobody here is likely to flag even the most loathesome speech, as most of us prefer to simply respond to it rather than to censor it. Steven apparently disagrees and felt free to flag as a personal attack something that was not a personal attack, that the person who was supposedly attacked did not feel was an attack, and an editor apparently agreed with Steven. --Mark

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 8:32:52 PM

  (0+)

... and I cannot put it any better than the Nizkor project: click here Description of Ad Hominem Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on person A. Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). Example of Ad Hominem Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong." Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest." Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say." ---------------------------------------------------------- as soon as you concentrate on the person making the argument instead of the argument itself, you are wrong. If Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and any other nasties you can think of say, "I believe 2+2=4" would you say they were wrong because of their characters? It is a waste of time, and a logical fallacy to do so. We all make mistakes, but there are some people here who cannot seem to keep themselves from doing this for some reason. Bottom line, it is a waste of time and an ugly thing to do.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 20, 2007 at 10:16:11 PM

  (0+)

What I said was "something like trolls," or words to that effect. The allusion to trolls was because they pounce on what they disagree with, overwhelming it with disdainful reaction instead of letting it stand on its own, with its own degree of merit. Brent offers a vision, and gives it a fair basis. There is nothing wrong with disagreement and challenge, but why hit him like it's a dogfight? I happen to have a jaundiced view of this present congress, myself, but I am also aware that it is the only crew that can take Bush down before 2008; and further, that it is going to have a critical say in what happens even then. Given that I basically disagree with their approach, I nevertheless have no say in the matter. Yes, I have this pitiful OpEd voice, but why let it go to my head? I would rather keep my head clear enough to consider the possibilities that exist in WHAT'S HAPPENING. I would rather come to understand WHY the Pelosi woman took it off the table, WHY Conyers himself backed off, without being so damned cocksure that there is some kind of conspiracy at work. The whole conspiracy thing is a way of feeling good about one's inability to see what is not easily understandable. Why is it, that Feingold, for instance - who has demonstrated his integrity - is not foaming at the mouth with challenges? Why is Kucinich taking the painful and slow road instead of submitting his own bill of impeachment? I have been around for a lot longer than anyone on this site (I'm willing to bet on it), but my mind is not yet closed, or fogged up with conspiracy theories. Get over it, for God's sake. Politics is often a filthy game, but not everyone in it is without morals or scruples. Pay attention to those who stick it out, and somehow manage to keep themselves on course despite the muck. You know it's done, by some, so why not assume that they might know what they're doing when they hang back? Why not be a little more open to the possible, and to a good expression of the possible when it comes along, than ready to charge in, instantaneously, and sink your canines into any such expression, just because you haven't figured it out yet for yourself (without throwing some damn conspiracy proposition into the breach)?

by Irvthom (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 8:38:39 PM

  (0+)

I would suggest that you harbor a serious misconception; that electing a Democratic President and Congress will , like some Shirley Temple movie, make all come out well in the end. It will not, and we on the left understand the myth of the Democratic Party as many in the center do not,yet. Clinton threw thousands off welfare without a safety net so that he could proudly show that he had a balanced budget. Is this a real solution, one that satisfies you? Like Reagan before him, Clinton sowed the seeds for the inevitability of economic crisis with NAFTA, which along with GATT and CAFTA, are costing Americans decent jobs, benefits and an assured economic future. It is also , due to the machinations of transnational corporations underselling the markets in Central and South America, resulting in the floods of illegals seeking jobs and the means to feed their families. Is this the great Democratic hope you long to see return? Many see Bush as some cartoonish figure, a great evil who, once removed, will miraculously restore our noble democracy and bring largesse to all Americans and peace to the world. Yes, and Santa Claus is coming every year. I state firmly that both political parties are in the thrall of the money, are beholden to the same few grossly wealthy individuals and corporations and only the language is a bit different. I would urge you to find and read Steven Lendman's excellent article on the sell-out of the Democratic party already, about how platitudes will sate those who refuse to dig deeper but will bring no real solutions. Come, sir, to the light.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Jan 20, 2007 at 10:43:02 AM

  (0+)

