You Are Right And Wrong

In my humble opinion, both Hillary and Obama will give us no real change. Sorry, but its true. They are both backed by the MIC, AIPAC, and other "Special Interest groups". I don't know if you have been reading what I have been writing lately, but the disparity of wealth in this country is phenomonal, and getting worse. The top 10% hold 71% of this nations wealth! That means 90% have to share the other 29%! I see nothing in these candidates that will rectify this situation.

But yes, we must hold together. That means finding good candidates to vote for, not only for President, but in local,State, and federal positions. We can vote third party for the General Election and split our votes for the best in other areas. A real Democratic Party would be nice instead of the one we have now. Today again they caved on FISA. What makes them any better than the Republicans? Maybe it is time we stopped supporting a party that spits in our face? This has been going on for decades now. Maybe its time we Progressives found a better home.

I was a lifelong Democrat. No longer. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me for years, shame on me. I'm tired of the rhetoric and so are a lot of other people Rob. How much more can we take of a spineless, uncaring, professional political party that takes money from everyone we are against? You can't expect everyone to rise up and cheer after the miserable record of doing nothing but vote in lockstep with the right.

There is a reason people feel the way they do. The Dems are just not cutting it anymore. You hear it everywhere. You read it here on OpEd. "Lessor of two evils?" I'd rather go down fighting in the streets than break my principles and do that again. Just call me a radical.

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 11:57:28 PM
 

No More Passes for Democrats

I cannot agree more fully with the above Post. The Democrats have been treating their consituents like crap, and I will no longer take it. Today, they caved in on the FISA bill. This is just another example of how rotten they are to their constituents, and then you ask someone like me to pull it together and vote for them in November. No sir I just won't do it any longer, because I know how rotten I will feel next year when Barack Obama starts breaking every promise he will make from here until the election. Oh yes, and there is a matter of the Supreme Court. What makes you so sure these so called Democrats will put progressive Supreme Court Judges in? With the way they have treating the Democratic Base, they will probably put in right leaning judges just to appease the Republicans. No sir, I won't be made a fool of any longer.  I have been a life-long Democrat, but the The Democratic Party has lost my vote. I will not vote for Hillary or Obama come November. And, I do not feel the least bit sorry for that decision.

by Leeann LoFaso (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 1:15:21 AM
 

Expand The Movement....

....minus those who cling to the remnants of a dying system. A person who would vote for Mrs. Rodham-Clinton is no wiser than one who voted for George W. Bush because he was a Jesus Juicin' Christian.

 Time is here for an alliance with libertarians and principled conservatives who have an interest in ending the wars, retoring the constitution and ensuring that the criminals on Wall Street and in Washington are brought up on trial for their crimes against the American people.

EE

by Ed Encho (7 articles, 17 quicklinks, 56 diaries, 391 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 5:07:48 AM
 

it's the vote

We will be told who was elected on the corrupt black box voting and asked to be loyal Americans and back the chosen winner. No thanks ,as a past Nader voter I object to the corrupt choices we face each election. 99% can be against the war but it will continue until the last buck to be made is made.

by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 212 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 6:12:54 AM
 

Third party advocates

The anger the previous commenters have expressed demonstrates just what I was atlking about. In spite of their opinions, most liberals and progressives WILL vote for the democratic primary winner. I would guess that third party turnout will be less than ever this election. People want to insure that the more evil of the two choices is not handed the most powerful job in the world, and rather than seeing it as the lesser of two evils, they see it as the profoundly better, more positive choice-- and like it or not, this is one of those framing differences-- the glass half full or half empty.

My point is, we are all in this together and all want to make the world a better place. We MUST remain civil and tolerant of other progressives and keep the conversation open. That means no name-calling, no incivility.

Tim started out talking opinion and morphed to claiming fact. No Tim. It's opinion. 

One thing that WILL change things is the possibility that Clinton wins because of superdelegates or because she is handed the Florida and Michigan elections. That could be the straw that breaks THIS camel's back. 

by Rob Kall (807 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1702 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 6:36:08 AM
 

Rob.....Great Article........

But whar we ALL need to do, Demo and Rep is to keep who ever informed and on note with the true issues and solutions that America wants addressed...If we can do that, maybe we have a chance so that everyday that I wake up I do not have to be witness to a Police officer throwing a child to the ground because he is skateboarding.

by Michael Morris (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 300 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 7:18:16 AM
 

effecting change

thanks rob for continuing to keep this dialogue going. this issue is one that really pulls at me. for years i felt the way you describe above.

