Author
|
Topic: Antiwar Left Should Look Beyond Democrats (Read 1964 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
Antiwar Left Should Look Beyond Democrats
« on: 2007-12-13 07:58:47 » |
 |
[Blunderov] Some while back the Hermit recommended supporting Ron Paul. At first a little dubious, Paul's views on, for instance, abortion, were not to my taste; I quickly realised that the Hermit was way ahead of the pack on this. There is only one issue - the war.
Add to this that the Democrats deserve, IMV, to be most severely punished for their presumption in betraying their mandate for thirty pieces of nest-feathering legislation.
I would now go so far as to suggest that it would be better in most cases to vote for a Republican rather than a Democrat (with certain signal exceptions) on the premise that it is better to have a liar than a hypocrite in office. At least a lie is a statement that exists out in the open unlike the hypocrite's hidden agenda. Down with war-hag torturer Nancy Pelosi, class traitor and hypocrite-in-chief! Vote for Cindy. Or anybody else. Anne Coulter even.
antiwar.com December 13, 2007
Antiwar Left Should Look Beyond Democrats
by Joshua Frank
The left wing of the antiwar movement has some very serious problems, mainly our inability to recognize that the antiwar sentiment in the United States is resonating far beyond the confines of the so-called "left."
We cannot step back and effectively analyze the failures of the antiwar movement without peering under the hood of John Kerry's campaign in 2004. In essence, I think the majority of the left made a huge mistake on this issue by not opposing the Democrats; the movement supported a pro-war position by not opposing Sen. Kerry, who promised to continue the occupation of Iraq. There was no pressure on Kerry to alter his position on the war. No bird-dogging protests along the campaign trail. No outrage over his flip-flopping-let's-send-more- troops-into-battle rhetoric. Silence during election season is complicity. So let's be loud.
Despite his good intentions, Dennis Kucinich also failed us four years ago as well by abandoning his antiwar platform in favor of Kerry's pro-war candidacy. There is little reason to believe ol' Dennis won't do the same thing again this year if Hillary is the nominee. It was party politics before issues. Kucinich, unfortunately, wasn't an activist but a pawn in the Democrat's game. And the antiwar movement, or at least those who supported his bid, felt the damaging tremors for months afterward. Kucinich has been running in Iowa for almost nine years and is barely pulling in 1% of the vote. So what's the point?
The backlash to the Iraq war in this country is much larger than Kucinich's fan club, yet there is no real visible "moving" movement on the ground to end it. In many ways this is our fault as we are not willing to reach out to antiwar folks across the lines. A movement will never move forward with archaic sectarian factions or unyielding adherence to entrenched political philosophies. We must overcome our unwillingness to collaborate and collectively organize.
Case in point being the most visible and enthusiastic antiwar candidate in the country, which we consistently ignore: Rep. Ron Paul. Whether we agree or disagree with Paul's libertarian solution to every problem, we cannot disregard that his campaign is exploding owing to a broad coalition of people who oppose the war on terror. Paul has built a viable campaign, one that must move beyond the Republican primaries and into the general election. We can't let Paul become Kucinich of '04. The more independent antiwar voices we have running against the war machine the better we'll all be. And Paul has millions in his coffers to push an antiwar agenda.
This is not about Rep. Paul as an individual per se, but about his grassroots following. He's exciting many newcomers to the movement and that must be welcomed. We certainly don't share the same views with all who have latched on to his campaign, but on the issue of the Iraq war we are in total agreement. One doesn't not have to be a member of the left to oppose empire.
As a movement that allegedly grew out of WTO protests in Seattle, which was an unimaginable coalition of interests (labor, environmental, protectionist), one would think the left would be at the forefront in calling for such an alliance again today.
Whether we're beer-drinking rednecks from Tennessee or pot smokin' hippies from Oregon, we need to come together. And working to keep the movement away from supporting a pro-war candidate like Hillary Clinton is an important endeavor. One we shouldn't shy away from over the course of the next 11 months.
Rep. Paul's call to end the war needs to be supported. We need to monkeywrench the war issue so the media and the big party candidates cannot ignore it. There is a lot of work that must be done and we cannot be locked in the logic of old if we are to succeed.
Ending the war in Iraq will take substantial pressure from all sides of the political spectrum. From conservative veterans to radical peaceniks. Let's embrace this new reality. The antiwar movement is larger than the left, in fact so much so that we may be at the whim of a real grassroots resistance instead of at its forefront. And if that means bringing this ugly war to a screeching halt, I'm all for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Antiwar Left Should Look Beyond Democrats
« Reply #1 on: 2007-12-16 12:24:51 » |
|
[Blunderov] A noble Cindy Sheehan faces down the hideous Zionist war hag torturer Nancy Pelosi (Judascrat, California).
opednews December 16, 2007 at 07:55:42
Cindy Sheehan: Impeach Pelosi for collaboration with Bush administration on torture
by Abdus-Sattar Ghazali Page 1 of 1 page(s)
http://www.opednews.com
Newark, CA: Peace activist, Cindy Sheehan says that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi collaborated with the Bush administration in condoning torture because Pelosi knew about water boarding torture since 2002. “Even before becoming Speaker of the House of Representative, she said that impeachment of Bush is out of question.” She should be impeached for knowing about torture which dehumanize us all, she added.
Washington Post reported last week that in September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrat Rep. Jane Harman, was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Speaking at the fourth peace convention of the American Muslim Voice in Newark, CA, last Sunday, Sheehan reiterated that she will be running for Congress against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the congressional seat representing San Francisco.
