I’ve watched as most of you participated in shredding the constitution by voting for the patriot act. I’ve watched as most of you voted to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq. I watched as Senator Rockefeller shook Senator Pat Roberts hand on a pre-election agreement by Roberts to hold a real investigation into the specific misuse and abuse of Iraq intelligence after the elections, and I’ve waited now for two and a half years for those promised hearings to convene. I have heard absolutely nothing from Senator Rockefeller in the way of a public demand for the man to keep his word.
I watched John Kerry's politically suicidal refusal to say he regretted his war vote after the WMD claims turned out to be lies, right in the middle of a supposed bid to be the next President. I’ve watched as John Kerry failed to answer his “Swift Boat” attackers week after week and now, two and a half years later, I listen to him whine about how “unfair” it all was. I’ve watched as John Kerry promised not to concede to Bush in a highly questionable election, only to watch him immediately concede.
I watched as you exposed Roberto Gonzalez as a liar under oath and an advocate of giving the executive branch the powers of a king, and then watched in disbelief as you voted to confirm him in anyway.
I watched as Dick Durbin cried like a little girl and apologized after being scolded for daring to compare US torture camps to Russian torture camps.
I’ve watched as you voted to approve two ultra right wing fascist Supreme Court judges who touted a “Unitary executive” theory and then go on to whine about 750 “signing statements” by Bush.
I watched as you approved John Negroponte, a criminal involved in running police death squads in Latin America, and now watch as you now decry the daily murders in Iraq by….police death squads.
I watched as you voted to approve General Hayden as head of the CIA after five and a half years of domestic spying violating the Constitution. I watch this as Howard Dean, the man who once dared to tell the truth when no one else would, now sits behind a desk silent, fund raising for the very people who wanted him out of national politics as a candidate. They succeeded.
I have watched all of this, and through it all, I was still committed to voting for Democrats in six months, if for no other reason than to do my part to punish Republicans for their endless assaults on the rule of law, our freedoms, and indeed on our very way of life.
Now though, a veritable last straw has been placed upon the camel’s back, which I can not, and will not endure; Our so-called “leadership”, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, have come out and declared that the Democratic Party “will not seek the impeachment of the President if they [sic] gain a majority in congress”.
How much is enough? With this, it is enough: I am not going to vote for you.
I have realized some things I believe are very important; First, why, after all of this, could I possibly expect you to represent me if I actually reward your five years of gutless complicity and moral bankruptcy? What kind of fool, would reward this appalling display and expect it not only to end, but not to actually get worse?
In this world, there are people without conscience who commit unconscionable crimes, and then there are people with consciences who actually stand by and do nothing as the crimes are committed. Which is really worse? I’ve concluded it’s the latter.
Secondly, I’ve considered the real alternative and it’s likely effect; let the Republicans continue to run the country and their party into the ground. This may in fact be the only chance for a cure for this otherwise terminal condition: Let America truly hit bottom. Yes, it’s hard to believe, but it can always get worse. Just maybe it needs to before it can get better. Maybe the American people need another six years of this hell before they will finally do something to end the two-party nightmare which has finally exposed it's true lethality to the Republic. I know one thing; the evidence against the Democratic party has accumulated now beyond any further rationalization. And in the even bigger picture, it’s been accumulating for forty years as the so-called “centrists” in the Democratic Party have run the party over a cliff again and again, failing the better half of this nation. Vietnam actually taught no lessons whatsoever. From the DLC’s resistance to their own base in 1968 which got us Richard Nixon, until today, it’s been forty years of idiots like Bob Shrum putting their political robots into tanks or Harley Davidsons for photo ops in times of national crisis. The so-called “center” is nothing but a stinking, hollowed rot.
In my State, I am confronted with one of these diseased incumbents; Maria Cantwell. A Democrat who has voted lock step with the GOP on every assault, conceded to every lie, approved of every usurpation of our freedoms, and who has most recently voted for the “IRAN Freedom Support Act”; certainly a vote for another war based on more lies and even less “evidence” (NONE), than the Iraq war was.
I can either stay home in 06, or vote for a Green Party candidate who’s a communist and member of the Back Panther Party. I’ll have to decide how vindictive I really feel, but the communist radical is actually starting to look like a viable possibility if for no other reason than to send my message. Am I supposed to go to the polls for the benefit of the spotted owl after all of this?
Finally, at the end of the day, this comes down to what now appears to be the sickening reality; watch the country continue to descend into hell for two more years under Democrats, only to be inevitably returned to the GOP in 2008, or to let the damage continue under the GOP until something finally breaks for good. I want the GOP broken for good.