2006 changed that for me though. i really don't think we could have been more let down and taken advantage of by the democratic party. many of us worked our asses off to give them a majority and they thanked us by continuing to fund an illegal war, not only not holding bush accountable for warrantless domestic spying, but granting him more powers to do so, falling into the trap of the torture debate rather than just purging the govt. of a criminal white house and reclaiming our constitution and so on - but, then you know that already.

for the last year i've been putting failed democrats on notice (Strike08). was thrilled to hear last night that Donna Edwards of MD upset Rep. Al Wynn in the Democratic primary.

that said, as we get closer to the elections, i'm once again getting nervous about not supporting, in the end, the "lesser of two evils." i did vote for obama in the primary because i'd rather have him than clinton. this is what keeps spinning in my head right now: we accuse the right-wing of fear mongering and they have rightfully earned that label. but it seems there's a lot of that going around the dem party too. that the world will end if the dems lose. i'm not convinced things would be all that different today had they not won the congress in '06. but, yes mccain and his 10,000 year occupation of Iraq is indeed frightening.

so, i'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but my question to you and anyone else that wants to contribute is this: how then do we effect change within the democratic party? particularly if they know that in the end we will be there to cast a vote for them? yea they might, under pressure, start "talking" more progressively, but will they, have they followed through with their votes? hell, clinton couldn't even bother voting for the Dodd/Feingold amendment yesterday.

this is what i have contended for some time. sometimes real change has to hurt at first. maybe the democrats have to lose some serious ground before they realize they have got to start pleasing their base. no great change occurs without struggle. in the past when the dems have lost big ones they chose to go more centrist which has gotten us where we are now. they need to wise up and start moving to a more progressive stance, but what is their incentive if we, like abused domestic partners say, "i know i've been mistreated, but i don't think anyone else will treat me better."

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (19 articles, 23 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 351 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 8:50:28 AM
 

Re: effecting change

Well put Cheryl.

If I could just note, Hillary Clinton was in Wor-shing-ton yesterday and didn't even bother to vote on the FISA and amnesty bill. I suppose she wanted to remain neutral? What does that tell you.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_

by Munich (0 articles, 66 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 830 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 1:05:21 PM
 

Unless and until progressives get serious...

and go for broke, the question is whether you prefer a long slow slide into hell, and then oblivion, or the fast track advocated by Bush?

"And the former Kucinich, Gravel, Edwards and Paul supporters who are leaning third party now, can be even more vicious, viewing both Obama and Hillary as corporate puppets."

I'm reasonably past being vicious about the two puppets (though I was an gnat's ass from shouting obsceneties at their babbling drivel on tv in a spa last night).

Right now we should stop spinning wheels, banging our heads on the wall, or otherwise acting insanely, and begin seriously educating the public about McKinney and Gravel, or even be talking about writing in Kucinich. Do this like there is no other choice--because in reality there isn't.

If we have something to lose by getting serious, I somehow missed the point. Worst case, we descend further into hell and a few more people will wake up. If that doesn't work, nothing will anyway.

I suggest pretending you are laying on your deathbed looking back on your life, while you mull these ideas over. Then pick your battle, and hide your light no more...

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 58 quicklinks, 121 diaries, 690 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 9:39:35 AM
 

The Dems no longer have a progressive in the race

Rob

You use the word 'progressive' pretty loosely. Maybe you should define it? It seems to mean anyone but a Republican!

You are probably right, third party efforts this year will be very challenging. Obama/Clinton despite their very mainstream voting records just by being female or African American will draw progressives to vote against their interests.

You seem to get it on Hillary -- she is not a progressive but a corporate Democrat. Indeed, she is get more money from the military-industrial complex than anyone else runnign.  But, you don't seem to get it yet on Obama yet.  I hope you'll look at his record and not judge him on his inspirational record or skin color.  If you do you will reach the same conclusion as you did with Hillary.

And, we are not saying either is the same as McCain.  McCain is clearly the most conservative in the race, but both Hillary and Obama are corporate funded and mainstream voters; neither promises an end to the Iraq occupation but merely withdrawal of some troops; neiher challenges the health insurance industry but put forward plans that enrich them; neither talks about free college education or universal pre-school; neither challenge the wealth divide in any significant way. 

Kevin

by Kevin Zeese (77 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 44 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 10:15:24 AM
 

The Real Obama

Progressive Review
February 12, 2008
ProRev.com

THE REAL OBAMA

MONEY, ECONOMY & LABOR

AUDACITY OF HOPE - "Conservatives and Bill Clinton were right about welfare"

PAUL STREET - He opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent.

