 |
|
Add to My Group
|
September 9, 2008 at 05:02:02
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 9/9/08: by Bernie Sanders Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
The corporate media would have us believe, based on their coverage, that the most important issues in this presidential campaign are political tactics and the "character" of the four candidates. But what is at stake right now is not primarily the life stories of Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden or Sarah Palin. An election is not a soap opera which deals with the trials and tribulations of the candidates and their family members. Election coverage must not descend into becoming a pre-game football show, one which deals only with "who's going to win" polling data and never-ending tactical discussions of "what the candidate must do" to win this or that state.
In a democracy, elections are not beauty pageants or reality shows, or soap operas for political junkies. Elections are the real business of democracy, and they should be about real things.
Without sounding too corny, what this election is about is the well-being of hundreds of millions of Americans and about what kind of country we will be leaving to our kids and grandchildren. And, at a time of global warming and severe environmental problems, this campaign is also about whether our planet survives in a condition that can sustain human life in the decades and centuries to come.
Given all that is at stake, as American citizens we must demand that the media not continue to trivialize our democratic process, dumb down coverage and, in the process, deflect attention away from the most important issues impacting our lives. This election must, first and foremost, be about the needs of the American people. As Vermont's senator and the longest-serving Independent in American congressional history, let me lay out what I believe some of those issues are:
In the United States today, the middle-class is shrinking, poverty is increasing and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider. There are many economists who believe that, if we do not reverse course, for the first time in modern history our children will have a lower standard of living than their parents. Our country also has the dubious distinctions of having both the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world and more people in jail than any other country. Question: What specific ideas do the candidates have as to how we can grow the middle class and create good paying jobs, while protecting our children and the most vulnerable members of our society?
In the United States today, 46 million Americans have no health insurance, even more are underinsured, and we are the only major country on earth without universal coverage. Health care costs are soaring despite the fact that we already spend twice as much per person as any other country. Many employers, large and small, are now cutting back on the coverage they provide their employees making a tough economy even tougher for millions of workers. Question: Do the candidates believe that all Americans are entitled to health care as a right of citizenship? What are their plans for assuring that quality health care is delivered in a cost-effective manner?
Most of the leading scientists in the world believe that global warming, if not reversed, will lead to severe weather disturbances, flooding, drought, hunger, and mass human migration. These scientists also believe that global warming is a more threatening problem than previously perceived, and that bold action is needed to reverse greenhouse gas emissions. Question: Do the candidates believe that global warming is real and a man-made phenomenon? If so, what specific actions are they proposing to reverse global warming? On a related energy issue, what ideas do they have to make our country energy independent?
The United States is now in the sixth year of the war in Iraq, the Taliban is gaining military strength in Afghanistan, the political situation in Pakistan is becoming more unstable, Russia and Georgia have just completed a bloody war, and little progress has been made in easing tensions between Israel and her neighbors. Question: What are the principles that will guide the candidates' foreign policy? What specific steps will they take to combat international terrorism? How will they restore America's position in the international community and help create a more peaceful world?
These are just a few of the major issues facing our nation. I realize there are many more. It seems to me that no matter what our political views are, or what we may consider the most important issues to be, as a democratic society we must demand of the media and the candidates that this campaign focus on the great challenges facing our country and the world. Gossip, melodrama and political tactics just won't do.