We have to throw out the bribed venal politicos of both manipulated parties. They are serving only themselves and the alien interests of the international vermin who bribe them.
Elect 'independents only' to both houses, who, for any proposal, will vote yes or no on their conscience for the general good, and who can be replaced at a moment's notice if consistently out of step with the wishes of their electorate. Cut the hands off any who accept bribes, and the heads off any who bribe. Then we might start recovering America - and the world - from the evil criminals who have taken power all over the planet.
But don't talk about it. Do it.
by
amazin (34 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 400 comments)
on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 at 3:14:32 AM
Dems smart to renounce impeachment
I, too, disagree with some of the Democrats' positions, but Pelosi’s isn't one of them. If we want to take back the Congress, instead of seeking the short-lived emotional satisfactions of publicly humiliating a President who abused our systems of checks and balances and oversight, we should push for long-term improvement in checks and balances and oversight, and in ways that will attract voters to our cause. That's exactly what Pelosi did.
A TNR 5/29/06 editorial calls her smart for telling her fellow Democrats, "if their party gains control of Congress, impeachment is verboten. ‘We want oversight and checks and balances,’ Pelosi's flack told reporters. ‘Impeachment was never her interest…’"
With her statement “Pelosi has effectively banished the specter of crazed Democrats returning to power to impeach President Bush, a handy bogeyman for Republican fund-raisers.”
After all, "it’s not impeachment Republicans fear; it’s oversight.” So “Democrats are wise to distance themselves from the I-word,” and they should make the issues of oversight and investigating Administration abuses central to their campaigns. Congressional checks and balances have been sorely abused by the Bushies – with the Republican Congress’s blessing!
In short, “If voters … take out their anger not on the President but on their House and Senate enablers,” Democrats stand a better chance of winning Congress back in 2006. Beating a dead-horse President with threats of impeachment runs the risk of strengthening the opposition and generating backlash.
An argument worth thinking about!
by (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 2:43:23 AM
I, too, disagree with some of the Democrats' positions, but Pelosi’s isn't one of them. If we want to take back the Congress, instead of seeking the short-lived emotional satisfactions of publicly humiliating a President who abused our systems of checks and balances and oversight, we should push for long-term improvement in checks and balances and oversight, and in ways that will attract voters to our cause. That's exactly what Pelosi did.
A TNR 5/29/06 editorial calls her smart for telling her fellow Democrats, "if their party gains control of Congress, impeachment is verboten. ‘We want oversight and checks and balances,’ Pelosi's flack told reporters. ‘Impeachment was never her interest…’"
With her statement “Pelosi has effectively banished the specter of crazed Democrats returning to power to impeach President Bush, a handy bogeyman for Republican fund-raisers.”
After all, "it’s not impeachment Republicans fear; it’s oversight.” So “Democrats are wise to distance themselves from the I-word,” and they should make the issues of oversight and investigating Administration abuses central to their campaigns. Congressional checks and balances have been sorely abused by the Bushies – with the Republican Congress’s blessing!
In short, “If voters … take out their anger not on the President but on their House and Senate enablers,” Democrats stand a better chance of winning Congress back in 2006. Beating a dead-horse President with threats of impeachment runs the risk of strengthening the opposition and generating backlash.
An argument worth thinking about!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Esbe: A recent poll concluded that 53% percent of Americans believed the President should be impeached IF he lied about Iraq.
That "IF" is not an "if" for anyone in possession of the facts, so let's get that out of the way right now; Bush lied, repeatedly, brazenly, and with disdain for the rule of internationalal law.
Now that that is out of the way, do you care to speculate as to whether the 53% of ALL Americans who would support impeachment "if" Bush lied, are Democratic voters, or Republican voters? I didn't think so. Good, now that is out of the way as well.
The PURPOSE of impeachment, is not to "Humiliate" the President. Oh I realize that's been done. To Clinton. But that is not the purpose to any right minded impeachment seeking voter. The purpose is to RESTORE respect for the rule of law, in particular, international law, and to MITIGATE the incalculable damage that's been done to this country's reputation among the free nations of the world.
Furthermore, impeachment should only be the beginning of addressing the crimes of the Bush administration; I'm talking about war crimes trials. They need to happen.
Your position on this matter, strikes me as having few core values to have arrived at it. You very erroniously believe that if impeachment is pursued, it's somehow going to damage the chance for dems to be elected.
First, that kind of thinking is completely unprincipled, and subjects the country to a campaign run on expediency alone, while failing to acknowledge the immense crimes which have been committed.