Obama voted for a business-friendly "tort reform" bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations

THE NATION - John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are pledging substantial federal resources to stabilize the mortgage market and intervene on behalf of borrowers. Barack Obama's proposal is tepid by comparison, short on aggressive government involvement and infused with conservative rhetoric about fiscal responsibility. As he has done on domestic issues like healthcare, job creation and energy policy, Obama is staking out a position to the right of not only populist Edwards but Clinton as well. . . Though he has been a proponent of mortgage fraud legislation in the Senate, he has remained silent on further financial regulations. And much like his broader economic stimulus package, Obama's foreclosure plan mostly avoids direct government spending in favor of a tax credit for homeowners, which amounts to about $500 on average, beyond which only certain borrowers would be eligible for help from an additional fund. . .

Obama's disappointing foreclosure plan stems from the centrist politics of his three chief economic advisers and his campaign's ties to Wall Street institutions opposed to increased financial regulation. David Cutler and Jeffrey Liebman are both Harvard economists who served in the Clinton Administration, and they work on market-oriented solutions to social welfare issues. Cutler advocates improving healthcare through financial incentives; Liebman, the partial privatization of Social Security.

Austan Goolsbee, an economist at the University of Chicago who calls himself a "centrist market economist," has been most directly involved with crafting Obama's subprime agenda. . . Robert Pollin, an economist at the University of Massachussets, believes "these three advisers generally reflect Obama's very moderate economic program, similar to Clintonism." Wall Street apparently has come to a similar conclusion. Obama had received nearly $10 million in contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate sector through October, and he's second among presidential candidates of either party in money raised from commercial banks, trailing only Clinton. Goldman Sachs, which made $6 billion from devalued mortgage securities in the first nine months of 2007, is Obama's top contributor. When asked if Obama would hold these financial institutions accountable for losses incurred by homeowners and investors, his campaign refused to comment.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser

PAUL STREET - Obama has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and "other Wall Street Democrats" to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party.

IDEOLOGY

PAUL STREET - Obama was recently hailed as a "Hamiltonian" believer in "limited government" and "free trade" by Republican New York Times columnist David Brooks, who praises Obama for having "a mentality formed by globalization, not the SDS." . . .

POLITICS

PAUL STREET - He had to be shamed off the "New Democrat Directory" of the corporate-right Democratic Leadership Council by the popular left black Internet magazine Black Commentator.

He lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman's struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Obama has supported other "mainstream Democrats" fighting antiwar progressives in primary races

He criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

Obama "dismissively" referred-in a "tone laced with contempt"-to the late progressive and populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as "something of a gadfly."

He opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent.

WASHINGTON TIMES - Barack Obama, the senatorial candidate of 2004, might have a bone to pick with Barack Obama, the presidential candidate of 2008. Videotapes of debates and speeches that were obtained by The Washington Times show that Mr. Obama took positions during his Senate campaign on nearly a half-dozen issues ranging from the Cuba embargo to health care for illegal aliens that conflict with statements that he has made during his run for the White House.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Obama voted to make John Negroponte the National Intelligence Director.

PAUL STREET - He voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to Secretary of State.

He refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran.

WASHINGTON TIMES - In 2004, Mr. Obama told an audience at Southern Illinois University, "I think it's time for us to end the embargo with Cuba. . . It's time for us to acknowledge that that particular policy has failed." However, he stopped short of calling for an end to the embargo in a Miami Herald op-ed in August. He said he would rely on diplomacy, with a message that if a post-Fidel Castro government made democratic changes, the U.S. "is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo."

NEDRA PICKLER, ASSOCIATED PRESS - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists. . .

BUSH REGIME

AP- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney. . . "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.

HEALTH

PAUL STREET - Obama claims to oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry-at places like Kaiser and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Does Obama support the American scourge of racially disparate mass incarceration on the grounds that it provides work for tens of thousands of prison guards?

WASHINGTON TIMES - Mr. Obama told an AFL-CIO group in June 2003: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan." But in a recent debate he said he has never endorsed such a plan. "Senator Obama has always said that single-payer universal care is a good idea because it would increase efficiency in the system, but the problem is that it's not achievable," Mr. Vietor said.

CIVIL LIBERTIES

He voted to confirm Michael Chertoff as head of HSA

PAUL STREET - Obama voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act.

He opposed Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens.