www.sanders.senate.gov/buzz
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 34 comments |
|
In a democracy, Bernie,
the people would have control over government. The United States of America is not a democracy. Although some states do, our Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, when it denied us the right to vote for President and Vice-President, did not even grant us the right to vote for the Electors who can vote for them. And that Supreme Court, by the way, is an appointed rather than elected body. Do you know what the qualifications are to be a Justice of the Supreme Court? There aren't any. In a democracy the highest law of the land from which there is no appeal couldn't be an unelected body unaccountable to the people. Some claim that although we're not a democracy, we're a republic, which is still a democratic form of government where the people exercise their power through their elected representatives. Do you know Rep. John Olver (D-MA)? When presented with petitions from 80% of his constituents asking that he support impeachment, he said, "Spare me! I'm fully aware that the overwhelming majority of my constituents support impeachment. I will not." Does that sound like a republic to you? The only way we can hold our representatives accountable (if they don't happen to be good guys like you, and most are not), is by waiting until the next rigged election to try to vote them out of office. During their terms in office we have no way to hold them accountable whatsoever. It is as if a thief stole your credit cards, ran up huge bills, and when you reported the theft you were told that not only could you not cancel the cards for the next two years, but the thief was, by law, allowed to continue to run up unauthorized debts on your cards during that time, for which you would be responsible. Republic? Democracy? You're a nice guy, Bernie, and Vermont is a great place, but the United States is not in any sense of the word a democracy. And as for the elections, there's are many reasons why you're an Independent rather than a Democrat or a Republican. Nobody needs to tell you what a farce the two major parties and their rigged elections are. What good would media coverage and candidate focus on the issues do in an oligarchy like ours where the people have no way to hold their "elected" officials accountable during their term in office? Candidates can promise anything during their campaigns, but once "elected" they have to do whatever their party leadership tells them to do, not what their constituents want. You're in the middle of it, Bernie. You know that Congress is a con game, and that despite shills like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul drawing in the suckers so that the cons can take their money, the game is rigged. Congress is nothing but a bureaucracy set up to shield the oligarchs from our wrath. It's the public relations department of America, Inc. What's a nice guy like you doing in a place like that? ;) by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:20:32 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: I submit that Senator Sanders' presence in our government...
is evidence that Democracy yet lives. He certainly was not the Neo-conservative choice. As most Americans do, you assign too much importance to the executive offices at the neglect of legislative offices. Assign priority to those offices as the framers of the Constitution did. The House of Representatives is first, the Senate is second, the Executive third and the Judiciary is fourth. Concentrate your effort on the legislative races. They can't steal them all. Vote for the best presidential candidate, but don't make it entire scope of the election season. But vote! It is your right, and your duty! To refuse your duty in this regard is to throw away your future, to throw away your citizenship and to assist those who would destroy this country. by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:51:22 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Is it me, or is it the Democratic Party, John?
In a recent quick-link, Facing Veto, Democrats Drop Plan for Vote on Child Bill the New York Times said: WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats have scrapped plans for another vote on expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, thus sparing Republicans from a politically difficult vote just weeks before elections this fall. “We are not going to change any votes” on the health insurance bill, said Representative Rahm Emanuel, at right with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Steny H. Hoyer last fall. Before the summer recess, Democrats had vowed repeatedly to force another vote on the popular program. But Democrats say they have shifted course, after concluding that President Bush would not sign their legislation and that they could not override his likely veto. Are they wrong, John? Is the Democratic Party assigning "too much importance to the executive offices at the neglect of legislative offices"? Or could at least part of the reason that Congress usually gives Bush-The-Decider everything that he wants and is protecting him from impeachment be that his branch is more important than their branch? by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:06:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: What is the difference between Nancy Pelosi...
taking impeachment "off the table", and your efforts to throw the election to McCain, ensuring that the coverup continues? by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:45:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I believe that is a violation of OEN rules, John.
John Sanchez wrote: What is the difference between Nancy Pelosi... taking impeachment "off the table", and your efforts to throw the election to McCain, ensuring that the coverup continues? Comparing me to the Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who is trying to throw the election to McCain by taking impeachment off the table, is a personal attack on me and a false one. I have always supported impeachment and I advocate not voting. In particular I advocate not voting for any political party that does not wholeheartedly support impeachment, such as the Republicans and the Democrats. I agree with you that Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Congressional Democratic Party leadership have been deliberately protecting Bush from impeachment because they want to throw the election to McCain, but I am no longer a Democrat and I don't follow their party line, support their agenda to throw the election to McCain (the same way they threw the previous two presidential elections to Bush), or vote for their Bush-loving war criminal candidates. Comparing me to Nancy Pelosi is a scurrilous personal attack and completely despicable on your part, John. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:20:40 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Come off it.