I do not love the Democratic party. I wish we had a third, I wish we had some real system of representative government, and . . . I wish that the government we DO have worked better than it does. I could go on and on in this vein for a very long paragraph without repeating myself, but that should establish my general disaffection, and it is long-standing. But three things have become crystal clear to me. One is that there is going to be no second revolution, be it a shooting kind or a constitutional convention kind. Number two is that the red/blue condition of critical balance is very real in this country and will continue to make a hazard of every national election. And number three is that the present mess was the point-blank result of too many of us ignoring the reality of those first two, refusing to deal with things AS THEY ARE, because we didn't like 'as they are'. So I am trying to come to my senses now. Politics WILL BE PLAYED, and things will not go exactly as I would like them to go . . . but there has GOT TO BE a left/left/left coalition, or we are endangering the whole works (as has already been done). Now is that so hard to understand? Is it so damned impossible, to let go of a few ideals, so that we can get the present reality out of the picture? Because if not, we deserve just what we've got now . . . and we'll keep getting it.

by Irvthom (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 91 comments) on Saturday, Jan 20, 2007 at 7:37:48 PM

  (0+)

If one lets go, as you say, of a "few ideals" one lets go of everything. There are, currently, several third parties operating in America, many alternatives to voting Dem or Repub. The way to change things is to not accept them and to work to change them. That it will take time is a far better solution than the one you suggest, give up your hopes and settle for what you consider to be the lesser of two evils. I believe that evil is evil, lesser or greater. The only thing worse than giving up ones principles, ones hopes and dreams is to fail to work to achieve them.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Jan 22, 2007 at 6:57:03 PM

  (0+)

Optimism is good, but the middleclass battle against Plutocratic Fascism and our Government's incestuous and revolving door relationship with Corporate corruption has barely begun. Middleclass republican voter's unqualified trust in their political leaders led to their economic exploitation, and we should be mindful that we can't trust our leaders either. The United States is plutocracy, not a democracy and both parties exclusively serve their masters, the richest ten per cent of our population. The system is utterly corrupt, with all power in the hands of the haves and the deck stacked against the have-nots. Nothing short of a Constitutional Convention, or Civil War is going to change that. Anything less is too little, and too late.

by rabblerowzer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 5:41:26 AM

  (0+)

First I take no offense at the comment thatwondered whether I am paid by the DemocraticParty, so long as it is a question, which Ihave now answered (no), not an accusation(which would be untrue). More important onthe matter of optimism, my role is not to waitand see, and if things go well, throw confetti.My role is to try to anticipate and shapeevents, offering a clear vision of what weare trying to do, and concrete ideas abouthow to do it. The vision is another greatera in American history similar to the erasof FDR and JFK, with a Democratic Presidentand Congress capable of implementing majorchange and reform. The premise is that theDemocratic Party stands for something, in factin dealing with high level Democrats I am oftenpitted against the paid consultant class, whoadvise caution and tactics above principle.My observation is that Bush will indeed bethe Republican Herbert Hoover on nationalsecurity. For the next twenty years theRepublicans will be saying "I wont do whatBush did" with wrongheaded wars, in the sameway they once were tarred with Herbert Hooverand the Depression. Bush and Cheney havegiven warmongering a bad name, and FightingDemocrats and others have given Democrats anew crediblity on national security whileopposing the Bush escalation in Iraq. Thereis in my view a historic opportunity for arealignment, but Democrats have to earn it,and earn it by standing for high principle.Finally I offered a short list of specificactions and hope others will expand this withtheir own ideas. Brent

by Brent Budowsky (103 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 6:11:25 AM

  (0+)

