Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 20, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Loss of Rainforests Is Double Whammy Threat to Climate






Truthdig Bazaar
Creation

Creation

By Gore Vidal
$17.95

more items

 
A/V Booth

Kucinich:  We’re Losing Our Democracy

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 9, 2007
Kucinich
youtube.com

This week, Rep. Dennis Kucinich drummed up support within the House to introduce articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.  Here, he discusses his motivations on Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now!” TV/radio show.

h/t to John Harrison

Watch the clips:

Part 2:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By cann4ing, September 22, 2008 at 9:40 pm Link to this comment

As an atheist I can agree with everything Andrew Wang wrote except the God will judge and punish Bush and Cheney.  These men should be made to stand before a human bar of justice, assured the very constitutional rights they have denied to so many, and, if convicted of crimes against humanity, should be punished in the same manner that war criminals were punished at Nuremberg.  I, for one, do not want to wait in the hopes that God will meet out the justice these men deserve.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 22, 2008 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment

Andrew Wang,

It has been so long since I posted here, actually forgot about Kucinich and how refreshing his ideas are compared to the pandering we now see.

Thanks for the reminder. By the way I agree with you observations of the White House.

Report this

By Andrew Wang, September 22, 2008 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney belong in an insane asylum. Bush is comparable to Adolf Hitler. Bush is mentally ill. Bush suffers from narcissism and megalomania. Bush lied, and thousands of people died. Bush is psychotic. Bush is dangerous. The American people should pursue the involuntary psychiatric hospitalization of Bush and Cheney to safeguard against further atrocities. God will judge and punish Bush and Cheney.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 19, 2007 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

Folks,

A simple fact us the citizens, the people and their best interests continue to be under dogs against the royal order of lobbies, is insane but real.

Apathy may be the lobbies best special interest, hence the mass media. 

Politically astute need to get the word out, somehow or some way, ye old web may be our best channel while we have it ailable. 

This means all of us!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 18, 2007 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment

Ernest Canning on 11/18 at 8:54 am
(1137 comments total)

Leefeller, your observation is spot on.  But it isn’t just that Mr. Kucinich went into Congress with integrity.  A good number do.  His real accomplishment is to remain true to that integrity, resisting the temptation of easy campaign money from special interest lobbyists, which, together with an utterly corrupt conglomerated corporate media, have so perverted the system.

ITW entered this fray by claiming that Kucinich is a failure because he has not maneuvered himself into a position of leadership where he could, among other things, “bribe” his fellow members of Congress into following his position.  That type of yardstick for “success” is but a reflection of how dysfunctional the system has become—a system which has corrupted the thinking of ordinary people like ITW who have bought into it.

Unlike Ralph Nader, I do see a difference between the Republicans and the corporatist sector of the Democratic Party.  The Republican party has been taken over by ideologues who are primarily devoted to the Milton Friedman school of radical capitalism: privatization applied through what Naomi Klein has aptly described as the “Shock Doctrine” and enhanced by allies from a neo-fascist Christian fundamentalist movement.  The corporate sector of the Democratic Party is made up of politicians who lack the radical Republican drive, but whose votes on a given issue can be purchased.  They are more committed to their prospects of re-election than they are to government of the People, by the People and for the People.

This is a problem that can’t be resolved by simply looking to see whether there is a “D” or an “R” listed at the end of a candidate’s name.  Jim Hightower’s “Thieves in High Places” (2003) noted:  “The great majority of Americans make less than $50,000 a year; half make under $32,000.  How many members of Congress come from such modest backgrounds?  Today’s Congress is made up of business executives, lawyers, and former political operatives….Nearly half of the people newly elected to Congress last year are millionaires.”

Comparing this to the .007% of Americans who are millionaires, Hightower asks, “This is the personification of democracy?”

Hightower goes on to note that members not only “descend into Congress from the economic heights, but they also tend to spend practically all of their substantive and social time with others from the heights.  Congress’s real constituency is no longer you and me, but the people who ‘matter.’ These are your top-floor corporate executives and the moneyed elites…who know members by their first names, who get every one of their phone calls returned—who get their agendas adopted.”

Within such a system, ascending to the leadership position of a Pelosi or Hoyer is not a sign of accomplishment but an indictment of corrupt self-interest that is reflected by the post 1/1/06 agenda which has failed to end the war in Iraq or bring forth articles of impeachment even though a vast majority of ordinary Americans favor both.

***************************

EC:
We are actually closer than you think.  It’s not for nothing I use “Demo-weenies” for that party in Congress—you think Demo-squids might be better to describe their spinelessness? 

And Re-thug-lic-crooks seems perfect for the Greedy Outlandish Pricks (GOP).

Pelosi’s reign in the House has been, well, extremely disappointing.

Report this

By Sleeper, November 18, 2007 at 11:30 am Link to this comment

I heard Edwards today bring up the problem of Corporate money fueling the policy in D.C.  He explained how even he has been influenced in the past.  He might be quite a reformer if he can withstand the heat of the fire he just started.  On this issue he will definately help Kucinich and possibly himself although I think he is gonna have to explain some of his sponsors.

I think there is a chance that by putting Edwards on the spot about the Impeachment issue, possible pardons, and the 9/11/2001 cover-up he will come up with responses that either back Dennis’s positions or he will identify himself as one who will participate in sweeping this TREASON under the rug.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 18, 2007 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

Leefeller, your observation is spot on.  But it isn’t just that Mr. Kucinich went into Congress with integrity.  A good number do.  His real accomplishment is to remain true to that integrity, resisting the temptation of easy campaign money from special interest lobbyists, which, together with an utterly corrupt conglomerated corporate media, have so perverted the system.