I compared the result of your actions to the result of Nancy Pelosi's actions and the comment went no further. However, I'll interpret my comment if you have too much difficulty properly doing so. My premise is that in a John McCain administration, there will be no investigatiion or prosecution of George W. Bush, Dich Cheney and all of their confederates for the high crimes and misdemeanors that they have so clearly committed. Your misguided efforts to convince Americans, and particularly progressives and Democrats to forsake their citizenship and be derelict in their duty to vote in this election threatens to ensure a McCain victory. That would have the effect of removing that investigation and prosecution from the table. Nancy Pelosi has announced a similarly misguided policy that impeachment and the congressional investigation that goes with it are off the table. Is that clearer for you? I still have difficulty believing that this explanation on my part was necessary and that your protest is anything more than a Rovian inspired substitute for argument. Karl Rove is, after all another who shares your objective of reducing the progressive vote as much as possible. by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:46:48 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No, you come off it, John.
John wrote: I compared the result of your actions to the result of Nancy Pelosi's actions and the comment went no further. However, I'll interpret my comment if you have too much difficulty properly doing so. Yes, you did, and that is a scurrilous attack on me and your premise is completely false. Pelosi supports the two-party system that is carrying out wars of aggression, and I do not. My premise is that in a John McCain administration, there will be no investigatiion or prosecution of George W. Bush, Dich Cheney and all of their confederates for the high crimes and misdemeanors that they have so clearly committed. That is true, but it is also true for an Obama administration. Since Obama is committed to continuing the war crimes, he is not going to investigate and punish himself and his Democratic and Republican collaborators in Congress. He will uphold the Democratic Party precedent, as Bill Clinton did before him, and pardon everyone in the outgoing Republican administration. Obama is not a man to break with precedents. Your misguided efforts to convince Americans, and particularly progressives and Democrats to forsake their citizenship and be derelict in their duty to vote in this election threatens to ensure a McCain victory. That would have the effect of removing that investigation and prosecution from the table. Excuse me? You already admitted that it was Pelosi and the Democrats, not McCain and the Republicans who took investigation, prosecution, or even impeachment off the table. How can you accuse McCain of doing something that Pelosi has already done? Nancy Pelosi has announced a similarly misguided policy that impeachment and the congressional investigation that goes with it are off the table. So why are you encouraging people to vote for her political party, if not to reward them for having taken impeachment and investigation off the table? Is that clearer for you? I still have difficulty believing that this explanation on my part was necessary and that your protest is anything more than a Rovian inspired substitute for argument. Karl Rove is, after all another who shares your objective of reducing the progressive vote as much as possible. The progressive vote? People who vote for the political party of Bush and Rove, or for the political party of Nancy Pelosi, who took investigation and impeachment off the table and whose candidate is committed to continuing the same high crimes and misdemeanors as Bush, are progressives? I guess your dictionary must be different from mine. It is people like you, John, who keep encouraging others to repeat the same mistakes over and over again, who are standing in the way of progress. You admit that it was the Democrats who took impeachment off the table, yet you are encouraging people to vote for the Democrats on the grounds that if they don't, the Republicans will do what the Democrats have already done? And you expect people to take you seriously? by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:57:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I stand by my statements...
and reiterate that it is people like you who are assissting the real enemies of the American people whether you realize it or not, whether you intend it or not. by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 6:04:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Stand right there, John.
I'd been hoping you would stand by your statements, John, which is why I didn't flag your first comment. It is obviously people like you, whether you realize it or not, whether you intend it or not, who are assisting the real enemies of the American people, by urging people to vote for the political party that took impeachment off the table, on the grounds that if the political party that has already taken impeachment off the table isn't elected, the other party "might" take impeachment off the table. You are urging people to vote for the Democrats on the grounds that the Republicans might do what the Democrats have already done. So stand right there by your statements, John, so that everyone can see the type of person you are and your totally illogical and ridiculous reasoning, along with your scurrilous name-calling and accusations, just in case anyone had mistakenly thought that the sort of person who votes for Democrats might be more intelligent or progressive than the people who vote for Republicans. The last time I looked at Rob's demographics, 64% of opednews readers did not identify as Democrats. I want you to keep standing by your statements to ensure that those of us who, unlike the Democrats, actually oppose the Republicans, those of us who, unlike the Democrats, will not defend or protect the Republicans, and those of us who will not collaborate with the Republicans the way that the Democrats do, have a clear illustration of how Democrats like yourself ape the Rovian tactic of accusing others of doing what you yourself are doing, and then accuse others of Rovian tactics. It is the marvel of the internet that your words remain there in all their obvious hypocrisy, so that those of us who can think and reason logically can see you for what you are and your party for what it is. Keep standing by your statements, John, because I've been referring people from other topics and other websites to come see you discredit yourself and the Democratic Party in your own words. This is priceless! And he's serious, folks -- nobody could make this stuff up. ROFLMAO! by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Thursday, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:45:59 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: As you giggle yourself into a corner...