On August 9, Cindy Sheehan announced that in 2008 she will run as an independent candidate against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). "I dedicate my candidacy to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan," Sheehan said. Sheehan later appeared on CNN to explain that she was running because "they're not making the administration change course in Iraq. They give him more money ... to wage the war. They're not holding him accountable."
In April 2004, Sheehan's son was killed in Iraq. Sheehan said that we are occupying Iraq, we were not invited by them. "This occupation of Arab-Muslim land shows how racist we really are," she said. "If we can justify it by saying it's OK to kill a million Iraqis, but at least my family is safe. ... No, that is not OK!"
Events, coalition building and groups like the American Muslim Voice are very important to Sheehan, she said, because they allow her "to tear down the boundaries whether they are real or fake that prevent us from having true and authentic relationships with each other."
Other speakers at the convention included Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer, who received an apology and restitution from the federal government after being held in jail for weeks spoke about racial and religious profiling after Sept. 11.
Brandon Mayfield, spoke about his quest for justice, not only for himself, but for all of us through his lawsuit against the government, demanding that the PATRIOT Act be declared unconstitutional.
The Mayfield case has been an embarrassment for the federal government. Last year, the Justice Department’s internal watchdog faulted the FBI for sloppy work in mistakenly linking Mayfield to the Madrid bombings. That report said federal prosecutors and FBI agents had made inaccurate and ambiguous statements to a federal judge to get arrest and criminal search warrants against Mayfield.
The U.S. government abused at least three powers during its investigation and arrest of Mayfield: (1) the expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in the PATRIOT Act, (2) National Security Letters and (3) the material witness statute.
Mayfield v. United States case has profound implications for civil liberties, executive power, the Patriot Act. Consequently, on Sept. 26, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken in Portland, Oregon ruled that using the act to authorize secret searches and wiretapping to gather criminal evidence - instead of intelligence gathering - violates the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. “For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law - with unparalleled success. A shift to a nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised,” Aiken wrote.
Welcoming Judge Aikin’s decision, Elden Rosenthal said: “Judge Aiken, in striking down the challenged provisions of the Patriot Act, has upheld both the tradition of judicial independence, and our nation’s most cherished principle of the right to be secure in one’s own home. We are relieved that the Bill of Rights can be honored and preserved even in times of perceived crisis.”
www.amperspective.com
Author and journalist. Author of Islamic Pakistan: Illusions & Reality; Islam in the Post-Cold War Era; Islam & Moderism; Islam & Muslims in the Post-9/11 American. Currently working as free lance journalist. Executive Editor of American Muslim Perspective: www.amperspective.com
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18646.htm
<snip>
Organized Money Vs. Organized People
By Cindy Sheehan
“At a time like this, scorching iron, not convincing argument, is needed.” Frederick Douglass
“Cindy’s campaign will prove that organized people can beat organized money” Reverend Lennox Yearwood; founder of the Hip Hop Caucus
10/31/07 "ICH" -- -- We are a nation that was created by “the rich, white, male property owners” and specifically for “the rich, white, male property owners.” Women and blacks, (who were counted as 3/5ths a person for representation purposes), were excluded from this self-proclaimed elitist establishment.
All throughout our history, however, our experience is imbued with the examples of courageous people who refused to be excluded and sacrificed everything for the human right to be heard.
From anti-slavery activism to the anti-Vietnam War movement, we have been blessed with individuals and groups who were willing to put their bodies on the line to support their rhetoric and oftentimes were murdered by the established order, which only seemed to always inflame the movements, not suppress them. The government always resisted the good that these movements tried to do and ultimately did do with dedicated sacrifices.
The establishment has forever tried to protect its status quo and personal wealth to the detriment of “we the people” who are the ones who suffer and sacrifice so the pigs of war can oink their way to the bank. With a fascist corporate media that supports the fascist corporate government, the voices of “we the people” are being silenced at an astonishing and frightening clip. In one very glaring and horribly tragic example, many people voted for George Bush in 2000, because they thought he was a “regular guy” and someone whom they would like to have a beer with. What a very unfunny irony as we have been constantly learning. The Bush family have been pro-fascist and anti-democratic all the way back to Grand-pappy Prescott. The media portrayed George as an “everyman” who “cutely” mangled our language with a “gee-whiz” smile that quickly became an “f’ y’all” smirk. This man who was foisted on us by the Corporatocracy has turned out to be worst disaster of our collective history.</snip>
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18619.htm
<snip>
Pete, Nancy, George and WWIII
By Cindy Sheehan
“You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”
-Pete Stark (D-Ca)
“While Members of Congress are passionate about their views what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate.”
-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, (D-Ca)
“But this — we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have (sic) the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”
-George Bush, War Criminal
10/25/07 "ICH" -- -- I cheered inside my head when I heard Rep. Stark unbelievably utter his words condemning the murderous acts of BushCo on the House floor, and I was impressed with his candor, compassion and what I consider an appropriate amount of rage and honesty. How many of us were not thinking the same thing about the S-CHIP votes? I knew, however, that it would not be long until Pete Stark had to apologize. It happened today.
I believe that Speaker Pelosi’s comments about Rep. Stark were utterly inappropriate and out of line. I believe that when she said that impeachment was “off the table,” her remarks were not only inappropriate but also antithetical to our Constitution and directly in opposition to why the people of this country put Democrats back in power.</snip>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Antiwar Left Should Look Beyond Democrats
« Reply #2 on: 2007-12-19 12:18:54 » |
|
[Blunderov] For me torture is a dealbreaker. Ron Paul passes the test. (Ron Paul: "Torture is Terror".) For me the war is a dealbreaker. Ron Paul passes the test. (Of course I'm not American and my agenda is different; ISTM that an isolationist America would be "a good thing".)