It was in very light green type on a white background, and was barely visible on my screen, so I'm taking the liberty of reprinting it: ------------------------------------ On Optimism First I take no offense at the comment thatwondered whether I am paid by the DemocraticParty, so long as it is a question, which Ihave now answered (no), not an accusation(which would be untrue). More important onthe matter of optimism, my role is not to waitand see, and if things go well, throw confetti.My role is to try to anticipate and shapeevents, offering a clear vision of what weare trying to do, and concrete ideas abouthow to do it. The vision is another greatera in American history similar to the erasof FDR and JFK, with a Democratic Presidentand Congress capable of implementing majorchange and reform. The premise is that theDemocratic Party stands for something, in factin dealing with high level Democrats I am oftenpitted against the paid consultant class, whoadvise caution and tactics above principle.My observation is that Bush will indeed bethe Republican Herbert Hoover on nationalsecurity. For the next twenty years theRepublicans will be saying "I wont do whatBush did" with wrongheaded wars, in the sameway they once were tarred with Herbert Hooverand the Depression. Bush and Cheney havegiven warmongering a bad name, and FightingDemocrats and others have given Democrats anew crediblity on national security whileopposing the Bush escalation in Iraq. Thereis in my view a historic opportunity for arealignment, but Democrats have to earn it,and earn it by standing for high principle.Finally I offered a short list of specificactions and hope others will expand this withtheir own ideas. Brent by bbudowsky (14 articles, 4 comments) on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 4:11:25 AM ___________________________ Since it was posted twice (the software here sometimes does that -- I've had it happen several times), it is now posted three times. I'm sorry about that, but since I responded to it, I'd like for others to be able to read it. I really hope that you're right, and that the Democrats will stop funding and voting for war and torture, perhaps even within my lifetime. But until they do, I think it is inappropriate for anyone to compare them to Gandhi. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement: "There is in my view a historic opportunity for a realignment, but Democrats have to earn it, and earn it by standing for high principle." I only wish that many more Democrats had your realistic assessment, rather than a false illusion of nonexistent Democratic Party values. --Mark

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 12:32:25 PM

  (0+)

First I take no offense at the comment thatwondered whether I am paid by the DemocraticParty, so long as it is a question, which Ihave now answered (no), not an accusation(which would be untrue). More important onthe matter of optimism, my role is not to waitand see, and if things go well, throw confetti.My role is to try to anticipate and shapeevents, offering a clear vision of what weare trying to do, and concrete ideas abouthow to do it. The vision is another greatera in American history similar to the erasof FDR and JFK, with a Democratic Presidentand Congress capable of implementing majorchange and reform. The premise is that theDemocratic Party stands for something, in factin dealing with high level Democrats I am oftenpitted against the paid consultant class, whoadvise caution and tactics above principle.My observation is that Bush will indeed bethe Republican Herbert Hoover on nationalsecurity. For the next twenty years theRepublicans will be saying "I wont do whatBush did" with wrongheaded wars, in the sameway they once were tarred with Herbert Hooverand the Depression. Bush and Cheney havegiven warmongering a bad name, and FightingDemocrats and others have given Democrats anew crediblity on national security whileopposing the Bush escalation in Iraq. Thereis in my view a historic opportunity for arealignment, but Democrats have to earn it,and earn it by standing for high principle.Finally I offered a short list of specificactions and hope others will expand this withtheir own ideas. Brent

by Brent Budowsky (103 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 6:12:42 AM

  (0+)

Unlike Steven's comments, which compared Democrats who voted for war with one of the world's greatest pacifists, Gandhi, who never did any such thing, and which contained many personal attacks, calling anyone who criticized Democrats several underserved names, my comment did not contain any personal attacks, and I thank you for pointing that out, Brent. But Democratic cheerleader and left gatekeeper sites will censor anything critical of Democrats, while allowing personal attacks on anyone to the left of Democrats. I've seen that for years on sites like DU, dKos, and the Chimp. It hasn't been like that here on opednews prior to this, but that may have changed. Rob is at a conference right now. I've written to him, including a copy of my deleted comment, and the comments that DO include personal attacks by the person who flagged it, however he may not receive my email or choose to respond to it if he does. For all his Democratic loyalties, Rob has not been particularly in favor of censorship in the past, so the deletion of my comment may have been done by one of his editors without his knowledge. --Mark

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 12:19:56 PM

  (0+)