Secondly, it's not only not true, but in fact this complete failure of moral leadership will be what cost the Democratic party another election. There are more than enough serious progressives in the Democratic party who will take a stand against this kind of pathetic political triangulation, that the Democrats will lose the election if they continue to fail to stand for something.
So with all due respect, your "reasoning" exemplifies everything that's been wrong and gone wrong, and the Democratic party will continue to pay the price until they act in accordance with the principles of their own base.
Nancy Pelosi is a classic example of a career politician with no apparent moral compass, and the sooner the party can purge itself of these self-serving individuals, the better.
You could not be more wrong, those who share your beliefs have had their say for far too long, the results have been OBVIOUS, and it has to stop.
by
Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments)
on Saturday, June 10, 2006 at 8:40:31 AM
Effective language takes more than just "framing" issues
Well, I'm sorry. I thought I was offering a reasonable argument, but it made you so angry. This dialogue can't be good for your health, and I would feel unkind to continue debating impeachment with you, so I'll stop.
But - this isn't only in response to you, Esbe - I'm afraid Democrats will FAIL during a perfect opportunity to take Congress back if they continue in the present pattern: Democrats calling Democrats names and impugning their motives - Democrats smearing Democrats.
We need to watch our language! We'll attract the necessary swing voters only if we present civil arguments for or against candidates and positions. Yes, Democrats should debate candidates and issues, but must avoid invective, insults, self-righteous purity, and extreme positions that are as scary to moderates as right-wing fundamentalisms (as well as ineffective for any elected official to espouse while trying to create bipartisan coalitions for crafting legislation).
Time is short. Stakes are high. Change can't, unfortunately, happen overnight - many Democratic voters just woke up politically 2 years ago and haven't worked long or strategically enough to cultivate strong, experienced, progressive Democrats who can successfully challenge incumbents. Re Senator Cantwell - sending a message to her by voting for Tran or Wilson is fine - that's part of what primaries for. But I think the Democratic party is better off over the long haul if we re-elect Cantwell, then hold her feet to the fire while building better Democratic candidates than Wilson, et. al. are at this point, to send her home if necessary in the following primary. She's done a lot of good work as a minority freshman Senator.
In any case, it's crucial to think together and be strategic instead of tearing our party apart (while alienating voters) with desperate rhetoric and personal insults. Many Americans despise the Democrats even though Democratic policies are more humane, because we talk trash about each other and America.
by (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Saturday, June 10, 2006 at 12:35:36 PM
Effective language takes more than just "framing" issues
"Effective language takes more than just "framing" issues"
ESBE: That does not preclude making the correct observation that there's been a total failure to frame the issues. There has.
"Well, I'm sorry. I thought I was offering a reasonable argument, but it made you so angry."
ESBE: Don't flatter yourself, I was already angry. You're just one of them.
"This dialogue can't be good for your health, and I would feel unkind to continue debating impeachment with you, so I'll stop."
ESBE: Patronizing me already? No you won't.
"But"
ESBE: See? I told you you wouldn't.
"- this isn't only in response to you, Esbe - I'm afraid Democrats will FAIL during a perfect opportunity to take Congress back if they continue in the present pattern: Democrats calling Democrats names and impugning their motives - Democrats smearing Democrats."
ESBE: 40 years. Nixon never needed to happen, but they took out the guy who was electable. It's been the same for 40 years, and yes, there is always the possibility that dems can successfully "triangulate" their way into power again. It's less likely than it used to be because people who DO stand for something, are bloody sick of it.
"We need to watch our language!"
ESBE: "Watch what you say". Riiiiiight. You sound familiar. Mr. Ashcroft I presume?
"We'll attract the necessary swing voters only if we present civil arguments"
ESBE: We are where we are, we arrived here, and we remain here on account of the death of OUTRAGE. I am outraged, and I will not only not apologize for it, but anyone who tells me to "watch what I say" is nothing less than a demonstrated enemy as far as I'm concerned.
"for or against candidates and positions. Yes, Democrats should debate candidates and issues,"
ESBE: Yes, let's debate how many Jews should be killed. 6 million? Nonesense! 3 million is far more reasonable isn't it. AND THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU AND YOUR ILK: You wish to play nice against the onslaught of murderous fascism. I haven't got time or tolerance for you.
"but must avoid invective, insults, self-righteous purity,"
ESBE: How's this: GO FUCK YOURSELF. Ask Uncle Dick to say he's sorry.
I'm not gonna bother with the rest of your pathetic milque toast whining here. You picked an argument with the wrong guy.
by
Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments)
on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 at 6:12:35 PM
5 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