The call has gone out from some quarters of the Hive Mind for the (understandably) raging anti-war left to take a chill pill, wait for the elections, take Congress, take the Senate, take the presidency and then to have it all. I have two words to say to that: bullshit.
No more war/s of agression. Right now. No more torture (or torture enablers in office). Right now. Restore habeus corpus. Right now. This shit is NOT NEGOTIABLE. That ought to be obvious and if it isn't obvious to the Dems then they can just go to hell. IMO.
"Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."
~Dylan
opednews December 19, 2007 at 08:55:04
Confessions of a Defecting Democrat -- Why Ron Paul is the Perfect Candidate, and How Left Media Will be USED to Attack
by Bill Douglas Page 1 of 2 page(s)
http://www.opednews.com
Confessions of a Defecting Democrat -- Why Ron Paul is the Perfect Candidate, and
How the Left Media Will be USED to Attack Him
On the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, I donated to my first Republican candidate. I officially joined the Ron Paul revolution!
Ron Paul is threatening the American military empire in ways no Democrat of our time has ever been able to do. I don’t diminish Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel’s efforts, they have been courageous. However, they are limited by their party.
Of course the Democratic machine got rid of Gravel (the man who ended the draft during Vietnam) early, and with the Iowa Democratic Gestapo (I mean Party), we’ve now seen them do the same with Kucinich excluding him from the debates. The party lamely blamed it on the Des Moines Register, but I think we all know that the Dem Party could have insisted, if they wanted to have all their candidates present.
I doubt I could vote for another Republican, unless Ron Paul is the candidate, because I think we all know the GOP is completely corrupted, except for the shining knight that is Ron Paul.
However, my disillusionment with the Democrats began long ago. Many years ago former California governor, Jerry Brown, decided to run for the State Chair of the California Democratic Party. I was hired on his campaign as a professional staff member. We won. He got the Chairmanship.
Years later, I became a full time volunteer for Jerry Brown’s bid for the Democratic nomination for President. I came back to politics as a volunteer because Brown had the revolutionary idea of not accepting a donation over $100.
He traveled on a budget and stayed in ordinary people’s homes. He said when he was state chair of the California Democratic Party, he’d raised more money than any chair in history. But, no matter how much he raised, they always needed more. He said you lose touch with ordinary people, when you can only take time to sit down with those who can write a multi-thousand dollar check.
Brown was made fun of by corporate media. Sound familiar? Ala Kucinich, Gravel, and Ron Paul? THEN, Brown won the primary in Colorado, defeating candidate Bill Clinton. It shook the foundations of the power structure that runs this country. The acted fast, and with a sledge hammer.
Immediately Ted Koppel of Nightline, a huge influence in the nation before cable news dominated . . . had on several “masked men” who would not reveal their identity. They “claimed” to be former Governor Brown’s body guards when he was governor. They “claimed” he’d held wild pot parties at his Laurel Canyon home back then.
When I saw shocked friends, cooks, housekeepers, etc. of the former Governor going on television to vehemently deny that such “wild parties” had ever occurred, I knew they were telling the truth. Anyone who knew Brown or worked with or for him, knew that the allegations were lies. When I worked for him, I had to walk away from his house to smoke a cigarette, a tobacco cigarette, let alone anything else. He’d trained to be a Jesuit priest before entering politics and was the straightest arrow I ever met. Someone wanted Bill Clinton to get the nomination, because they wanted big money to continue its reign in America.
When I went to the Orange County Democratic Party headquarters to get precinct maps for our Brown for President campaign, I was denied them by smug party officials. I was ordered out when I began yelling the fact that the Clinton campaign was being given preferential treatment by the party hacks.
So, the Democratic Party sold out long ago. If the chosen ones, Obama or Hillary, and maybe Edwards gets elected, they will slightly change spending priorities but leave the American military empire fully intact. Corporate globalist money will remain completely in charge.
However, if Ron Paul gets elected, all US troops from worldwide will be ordered home. The oppression of developing country workers by corrupt governments backed up by the CIA and US military will die a timely death. Workers will organize, and slave labor markets, which drive down the US worker’s standard of living will be no more.
Since over 50% of US federal discretionary spending goes to military, President Ron Paul’s actions will result in a deluge of savings that will dramatically improve the standard of living in America. Democrats would NEVER make such a change, at least not the ones the Party doesn’t silence with their many dirty tricks.
However, the “liberal” or “left” media will fight tooth and nail to damage Ron Paul in any way they can. They’ve already began smear campaigns. They’ve tried to character assassinate him with pathetic guilt by association campaigns, such as “white supremacists support Ron Paul,” or “Ron Paul will outlaw abortion.”
Tucker Carlson “of the right” did his best to smear Ron Paul as well, when he personally picked up a brothel owner, and took him to a Ron Paul rally, so he could then release a media report that said “brothel owners support Ron Paul.”
The fact is that President Ron Paul will not affect abortion rights because he doesn’t believe that is the President’s role. A President is incapable of outlawing abortion, only the Supreme Court and/or Congress could do so. The GOP really never wanted to outlaw abortion, oh some Congresspeople or Senators may really feel against it, but the Party machine needs it to get poor whites, some poor blacks and Hispanics to vote against their own interest election after elections. The GOP had absolute control of all three branches of power during Reagan and Bush II. Did they outlaw abortion? NOPE. They never will. They need it.