upholstered with your snark, consider what standing you have to comment at all as you reject your own citizenship. by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 11, 2008 at 8:37:53 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Rejecting a corrupt duopoly,
and rejecting rigged elections is not the same as rejecting citizenship, John. It is nobody's civic duty to vote in rigged elections. It is nobody's civic duty to vote for President -- particularly since the Constitution FORBIDS U.S. citizens from voting for President. In 2000 and 2004, Bush was installed without the votes even being counted. You may consider it your civic duty to cast a vote that has no bearing on who becomes President, in an election where the only presidential candidates with a chance of winning are committed to war crimes, torture, job outsourcing, deregulation, the erosion of civil rights, and other Democratic/Republican bipartisan policies to wreck this country, but many of us don't think that it is our civic duty to vote in rigged elections for candidates committed to destroying America. It is the Democrats, the Republicans, and people like you who are destroying this country, in part by fraudulently placing names on the ballot in presidential races when our Constitution FORBIDS U.S. citizens from voting for President or Vice-President, and by trying to make people think that their vote is a voice in government when it has no bearing whatsoever on who is installed in office and, by law, needn't even be counted. Thinking that it is your civic duty to vote in rigged elections in a country whose Constitution doesn't even grant you the right to vote, and which specifically prohibits you from voting for President and Vice-President, is the sort of foolishness that is always going to get people giggling, John. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Thursday, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:24:36 PM (0+)
|
|
As a slave would demand of his master...
We have no political power to demand anything of the government or the media. The same folks own both. The elections ARE a soap opera and a sport, carefully managed to suck in as many willing participants as possible in order to legitimize the whole charade. The only viable threat to the status quo is withdrawal of consent; non-participation. Boycott the elections. Refuse to be an "extra" in their Hollywood production. by Jim Eldon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 253 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:35:45 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Jim you sound like a right-wing shill
That is exactly what the right-wing neocons are hoping for. They want people to be disenfranchised and not vote. The less people participate and vote the more power that the neocons can consolidate and grab. No one here including Senator Sanders is suggesting that the current system is perfect but it is all we have. IF we "progressives" don't take back the country the "Evangelicals" and neo-nuts WILL. Plain and simple!! Boycotting the election is EXACTLY the same as giving the keys of your house, your planet, and all that you hold dear to a bunch of incompetent right-wing tools. by E. Nelson (40 articles, 8 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 511 comments [57 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: If we don't vote, the bad guys will win?
If we DO vote, the bad guys will still win. There are no good guys, just lesser evil guys. And these days you need a micrometer to measure how much less evil they might actually be. In democratic countries with honest elections, the bad guys would like it if the good guys didn't vote. Here in the United States where at least 80% of all votes cast are counted by computerized central tabulators that can undetectably flip the votes from one candidate to another, and where there is nothing that people can do to prevent a fraudulently elected candidate from being sworn into office or to remove them once they are installed, the bad guys WANT people to vote. The more votes cast, the more votes the computers can flip from lesser evil candidates to greater evil candidates. The reason that undemocratic countries hold elections is so that they can pretend that they are democratic countries and that the puppets of the oligarchs that rule them are democratically elected and have the support of the people. Only by boycotting the election could the American people, 90% of whom disapprove of Congress, demonstrate that disapproval. If you vote for something you don't approve of, it looks to all the world as if you approve of it because you voted for it. That's why it is so strange that while most Americans disapprove of the wars, almost half of us will vote for one of two candidates committed continuing the wars we claim to disapprove of. How can you show that you disapprove of something by voting for it? by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:36:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Thank you.