Really, folks, I guess I would be happy in the Y2008 if Dems win just because Bush and his cronies will be out. But with all respect, Dems do everything in their power to lose. They did that in the Y2000 and Y2004. Let's see the truth: without the help of the Clintonian Dems Bush would never be a President and never would attack anyone. They not just caved in- they actively helped. Active helping means in this case either just a direct sellout (Lieberman case), sabotage ( Clinton and Hillary) or not using the tools which the job gives those to use ( most of the others). I am puzzled with all that Gandhi- Hitler stuff. Folks, we are not in India and we are very far from Gandhis of all kinds. We are here and our very lives and lives of our children are at stake because of the mad moron in power. The Dems apparently are OK if someone else calls him a mad moron as soon as they reap the harvest on both sides. Such strategy of gaining on small and losing on big is not politics. It is treason. GOP betrayes the country. Dems are following them on the bandwagon complaining that there was not enough seats in the first- class compartment. The engineer is mad. The third class pays for the tickets. Optimism is, of course a very big advantage. It helps sometimes to escape reality until you want to open your eyes and discover that those are plucked out. End of the story.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 11:46:28 AM

  (0+)

I submitted this as a rebuttle above, but it's a general statement I want to make down here. Brent offers a vision, and gives it a fair basis. There is nothing wrong with disagreement and challenge, but why hit him like it's a dogfight? I happen to have a jaundiced view of this present congress, myself, but I am also aware that it is the only crew that can take Bush down before 2008; and further, that it is going to have a critical say in what happens even then. Given that I basically disagree with their approach, I nevertheless have no say in the matter. Yes, I have this pitiful OpEd voice, but why let it go to my head? I would rather keep my head clear enough to consider the possibilities that exist in WHAT'S HAPPENING. I would rather come to understand WHY the Pelosi woman took it off the table, WHY Conyers himself backed off, without being so damned cocksure that there is some kind of conspiracy at work. The whole conspiracy thing is a way of feeling good about one's inability to see what is not easily understandable. Why is it, that Feingold, for instance - who has demonstrated his integrity - is not foaming at the mouth with challenges? Why is Kucinich taking the painful and slow road instead of submitting his own bill of impeachment? I have been around for a lot longer than anyone on this site (I'm willing to bet on it), but my mind is not yet closed, or fogged up with conspiracy theories. Get over it, for God's sake. Politics is often a filthy game, but not everyone in it is without morals or scruples. Pay attention to those who stick it out, and somehow manage to keep themselves on course despite the muck. You know it's done, by some, so why not assume that they might know what they're doing when they hang back? Why not be a little more open to the possible, and to a good expression of the possible when it comes along, than ready to charge in, instantaneously, and sink your canines into any such expression, just because you haven't figured it out yet for yourself (without throwing some damn conspiracy proposition into the breach)?

by Irvthom (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 8:50:22 PM

  (0+)

Noone here fails to understand that, at least for the next few years, it is the Democrats that give the best hope for change, sadly. But some understand that the way to achieve democratic responsibility lies, not within the party itself, but pressure applied for without. I was a democratic activist for decades, at the grassroots level. I am fully aware of the way the State and National committees ignore the desires of the communitiy groups and speak with them only as a fundraising tool. I noted rather plainly how the conservatives who control that party now jumped all over Howard Dean as soon as the election was over, attempting to diminish his fifty state strategy and claim that folks voted dem because of its conservative stances. Ive no quarrel with those who continue to attempt to move that party to the left, good luck with that. But I have a serious disagreement with those who are little more than apologists for the rightward swing of that party and continually make excuses for inaction, complicity and failure to follow their conscience or the will of the people. The ultimate solution to the problems that beset this nation will not be found in the two party system.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 7:06:20 AM

  (0+)

and ran it up the flagpole over at dKos: clickie Surprise, surprise, nobody saluted. Now that's as partisan a Democratic cheerleader site as you're going to find. So, nice try, Steven, but comparing the Democrats to Gandhi and anyone who criticizes the Democrats to a critic of Gandhi, doesn't appear headed for the big screen any time soon. --Mark

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Jan 19, 2007 at 10:59:16 PM

  (0+)

I write and say things that people here, or at DU or over at DKOS strongly dislike on occasion, and so your point is? I write for one reason and one reason only, because I believe in the things I write. It doesnt matter to me during the formulation of an article whether I believe other people or groups will agree or disagree. As a matter of fact, I submit articles sometimes completely convinced that most people on all three of these sites will completely disagree. It doesn't matter to me. Of course it is nice when people agree and send me nice notes, but fear of the opposite doesn't deter me nor does it change my mind unless a convincing argument is made.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 20, 2007 at 10:42:33 PM

  (0+)