However, they will use it to manipulate liberals and progressives into being against Ron Paul and they’ll spew this misinformation out through the liberal media. I’ve grown suspicious of the “liberal” media that I once believed in, since I’ve seen them attack anyone who questions the official story of 9/11. William Colby, a former CIA Director, once admitted to America, “there is no media of any significance in the US that is not controlled by the CIA.” That would include significant left media. Why would they leave liberal media un-infiltrated? They wouldn’t.
Ron Paul’s supporters are a very diverse crowd, some of whom I disagree with on many issues as a liberal progressive. However, Paul’s commitment to the constitution, the limits of government’s ability to spy on me and to use my taxes to attack poor people in other nations so that corporations can loot their resources and/or use them as slave labor to force my standard of living farther down, down down . . . is something that many people who disagree with me on many other things can agree with me on.
Ron Paul is the perfect candidate. He is pro freedom. He does not believe in the Washington running our lives. He cannot be attacked by the gun lobby. He cannot be attacked by the anti-abortion lobby. Because he doesn’t believe that Washington is the arbiter on such issues of personal freedom. I have been a supporter of gun control for years. But, after I’ve seen what I’ve seen since 2000 and 9/11/2001, I realize we have much more to fear from the dissolution of democracy and the emergence of a totalitarian torture state, than we do from people owing guns.
The GOP uses the gun issue like they use abortion. To get poor people to support Republican candidates that absolutely do not represent their interests.
Ron Paul is the Teflon candidate. He is a candidate that threatens the very foundations of the American corporate militaristic empire that is causing misery worldwide, and is the only person who can really do so. Because any Democrat who does so, is so dependent on gun control and abortion rights lobbies that they must take Washington power positions on those issues, ensuring that middle Americans will vote against their own interests because of fear campaigns on these other issues. Same thing with gay rights. Ron Paul will not sanction or diminish people’s rights. He believes people are endowed with rights, not awarded them by Washington. He doesn’t believe that Washington has a role in people’s bedrooms.
Ron Paul is a man that can alter the future of humanity in a way that will enable a human renessance. When you hear him speak on corporate media, the corporate shills sound shrill and abrasive. Ron Paul sounds calm and clear. He extols freedom, peace and international cooperation.
He has broken all fundraising records, $18 million this quarter. Only HE hasn’t raised it. Individuals have raised it for him. Ordinary citizens, many who’ve never voted before. A revolution is occurring.
As a lifelong liberal Democrat who has worked professionally and as a full time volunteer, as I told the Iowa Democratic Party in a rancourous phone conversation a few days ago . . . I’m sick of your politics. I’m sick of your charades. I’m officially leaving the Party and joining the Ron Paul revolution.
Of course I’ll vote for Democratic Congresspeople and Senators, because . . . well because we know most Republican candidates are completely devoid of soul. At least with a Democrat you could be surprised. However, for Presidential candidates, Ron Paul is the ONLY choice.
My old friends may be shocked and cringe at my decision. But, I think in their hearts they too know the Democratic Party establishment has used them, at least in Presidential politics.
I hope they will see the light, while Ron Paul can still win. A mass defection from the Dems to Ron Paul is a powerful message we can all send.
If the GOP and powers that be somehow stop Ron Paul from getting the nomination, I pray he’ll hook up with a real Democrat like Gravel or Kucinich, and run as a third party candidate.
Americans are sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, as Michael Moore once said. I know I am. How about you?
Join the Revolution!!
By William E. Douglas, Jr., who is author of "The Amateur Parent – A Book on Life, Death, War & Peace, and Everything Else in the Universe." Bill has been a guest columnist for the Kansas City Star, The Business Journal, and other media worldwide. His past essays include, "Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts," "The Explosion of the 9-11 Truth Movement -- US Media's Dirty Little Secret," "Good Night, and Good Luck - WMD, NIST, Popular Mechanics, 9/11 and Media Crimes" and also "Why the Jewish Community Should Demand 9/11 Truth."
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:Antiwar Left Should Look Beyond Democrats
« Reply #3 on: 2007-12-20 01:44:31 » |
|
Quote from: Blunderov on 2007-12-19 12:18:54
[Blunderov] For me torture is a dealbreaker. Ron Paul passes the test. (Ron Paul: "Torture is Terror".) For me the war is a dealbreaker. Ron Paul passes the test. (Of course I'm not American and my agenda is different; ISTM that an isolationist America would be "a good thing".)
The call has gone out from some quarters of the Hive Mind for the (understandably) raging anti-war left to take a chill pill, wait for the elections, take Congress, take the Senate, take the presidency and then to have it all. I have two words to say to that: bullshit.
No more war/s of agression. Right now. No more torture (or torture enablers in office). Right now. Restore habeus corpus. Right now. This shit is NOT NEGOTIABLE. That ought to be obvious and if it isn't obvious to the Dems then they can just go to hell. IMO.
|
Hear fucking hear!
Walter
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Antiwar Left Should Look Beyond Democrats
« Reply #4 on: 2007-12-23 04:06:51 » |
|
[Blunderov] If the mood of the net roots is anything to go by, the Judascrats are in for some mighty big disappointments in the upcoming election cycle. And in the presidential race, these "same metre ballet-mongers" are going to have their assess handed to them by Ron Paul whom, I hear, is running as an independent. Maybe we can get Dennis Kucinich to hook up with him on the same ticket?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071028220104AA3PgMD
Crimes and Corruption of the New World Order News
Can't defund the war? Then defund the Democrats
22 December 2007, 23:38:39 | CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS mparent7777 Marc Parent CCNWON
by xofferson
Fri Dec 21, 2007
How did that happen, when we elected a Democratic Congress just a year ago with a mandate to end the war and bring the troops home?