It is just a big game to big media. Instead of turning off the TV, the public has jumped in with both feet -- swaying day by day to the beat of the pundits. Wake up. America. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3104/2823111369_064d9c2c6f.jpg?v=0 by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:44:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Thank you Senator Sanders
Thanks Senator Sanders for all your hard work on "progressive" issues. I listen to you as much as I can on the Thom Hartman show and I can't imagine how much better this country would be if we had 5 more Senators with your vision and intellect. by E. Nelson (40 articles, 8 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 511 comments [57 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:43:55 AM (0+)
|
|
Anna Nicole Smith Would Be Proud
In the selection of Sarah Palin, we see how Karl Rove's RNC is merging personality driven sensationalism with presidential politics. As Fox-TV has proven for over a decade, Americans are more likely to gravitate to reality-show antics then substance. What most people don't realize, is that Rove's RNC office controls not only McCain's campaign and the Fox Network, but the office of the President, half of Congress and a slate of conservative talk show personalities. Gore's latest book made the point that we are deliberately being distracted. Most recently by small-town scandal and intentionally divisive ongoing debates (abortion, gun rights, etc.), but the bigger point is that we are NOT talking about the economy, the federal deficit, America's image abroad and the interests of future generations of Americans. Palin's explosive "Q-rating" (demand for appearances in media) has led the RNC to grant access only to those networks who show her deferential treatment. In the meantime, video has surfaced of Palin standing next to her pastor while he predicted Americans will flee to Alaska during the rapture. Palin also stated that God wanted us to fight the Iraq war and wanted her personally-approved pipeline deal to go through. Bernie Sanders cannot hope to get his message out when he's competing with Fox TV, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, George Bush, Dick Cheney, ABC, NBC, CBS and the military-industrial PR machine. by Gustav Wynn (77 articles, 65 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 421 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:08:20 AM (0+)
|
|
The media sees it all as a game
And the media is beholden to both those in power and advertisers/corporations who have a stake in how information is disseminated to the public. The main stream media, with few exceptions, (Olbermann, Maddow), has completely lost sight of their noble responsibilities as the Fourth Estate and instead is bent on entertainment, albeit entertainment that the Murdochs etc of the world can skew for their own ends. The silence in the media over the RNC protests and arrests of journalists, Sarah Palin's background information, and the lies repeated by the McCain campaign, has made it glaringly plain that the information the media spews out is controlled, edited, and intentionally silenced. It seems as if we the people need to form a vast and powerful corporation of our own: The People of the U.S. INC, and a PO Box in the Cayman Islands, and paid lobbyists to boot in order to make a difference in our own "democracy": in other words: our republic, of the people for the people is on its last gasping breath. And in this last gasp, yes, we must vote, we must use the system, because the only way to prevent another fake presidential election is to vote in numbers sufficient to overcome the coming attempt to steal this election by the Rovians roving our country. If Obama wins in Nov. but continues the Bush agenda virtually unchanged the question I ask: will this dis-empower and demoralize all of us or will it challenge us? If McCain wins in Nov. will the upcoming Police State, (as evidenced by the actions at the RNC), cause us to cower in silence or anger us into action? We will soon see one way or the other. by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:24:51 AM (0+)
|
|
Re: It is all about derivatives
by Drew Terry (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 125 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:35:23 AM (0+)
|
|
Drew Terry - Uh, maybe you should have....
submitted this as an article. That is the longest comment I've ever seen on OEN!!! Not sure how that info ties into Bernie's article and the subjects people were discussing here - though it does give one another insight into the Fannie/Freddie debacle. by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:44:12 AM (0+)
|
|
What about free speech?