WASHINGTON TIMES - In an October 2003 NAACP debate, Mr. Obama said he would "vote to abolish" mandatory minimum sentences. "The mandatory minimums take too much discretion away from judges," he said. Mr. Obama now says on his web site that he would "immediately review sentences to see where we can be smarter on crime and reduce the ineffective warehousing of nonviolent drug offenders."

WHAT OTHERS SAY

WASHINGTON LOBBYIST - Big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn't see him as a ‘player'. . . What's the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT

PAUL STREET - Obama assiduously supported the ethanol-promoting objectives of the Illinois-based firm Archer-Daniels Midland, which has provided him with private jets on at least two occasions. He has also defended the interests of Illinois' gigantic electrical firm Exelon, America's leading nuclear plant operator and a company that has given more than $74,000 to his campaigns.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Obama voted for a nuclear energy bill that included money for bunker buster bombs and full funding for Yucca Mountain.

DALLAS NEWS - Barack Obama says nuclear power should be explored as an energy option. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she's "agnostic" on whether more nuclear plants should be built. . . "They've gone from 'no' to 'yes, but,' and some even describe themselves as agnostics, and that's a big improvement," said Derrick Freeman, senior director of legislative programs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which supports the nuclear industry. . .

SOURCES OF FUNDING

PAUL STREET - His top career sponsors include Goldman Sachs, Exelon (a leading Midwestern utility and the world's leading nuclear plant operator), Soros Fund Management, J.P Morgan Chase & Co., a number of leading corporate law and lobbying firms (including Kirkland & Ellis, Skadden Arps, and Sidley Austin LLP), top Chicago investment interests (including Henry Crown & Co and Aerial Capital Management) and the like.

HIS BOOK

PAUL STREET - Obama relates youthful discomfort with his college roommates' "irresponsible" criticism of "capitalism" and then confesses respect for Ronald Reagan's supposed success in embodying what Obama calls "American's longing for order" (p. 31)

Obama commends "the need to raise money from economic elites to finance elections" for "prevent[ing] Democrats...from straying too far from the center" and for marginalizing "those within the Democratic Party who tend toward zealotry" (p. 38) and "radical ideas"

Obama praises fellow centrist Senators John F. Kerry (D-MA) and Hilary Clinton (D-NY) for "believing in maintaining the superiority of the U.S. military" and embracing "the virtues of capitalism" (p. 38). He applauds his "recognizably progressive" Third Way hero Bill Clinton for showing that "markets and fiscal discipline" and "personal responsibility [are] needed to combat poverty" (pp. 34-35).

Obama contends that defense of New Deal and Great Society programs is contrary to "the changing circumstances of globalization" (p.38).

Obama claims that the 1960s New Left expressed the same self-indulgent "more absolutism" (pp. 26-33) that animated the New Right.

The American people, Obama argues, harbor only modest expectation of their government (p.7), reflecting little concern (by Obama's account) with traditional left goals of social justice and equality.

In Obama's brand of "progressivism," serious concern over the nation's harsh disparities is consigned to leftist "cranks" and other assorted "unreasonable zealots" – people walking in the "absolutist" footsteps of Marx, the New Left, and (though Obama would never acknowledge this) the democratic socialist Martin Luther King, Jr.

Obama praises the United States' founders for "recognize[ing] that there were seeds of anarchy in the idea of individual freedom, an intoxicating danger in the idea of equality." If "everybody is truly free, without the constraints of birth or rank and an inherited social order," Obama asks, then "how can we ever hope to form a society that coheres?" (pp. 86-87)

The Bush-Cheney gang-bangers are "possessed," Obama says, "of the same mix of virtues and vices, insecurities and long-buried injuries as the rest of us."

Obama roots the greatness of America in its "free market" capitalist system and "business culture."

It is left to alienated carpers, "cranks" and "moral absolutists" of the "unreasonable" left (Obama's basic understanding of radicals) to observe the terrible outcomes of "our" distinctively anti-social (and incidentally heavily state-protected) "market system."

Obama criticizes "left-leaning populists" like "Venezuela's Hugo Chavez" for daring to think that developing nations "should resist America's efforts to expand its hegemony" and for trying to "follow their own path to development." Such dysfunctional "reject[ion] [of] the ideals of free markets and liberal democracy" will only worsen the situation of the global poor, Obama claims (p. 315).

by Kevin Zeese (77 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 44 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 10:17:18 AM
 

hey kevin

full disclosure - are you back working for nader?

thanks, though, for putting this out there. even people who are going to stick with obama need to know what to pressure him on and where he needs to shape up.

like the rest of them, obama was not sent from above to save us. that's up to us.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (19 articles, 23 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 351 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 3:26:45 PM
 

Gee Cheryl

A thoughtful and accurate listing of Barak Obama's feet of clay and that is th ebest you can do? Shame on your limited imagination.