It happened because the Dems are spineless.
In the Senate, three Democrats -- three -- voted against the appropriations bill. Their names are Feingold, McCaskill, and Bayh. On an earlier vote on a Feingold amendment to withdraw most US troops within nine months, Feingold got 23 other Democrats to join him. But 20 of them later caved and voted for final passage of the bill, which passed 76-17. (The pertinent roll calls are #437 and #441.)
In the House, where the bill passed 272-142, 141 Democrats voted no. Seventy-eight others voted yes. Here's the roll call.
Presidential candidates were too busy running for president to be bothered with a little item like this, so they weren't recorded.
Here's what one of the House Dems who voted no had to say:
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
So maybe it's not fair to tar all of the Democrats with the same brush, since McGovern and some others did the right thing. I'm willing to make some exceptions, but not too many.
It's hard to know, of those 141 House Dems who voted no, whether they would have done the same if their votes had been needed for passage. This was a free vote; they knew the bill was going to pass anyway, so they could get on the right side. For now, they probably get the benefit of the doubt.
But what about those 78 who voted yes even when they had a free pass to do the right thing? How does anyone defend them? Is it courageous to vote to continue the war as is, when two-thirds of the people in the country want it to end?
They'll offer plenty of tortured logic and parliamentary gobbledygook to explain why they had to vote for the pork-filled package. But it's all phony baloney.
It's even more pathetic in the Senate, where all but three Dems voted for passage while the bill was passing by a 59-vote margin. Another freebie. A chance to do the right thing, to do what their constituents want, and put some pressure on to start bringing our troops home.
It recalls the principled stand of the late Sen. Gaylord Nelson, the Wisconsin Democrat, who cast one of only three votes against a $700-million appropriation for the Vietnam war in 1965.
"Obviously, you need my vote less than I need my conscience," Nelson told the Senate.
Appropriately, Russ Feingold holds Nelson's Senate seat.
So, given their latest performance, or lack thereof, the Democrats clearly need my money less than I need my conscience.
I am through giving money to anyone who votes to fund the war with no strings. I am through giving money to the DCCC or DSCC. And I am through giving to presidential candidates at least until there is a nominee, when we can evaluate the ticket and the platform.
I'm tired of hearing that Democrats don't have the votes. They have the votes not to appropriate no-strings money for the war.
What they lack is not the votes, but the will, or, if you prefer, the guts.
It's time to defund them.
POSTSCRIPT: One blogger suggested that perhaps we could simply give the $70-billion directly to defense contractors and the oil industry, in exchange for being allowed to end the war.
Maybe there's another way. Let's just buy enough members of Congress. If we divide the money between the 535 members, we could give them about $131-million each. That should be enough to buy their votes to end the war. But if we only want to buy a veto-proof majority, we'd only have to pay two-thirds of them, so they could each get $195-million. They could each use it for whatever earmarked pet projects they'd like in their districts. Maybe it would work.
Hard not to get cynical, isn't it?
[Bl.] Her voting record; read it and weep, oh my brethren. This is opposition?
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/4070
The Problem that is Nancy Pelosi
December 22, 2007 - 2:48pm.
Partnership vs. Partisanship
By Robert A. Kezelis
"I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship, and look forward to working with you on behalf of the American people. In this House, we may belong to different parties, but we serve one country."
Nancy Pelosi, after being elected Speaker of the House, 2006.
Funny how one's words can come back to haunt you.
In the early heady days of January, there was a veritable buzz in the air. Change was a'comin. The Evil Empire of Bush/Cheney was finally derailed, and the Constitution was about to be restored.
Then Nancy got ahold of the gavel. Her first major statement was to take impeachment "off the table." While her intention may have been to quiet the rancor and hatred between the parties, it had the opposite effect. It showed the GOP minority that the new speaker was weak, ineffectual, short-sighted, and constantly willing to seek accommodation and compromise.
How would any self-respecting GOPer, including Bush/Cheney respond? In retrospect, it was obvious. For 15 years, the GOP was used to rough handling by its leaders. Those leaders managed to keep diverse groups within the GOP in line, and under control. Their unanimity surprised many while they were the majority. Why would anyone be surprised if they maintained it as the minority?
As for the president, her promise to protect the president and the presidency from impeachment was like a red flag to a raging bull. The more he demanded, the more Pelosi would give in. Which in turn, caused him to demand that much more.
Today, Nancy claims to be shocked by the coordination and uniform stances taken by the GOP in Congress. She was "surprised" by their behavior.
Nancy, Nancy, Nancy. You have been in office since 1987, and you claim to be surprised at the GOP? Are you the most incredibly naive politician in the universe, or is something else at play?
Well, let's take a look. You voted in favor of Patriot Act 1 without even reading the damned bill. You supported the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. You have stopped Democrats from complaining about Israel wall-building, take over of Palestinian settlements and the continued illegal construction of Israeli settlements and compounds. You stopped a congressional investigation of the illegal use of cluster bombs by the Israeli military on civilian areas.
AIPAC thanked you in 2005, and asked you to be the keynote speaker that year. And just this year, you played messenger girl from Prime Minister Olmert to the Syrian president.