First of all, thank you Bernie Sanders!! Thank you for your vocal bravery in calling for the overturning of the unconstitutional Patriot Act. In light of the Tianenmen Square-like police violence at St Paul and the RNC, and police break-ins to homes prior to it and also during the floods in New Orleans, may I urgently appeal to you, Bernie Sanders, to get people involved in overturning the police-empowering Patriot Act. America must be restored as The Land of the Free. Lacking that, we won't even be talking about saving the whales, global warming, healthcare or poverty. Police are breaking in to homes and getting away with it where criminals would be jailed. Police are brutalizing people for free speech, a major crime. Major. THIS IS NOT FUNNY! by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:20:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Bernie is a great man, Kathryn.
But he is not a Saviour or Messiah. He is only one of 435 votes. He happens to be a vote not under control of the major political party leaderships, but one vote cannot change the fact that the major parties control most of the votes in Congress. Bernie represents his constituents rather than the major political parties and their corporate sponsors because he chooses to do so. Most Members of Congress represent their political parties and corporate sponsors rather than their constituents because they can and their constituents have no way to hold them accountable. Did you ever read my little essay, The Fable of Lanova Messiah, about how Congress works, Kathryn? It is impossible to bring about change by working within an institution that is designed to prevent change. A good person in Congress is like a race horse in a tar pit. No matter how good that race horse is, don't bet on it to win. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:21:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: bernie is only partly independant
bernie does not represent all the interests of his consituents, and he is certainly partly controlled by the democratic party. I have been involved in the impeachment movement for almost 2 years in vermont, and the entire congressional delegation has opposed anything that would lead to impeachment. I have tolked to staff of each of them, and none can refute the factual arguments and constitutional abuses that have clearly been perpetrated, yet they all give political excuses. Also the vermont legislature was voting on impeachment (one poll had soemthing like 64% of vermonters supporting impeachment) and the state senate voted overwhelmingly in faver, but the speaker of the house after being forced to allow a vote by public outcry arraneged one with no debate and no testimony so that she could make sure it did not pass. I am sure the national democratic party was twisting her arm and our congressional delegation, including sanders did NOTHING to follow the will of the people of the state. While i respect bernie and Leahy and Welch in a number of areas they are astonishingly unconcerned about the constitution, and this is because of political opportunism by the democrats who don;t want to look partisan by demanding accountability for the Bush administration by Tony Duncan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 58 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:15:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Interesting, Tony.
Thanks for the inside scoop from Vermont. Tony Duncan wrote: While i respect bernie and Leahy and Welch in a number of areas they are astonishingly unconcerned about the constitution, and this is because of political opportunism by the democrats who don;t want to look partisan by demanding accountability for the Bush administration Uh-oh. The Democrats don't want to look partisan? Has anybody ever told them that by asking people to vote for them instead of voting for Republicans, they make themselves look VERY partisan? Of course they're not partisan, but if they really wanted to look nonpartisan the first thing they should do is stop asking people to vote for them. It gives a false impression of partisanship that, if they really don't want to appear partisan, they should discontinue immediately. ;) by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:09:03 AM (0+)
|
|
REALLY???
This Election is Not a Soap Opera or a Football Game: It is About the Future of Our Country Actually it IS a soap opera... We have some of the elements that make great drama.. We have Comedy, SEX, not much action, but it is there... Is there ANYONE on these boards that truly thinks there is a dimes worth of difference between what McCain will do vs what Obama will do? Corporate America has allowed us permission to vote for two candidates... Not just any two candidates, but two of the worst candidates in the HISTORY of the United States, and THAT IS SAYING SOMETHING given recent times.... Anyway, the future of this country has been decided, and the two clowns at the top of the ticket will have nothing to do other than play ball... Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:55:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Really??
Steve I know you would like us to believe that but we both know it is not true. Name one corporate interest that Barack Obama is beholden to. I can give you at least three that McCain will be beholden to. by E. Nelson (40 articles, 8 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 511 comments [57 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:57:26 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: so Obama is NOT a Democrat?