By the by, is there anything wrong with supporting Nader? Or, for that matter, with responding as if you were actually an intelligent adult?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 6:55:17 AM
 

Whither the progressive movement?

I would echo the sentiments expressed by many above that the progressive agenda is not to be found in the Democratic Party, sadly.

I wish also to thank Mr. Zeese for his enlightening post confirming for me and, hopefully planting a seed among Obama supporters, that something is rotten in his campaign. If one actually wades past the "sermonizing and preaching" in Senator Obama's speeches one simply finds nothing of substance there. Obama, for me, is a symptom rather than a solution. It is a shame that moderates, centrists and progressives would flock to this neophyte as a reaction to the Bush years and to the lack of a real candidate  to support.

While I know in my heart that Rob Kall is a well meaning and very concerned  individual I must take issue with his position that , for progressives, the Dems are the be all and end all. I fear that this nations penchant for fascism, as defined by Mussolini as the merging of government and corporate forces, will force a prolonged struggle that will never be resolved by a single election and will, in fact, not be truly altered until things get so very bad for the majority that we force Jefferson's prediction to come true. A revolution may very well be necesary in the end, though a peaceful one is my hope.

As I have been repeating here, ad nauseum, the way forward for true progressive is through the growth of third party politics, voting for candidates pledged to put the interests of the electorate before those of the corporations that now write our legislation, decide our foreign policies and make guarranteed profit the watchword of our elected officials.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 11:47:22 AM
 

Harrumph!

I would denounce Mr. Zeese' comment for the blatant politicking that it is if I had not myself done the very same thing so often. I just used different names.

In any event, the general election options we are reduced to are these:

1. We can vote for a Democrat that we deem to be imperfect.

2. We can vote  for a Republican that we cannot stomach.

3. We can vote for a third party candidate for whom winning is on a very low order of probability.

4. We can organize our own party, which will likely take ten years of backbreaking effort to become competitive if the MSM smear campaigns don't push that back even further.

5. We can passively stay in our easy chairs on election day, looking for some TV programming that doesn't cover the election.

6. We can take on the United States Armed Forces to enforce our desire for positive change on the way to our final reward.

In truth, it boils down to change history or become it, and we're running out of time.

by John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1171 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 12:02:34 PM
 

Making the Choice

None of them mitght seem very palatable but there is another. Begin to get to know the American people before you begin to tell them what they should want and do. Politics is not simply about how we feel as individuals but also about how we can act together to create a public will that leads to change. Progressives hold on to much too much baggage instead of seeing how others feel.

 How else can you explain the separation of the "anti-war" movement from a large majority of the American people that is already opposed to the war.

by Martin Zehr (38 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 77 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 1:04:30 PM
 

You forgot something

the words "in my opinion". I frankly do not see your logic or share your belief that Progressives are somehow alienated from the average American, in fact Progressivism is quite the American tradition. That more of us are activist is a compliment and not ,as you imply with that "anti war" being alienated stuff, a hinderance.

Sounds to me like you have been sipping at the Limbaugh Kool Aid a bit....

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 at 7:00:37 AM
 

You misunderstand the mechanism

A vote for a third party candidate is not designed to win office, not yet and possibly not for years. It is to show the increasing disatisfaction with the status quo that is turning this nation into a third world country, destroying the middle class, dumbing down our children, wrecking havoc among the third world nations we still pillage and plunder at will.

Do you not understand that , as those who vote third party increase, and they do so each election cycle, the democrats, from whom many of these dissenting votes come, must reeexmanine their strategies and their platforms in order to win back our loyalty. What you suggest does nothing whatsoever to alter the direction of our nation.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 7:21:06 AM
 

The "conservatives" have balls

and we don't?  They know what they stand for and they stand up for it. It's time we do too.

My senator Daniel Inouye voted with the GOP to support FISA warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity. He brings home mucho pork to our state and most folks lick his boots.  (see how yours voted at:  http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/12/amnesty_day/index.html )

It's about time we question these "Democrats" about the values we imagine we share. I blasted Inouye in a letter to two state newspapers and I will never vote for him again.

The left-right orientation over social issues becomes less important when faced with the other dimension of authoritarianism. Those who support the corporate state should be called out and booted out. Our necks are on the line.

by Laudyms (0 articles, 807 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 401 comments) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 1:55:02 PM