And of course, there is the little matter of your cave-in. On Patriot I(b), FISA, Iraq, Iraq, SCHIP, SCHIP II, and pretty much every other issue.
This week, the president insulted you, demeaned your leadership abilities, then ordered you to behave next year. Given the tone of your response, I presume that you heard your orders loud and clear, and are preparing to act next year in the same depressing, disgusting, spineless way as you acted this last week, may, month. Naw, let's be accurate. You have spoken loudly and carried a big twig this entire year. That's not leadership, that's stenography.
When you promised a new tone in congress, little did we suspect that it would be the same as the old tone, only with a new face. As promised, you have become a partner, not a partisan. Except that you have partnered with your AIPAC buddies in the DLC, you have partnered with your GOP friends in Congress, and you have partnered with the White House, leaving America desperate for even a hint of a spinal column.
Worst of all, at the end of this disaster, you took the stage with DLC stooge Rahm Emanuel, and you claimed victory. VICTORY! WHERE? HOW? ON WHAT ISSUE? Oh, yes, Energy and minimum wage.
Nancy, claiming victory under present circumstances is like you squatting & pissing on the great Chicago Fire, and claiming that you personally stopped the conflagration.
And still our constitution remains tattered, in danger of irrelevancy, and further abuse by this president and his criminal cabal.
Shame on you, Madam Speaker. Your failures far outweigh your successes. If you had a shred of decency left, a sense of honor, an understanding of your constitutional duties, you would resign the speakership immediately. You would allow someone, anyone, with a spine, a sense of reality, and an urgent goal (to fix our nation) take over for you. You have been measured, Ms. Pelosi, and you have been found wanting.
»comments
There are others, too.
Submitted by DejaVuAllOver on December 22, 2007 - 7:12pm.
There are others, too. Pelosi's glee at classifying Iran as a "terrorist organization', a move which serves no purpose whatsoever other than to pave the way for US / Israeli war with Iran, was downright sickening, but enlightening. And there was her relentless kissing of Jane Harman's butt on all kinds of issues ranging from labor laws to Mukasey's confirmation.
Yep. It's pretty clear she's paid for, and pretty clear who owns her.
»
Submitted by Carl Nemo on December 22, 2007 - 10:33pm.
It seems that Nancy is Bushco's "bitch"; crudely stated yes, but the spot-on truth...no?! They evidently have some serious dirt on this woman and she's been turned-out to perform to their needs. They own her, lock, stock and barrel!
Street corners can be brutal,lonely and dangerous on windy, winter nights. George and Dick are parked around the corner in their pimpmobile always waiting for their legislative cut!
Carl Nemo
»
Submitted by RBLivingston on December 22, 2007 - 10:40pm.
Mr. Kezelis' words are harsher than any I've heard from Pelosi's fiercest critics in San Francisco where I live. But they are in tune with the reputation she has built among the majority of her constituents who have found it impossible to meet with her to discuss impeachment or ideas to bring our troops home. One would think that the opinions of people in her home district (people who once took pride in her successes) would matter-- but Pelosi has greeted them with utter contempt.
I think what good reputation she now has relies almost totally on an establishment media which inaccurately caricaturizes her as a moderate force and which ridicules or ignores her serious political critics.
The latest and most consequential critic is America's best-known antiwar activist, Cindy Sheehan, who is after Pelosi's job. Sheehan is virtually ignored in the city's leading paper, the San Francisco Chronicle.
»
Submitted by Carl Nemo on December 22, 2007 - 11:09pm.
Thanks RBLivingston for your comentary...
I've always wondered how Nancy treats her constituents back home in the San Francisco area. Your candor is appreciated.
Now the real question is will the folks in her congressional district, foolishly re-elect her when she comes due for her re-enfranchisement as traitor to "we the people"...?! :|
I surely hope not, but I must say we live in interesting times indeed!
It's so important for them to dump her because it's the only way for "we the people" to get rid of her as "Traitor of the House".
Carl Nemo
[Bl.] From the pen of the mighty Jesus' General JC Christian (Patriot), who, remain assured, is the very alpha and omega of muscular conservative manhood and that in Spades.
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/harry-reid-hero-of-bush-revolution.html
Friday, December 21, 2007
Harry Reid: Hero of the Bush Revolution
Today, Harry Reid receives the highest honor a man can receive in the Ownership Society. He will be named a Hero of the Bush Revolution.
Some might wonder why the first such award would go to a Democrat, especially one who serves as the Senate Majority Leader, rather than a Bush servant like Patrick McHenry, Dave Reichert, or Mitch McConnell. But that's the point really, McHenry, Reichert, and McConnell have no choice but to an autocrat's henchmen every whim. It's part of the Republican DNA. From Livingstone to Bennett to Vitter, the party faithful crave to be ruled and dominated.
But Reid is a Democrat, and has to act against type, or at least the perception of what a Democrat should be, when he carries out Our Leader's orders. Publically, he must struggle with the weight of his decisions, like Anthony Kennedy playing Hamlet, while out of the public eye he uses procedural and scheduling tricks to defeat attempts to withdraw troops from Iraq and oppose efforts to punish those who spy on the American People.