He is beholden to GE he is beholden to Big Pharmaceuticals he is beholden to the Lawyer Lobby he is beholden to every special interest the Democrat Party is beholden to. Casinos and gambling, Teachers unions... He is beholden to them all... If you want to see if there is any sort of bias in the media, just take a look behind which candidates they put their money.... So, if you don't believe me, just take a look at "opensecreds.org" that is a site that keeps track of who is financing whom... Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:01:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: E Nelson- Obama is beholden to
Far more than just three corporate interests Just for starters though 1. Big Pharma 2. Coal Industry 3. Nuclear Power Industry Not to mention the corporations behing the 361 seperate corporate money bundlers that raised him $98 million LAST YEAR alone. Wake up by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:36:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: One other Big Thing
You also might list who's running Him -- Zbigniew Brzinski (whatever the spelling, the relationship is telling). by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:44:45 PM (0+)
|
|
"My good friend" the Senator from Vermont
(Excuse it. I'm dreaming of running for the Senate and am practicing speaking out of both sides of my mouth.) Currently, Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold are my favorite Senators and I hope they know it. After the calamitous 2004 election, I decided I would keep an eye on the Senate as the only government body which wasn't totally corrupted by Republican arrogance. There were some successes, mostly in the evasion of total presidential bill writing. Now that it's time for another presidential pick and we have a few more Democrats in the Senate, the upper chamber doesn't seem as relevant to me. For a president, I want a man or woman of any ethnicity who can see the history of the United States and connect that history to the events in today's world. No one is going to get a cent from me for campaign buttons or T-shirts. If I read something a candidate has written, I will take that into account. Since 1960, I have thought about Senators running for the presidency. Two young men, buddies in some collegial way, were beating each other over the heads about a couple of Pacific outposts, while I wanted a discussion of civil rights. I read both their books. Curiously, things worked out pretty well during the Sixties. As I think back on that time, I've often wondered what would have happened if the election had gone the other way. (With a 22-year history of living in Chicago, I'll stop right there.) The best books dealing with the Kennedy/Johnson legacy are, for me, Taylor Branch's trilogy of the King Years. Actions took place first, and then followed legislation. Branch outlines how Jack sent Bobby out to do the real work. Dr. King had a position on how change would come, but it took people like Myles Horton to help him understand how the people can forge a path. When the Senators' Senator came in for the final wrapup, civil rights law codified what the people wanted. However, Lyndon Johnson got sloppy, and as the third volume of the trilogy shows easily, leaders cannot stand on the horns of a dilemna. If our current contenders have learned anything about the history of war and peace in the United States, they should have learned that Americans are disenchanted with oppressive military spending, and maybe also with the destructive action. It takes no think tanks to tell us that the United States is driving itself into subservience through imperial grandstanding. What I wonder is: Who has the nerve to tell us Americans that changing to constructive commerce will take time and that we may lose an easy living while we change from a military economy? by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1851 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:19:56 PM (0+)
|
|
Thanks, Cheryl -
I submitted the post as a diary entry when I submitted the comment. The "fools gold" profits would be discovered for the "fools gold" losses they actually are. Does that explain the actual crisis of Fannie/Freddie? Why the "news" coverage is a constant soap opera? Why the elections are reported in war and sports metaphors? To keep our eye off the ball (sports metaphor pun intended). Thanks! by Drew Terry (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 125 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:46:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Physics...
...will "decide" the future of "our" country. by waldopaper (15 articles, 3 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 609 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:03:11 PM (0+)
|
|
perfect pic, Kathlyn
elections and election coverage should be all that Bernie Sanders says... but I can't escape the knowledge that our electoral system itself is a joke. Latest report: ‘Fatally Flawed’ Systems Await Voters: ‘Drastic Change Needed’ A new report, and video, has been issued by the Computer Security Group at the University of California, Santa Barbara, which shared in voting system reviews conducted by Ohio and California last year. "All voting systems recently analyzed by independent security testers have been found to contain fatal security flaws. There is need for drastic change. The very core of our democracy is in danger." here's another fave cartoon of mine: by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:45:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Well, yes
American politics has been both a soap and a ball game ever since that guy from California, WHO USED TO SELL BORAXO!!!!!, and the DNC sold us such crap as trickle down economics. The commercials are the media pundits and they are worse than the show. by Ivan Hentschel (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 302 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:27:36 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