That is Reid's genius. That is why he deserves the honor of being a Hero of the Bush Revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Antiwar Left Should Look Beyond Democrats
« Reply #5 on: 2008-01-26 05:29:21 » |
|
Kucinich favors Paul as running mate
[ Hermit : I've been proposing this for a while now. Nice to see one of the two taking it up. Now has Ron Paul, who I notice is running second in Louisiana despite the mainstream media either not speaking about him at all, calling him a Nazi (without sustainable evidence), or even, "the al-Qaeda wing of GOP" (see next post this thread) the ability to and will to do the same? ]
Source: Press TV
Authors: Unattributed (CS/AA/HAR)
Dated:2008-01-10
Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich lauds Congressman Ron Paul, suggesting he may be exactly what the next US administration needs.
Kucinich said the libertarian-leaning Republican can provoke debate on important issues to help America strengthen its position.
When asked who he would choose as his running mate if nominated, the Democrat mentioned Ron Paul describing him as a person of integrity, vision, and courage.
He then pointed to the glass etching of the American eagle in the US House of Representatives and said the administration is also in need of two wings to fly, a right wing and a left wing.
Kucinich said his foreign policy is very similar to that of Ron Paul's, adding that he does not want his party to just represent unilateral politics.
Democrat candidate Dennis Kucinich, who opposed the war authorization bill five years ago, has repeatedly warned against launching a military attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Antiwar Left Should Look Beyond Democrats
« Reply #6 on: 2008-01-26 05:38:45 » |
|
'Ron Paul, al-Qaeda wing of GOP'
[ Hermit : So much for the supposed "Left Wing Media." Then again, anyone who still believes that canard has had their head firmly inserted up their, or the hosts of right wing talk radio's (but I repeat myself) rectums for the past 10 years or more. ]
Source: Press TV
Authors: Unattributed (CS/AA)
Dated: 2008-01-19
An MSNBC correspondent compares Ron Paul to a terrorist on live television, claiming he represents the al-Qaeda wing of his party.
On MSNBC's news program Morning Joe David Shuster said it was a great analogy to compare Republican candidates to sectarian factions in Iraq and went on to term Ron Paul as a terrorist or the al-Qaeda wing of the Grand Old Party.
Then with a smirk on his face, Shuster laughed as the show's two anchors lashed out at him, asking the unabashed correspondent to apologize.
Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate to unequivocally characterize the US invasion and occupation of Iraq as a colossal mistake.
The 72-year-old anti-war Texan advocates a complete withdrawal from Iraq, and denounces the concept of preemptive war.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Antiwar Left Should Look Beyond Democrats
« Reply #7 on: 2008-01-26 06:54:20 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2008-01-26 05:29:21 <snip>
Kucinich favors Paul as running mate
[i] [ Hermit : I've been proposing this for a while now. </snip> |
[Blunderov] The only two candidates who would change the staus quo. Can't have that. No wonder they are demonised.
"If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal" ~ Emma Goldman (Atrib)
"There is not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties!"
~ Alabama Governor George Wallace, candidate for President, 1968
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Antiwar Left Should Look Beyond Democrats
« Reply #8 on: 2008-09-04 07:21:45 » |
|
Quote from: Blunderov on 2007-12-16 12:24:51
A noble Cindy Sheehan faces down the hideous Zionist war hag torturer Nancy Pelosi (Judascrat, California).
|
[Blunderov] Go Cindy! Down with the 5th columnist traitor Pelosi!
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/09/taking-on-the-war-machine-an-interview-with-cindy-sheehan/
Taking on the War Machine: An Interview with Cindy Sheehan
by Joshua Frank / September 3rd, 2008
On April 4, 2004, Casey Sheehan was killed in action in Iraq. Since then, his mother, Cindy Sheehan, has traveled the country to speak out against the war in Iraq and build an antiwar movement capable of challenging the U.S. war machine.
Frustrated by the complicity of the Democratic Party in waging the war, Sheehan decided this year to run as an independent candidate against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in her San Francisco district.
Joshua Frank is co-author with Jeffrey St. Clair of the recent collection Red State Rebels. He recently caught up with Sheehan to discuss her bid.
***
Joshua Frank: Cindy, you recently obtained ballot access in your campaign against Rep. Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco. It was a hard fought battle from what I heard. Can you talk about the whole process a little bit, and what you’re campaign had to overcome in order to get on the ballot in November’s election?
Cindy Sheehan: Well, Josh, as you know, last May I renounced my membership in the Democratic Party in response to yet another multi-billion dollar Iraq/Afghanistan war funding bill that Pelosi’s Congress handed to George W. Bush.
In July of 2007, I decided to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco’s 8th District if she did not reverse her treasonous position of the Constitutional remedy of impeachment being “off the table.” As I didn’t belong to any political party at that point, I weighed my options and decided to re-register as “Decline to State.” Although I resonate with many parts of third party platforms, I thought to retain my independent integrity I would make my bid unaffiliated with any party.
We found out early this year that the requirements for obtaining ballot status as a non-partisan in California are the 4th most rigorous in the nation. If one belongs to a party it is far easier to obtain ballot status. I was required to get signatures from 3% of the people in the 8th District who voted in November 2006. That came to an unbelievable number of 10,198.
When we first contacted the DOE (Department of Elections) to pull the first petitions. In lieu of filing fee — which I had to obtain 3000 signatures and pay a fee for 400 signatures, the staff there told us that we could register people and write the form number next to that person’s signature on the petition after they signed. Well into the process, we had registered hundreds of new voters and we were told that the DOE would not accept signatures of new voters unless the office had the time to “process” those forms. The first time we turned in our “Nomination” papers, the DOE invalidated 44%, saying that over half of those people weren’t “registered.”
Ten days in advance of the August 8 deadline for the signatures, we needed to turn in 7,694 (out of the original 10,198) more signatures and we turned in 10,856. Our campaign volunteers and staff rejoiced because we were sure that we had made it with those signatures. However, we got “Supplemental” to the nomination papers and continued to collect signatures “just in case.” Well, it was a good thing that we did, because the DOE invalidated almost 5,000 of those signatures and we were lacking just under 1,700.
We discovered this information the four days before the papers were due from a phone call from the DOE. We were shocked, but we mobilized dozens of people to collect signatures.
In the end, we figure that we collected right around 20,000 signatures, and on afternoon of August 8 we received a phone call from the DOE that turned out to be good news: We had qualified!
I became only the sixth non-partisan candidate in California history to qualify for ballot status, and the first Congressional Candidate since 1996! The signature process was very labor intensive, and time consuming, but we were able to obtain about 20,000 votes and dozens of energized volunteers that will be with us until November 4th, when we celebrate victory.
I am sure there will many more obstacle thrown in the path of our campaign, but we are experts at overcoming obstacles and fearless in the face of adversity.
Frank: Some may laugh when you say, “celebrate victory”. Do you really think you can beat Nancy Pelosi? Also, do you believe it is more effective to challenge the Democrat’s position outside of the party, instead of inside, like the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) are trying to do?
Sheehan: Well, I always say that there’s not enough laughter in the world today … but seriously, we have a society where “winning” is the only acceptable outcome of any event: from sports, to American Idol to politics. I believe that every day our campaign office is open and functioning and attracting more volunteers and positive energy is a victory. I go to sleep every night convinced of this fact and wake up every morning ready to get back to the important work of confronting what Nancy Pelosi represents to many people: corporate militarism and a fascist police state.
Besides the daily victories, and the major victory of just getting on the ballot as a non-partisan candidate, I do think that this election is winnable. There is excitement from all over the world, really, for this race. We have a comfortable amount of money right now that we are planning to use to wage a fierce-issues based campaign. I can’t really believe that the people of the 8th District would vote for Pelosi when they find out that she knew about torture and sanctioned the inhumane practice as well as her other failures for the people (but victories for the war machine).
I tried working the whole inside/outside strategy of the PDA, and was, in fact, on its national board until they refused to endorse me in my race against Pelosi. I believe that the only way we are going to save our representative republic and restore some kind of peace and economic equality is to challenge the two party duopoly that only suppresses these attributes.
Frank: Progressive Democrats of America did not endorse your candidacy? Did they give you a reason as to why? What has your support been like among Democrats in general this year?
Sheehan: PDA only endorses Democratic candidates, so to the organization, it’s not how progressive a candidate is, but what letter comes after their name.
They won’t endorse Pelosi, I don’t think, at least that’s what I have been told, but I think the organization should enthusiastically endorse me because of my platform and the work I have done with them.
I have had some very private endorsements from Democrats, but nothing public. I also have a few top people in the California Democratic National Committee who are helping me behind the scenes because they have been warned away from my campaign.
I know I have to appeal to progressive Democrats to win, but I think my message does this directly. However, “Decline to State” makes up the second highest amounts of registration here in San Francisco, so we just need an aggressive campaign to get the progressive message out there.
Frank: Why did you decide to target Pelosi out of all the bad Democrats out there?
Sheehan: I decided to target Pelosi because she is the number one Democrat in Congress and she was the number one obstacle to ending the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
My reasoning was and is that if she refused to hold Bush accountable, then someone needed to hold her accountable. I am not the kind of person to wait for someone else to do something that needs to be done. So here I am.
Frank: How has she responded to your campaign or the issues you are raising? Can you talk about those issues a bit?
Sheehan: When we qualified for the ballot she said something like she “welcomes” the challenge and has the highest “respect” for me. I don’t respect her because I believe she has taken the amazing power that was bestowed on her and has further diminished the causes of peace, justice, environmental sustainability and economic equality. But since she has sold out to the war machine, she knows who her masters are.
We saw one interesting step slightly to the left for her when she allowed Congressman John Conyers to have the non-impeachment hearings last month. Otherwise, she has effectively destroyed the 4th Amendment by granting the telecommunication companies and the Bushites immunity from warrantless spying, and she has proudly funded the war until the middle of next year. She was also fully briefed on torture in 2002 and sanctioned the practice. There are many other ways she has abused “We the People.”
Frank: Now that you are on the ballot, has Pelosi agreed to any formal debates?
Sheehan: That’s an easy one: No. But we will press her and press her to come to San Francisco and debate her opponents, which include a Republican and a Libertarian, and answer for her deplorable record.
One thing I forgot to mention in your last question is her unforgivable backslide to the oil companies in offshore drilling. I haven’t seen poll numbers that address this issue here in the 8th, but I sense that this is as big of a betrayal to most voters here as it is to me.
Frank: Ultimately, what you expect to achieve by running againt. Pelosi this year? And what can members of the antiwar movement do to learn more about your campaign?
Sheehan: I expect to achieve victory against the war machine.
I realize that win or lose, we still have a long way to go in achieving a better world, but taking out Pelosi will be a significant step in the right direction.
I believe that we have marched as far as we can go; signed as many petitions as we can; knocked on too many Congressional office doors; and sang too many verses of “We shall overcome.” This campaign is the most significant action an anti-war person can be involved in until November 4th.
To learn more about our campaign, people should visit our site at www.CindyForCongress.org.
Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the new book Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland, published by AK Press in June 2008. Check out the new Red State Rebels site at www.RedStateRebels.org Read other articles by Joshua, or visit Joshua's website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