ITW entered this fray by claiming that Kucinich is a failure because he has not maneuvered himself into a position of leadership where he could, among other things, “bribe” his fellow members of Congress into following his position.  That type of yardstick for “success” is but a reflection of how dysfunctional the system has become—a system which has corrupted the thinking of ordinary people like ITW who have bought into it.

Unlike Ralph Nader, I do see a difference between the Republicans and the corporatist sector of the Democratic Party.  The Republican party has been taken over by ideologues who are primarily devoted to the Milton Friedman school of radical capitalism: privatization applied through what Naomi Klein has aptly described as the “Shock Doctrine” and enhanced by allies from a neo-fascist Christian fundamentalist movement.  The corporate sector of the Democratic Party is made up of politicians who lack the radical Republican drive, but whose votes on a given issue can be purchased.  They are more committed to their prospects of re-election than they are to government of the People, by the People and for the People.

This is a problem that can’t be resolved by simply looking to see whether there is a “D” or an “R” listed at the end of a candidate’s name.  Jim Hightower’s “Thieves in High Places” (2003) noted:  “The great majority of Americans make less than $50,000 a year; half make under $32,000.  How many members of Congress come from such modest backgrounds?  Today’s Congress is made up of business executives, lawyers, and former political operatives….Nearly half of the people newly elected to Congress last year are millionaires.”

Comparing this to the .007% of Americans who are millionaires, Hightower asks, “This is the personification of democracy?”

Hightower goes on to note that members not only “descend into Congress from the economic heights, but they also tend to spend practically all of their substantive and social time with others from the heights.  Congress’s real constituency is no longer you and me, but the people who ‘matter.’ These are your top-floor corporate executives and the moneyed elites…who know members by their first names, who get every one of their phone calls returned—who get their agendas adopted.”

Within such a system, ascending to the leadership position of a Pelosi or Hoyer is not a sign of accomplishment but an indictment of corrupt self-interest that is reflected by the post 1/1/06 agenda which has failed to end the war in Iraq or bring forth articles of impeachment even though a vast majority of ordinary Americans favor both.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, November 18, 2007 at 6:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

ITW

“I will GLADLY vote for ANY of the Democrats up for the nomination over ANY of the GOP in the general election.”

I used to feel the same way about the Republicans. Then they began (during Nixon) to introduce restrictive social legislation.  Now during Bush any pretense of fiscal responsibility has vanished.  My County Republican Ward boss told me “You have no place to go, what are you going to vote Democrat?”

They were taking my vote for granted. telling me I had no option save the Republican party (which has morphed into this restrictive economic disaster with a Democratic trade policy.)

SO this year (at least) I will not be voting for the Republicans..(I could vote Paul in the general, BUT his restrictive view on abortion, and his seeming inability to say “health-care crisis” leaves him a low man on my list)... BUT I won’t be voting for Hill-the-business-shill either! She looks far too much like the “party hacks” I left behind!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 17, 2007 at 8:47 pm Link to this comment

Conservative Yankee on 11/17 at 11:45 am
(Unregistered commenter)

ITW

“It what Kucinich has done, or tried to do is enough for you, that’s fair. It’s just not enough for me, at least at this time.”

For whom are you planning to vote?

*******************

I’ll be damned if I know. If Al Gore enters the race I’ll vote for him.  Other than that….I don’t know.

I do know one thing: There’s NO Republican I will vote for that’s running.  I will GLADLY vote for ANY of the Democrats up for the nomination over ANY of the GOP in the general election.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 17, 2007 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

Integrity, Accountability and not beholding to special interests, seem like accomplishments to me.

Doomed to a ship of fools, not becoming a fool would be an accomplishment in itself. 

It is almost as if Congress is Plato’s Cave and Kucinich is the only person who knows the real world and the rest are blinded to believe only what they are fed or told to believe.

Report this

By antispin, November 17, 2007 at 7:13 pm Link to this comment

Hey, I hear Cynthia McKinney is seeking the Green Party nomination.  McKinney/Kucinich has a nice ring to it.

http://www.betterbadnews.com/

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 17, 2007 at 4:46 pm Link to this comment

EC:
You say nothing new, merely repeating the same non-arguments over and over and over, each time more nastily and more insultingly.

The increasing invective gives your featherweight arguments no additional weight.

Since you have nothing new of substance to add, there is no argument for me to respond to.  You are just wasting bandwidth—I tired of it.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 17, 2007 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

Once again, ITW, we see your posts sliding into intellectual dishonesty as you try to worm your way past a position you cannot defend.  You entered this particular post by asserting that Kucinich makes noise; that he doesn’t get anything done.  You then explained that he has “squandered” his time in the House by failing to “get into a position of leadership” where he can not merely persuade but “bribe” and “conjole” his fellow members of the House (your words, not mine) into following his lead.  You didn’t simply ask for a list of accomplishments, which CY provided and for which you now praise him for being the only one to answer his question, you asked me to list legislation he sponsored which was passed.

It was within this context that I said your entire line of attack on Kucinich was bogus.  First, at best it displays a fundamental ignorance of the workings of the House of Representatives, where the so-called leadership (Pelosi/Hoyer) is bought and paid for by the K-Street lobbyists who represent the rich and powerful and do not represent Mr. Kucinich’s constituency—the middle and working classes.  Unless and until the numbers change dramatically, the members of Congress corrupted by a system which has them spending more time trolling for dollars needed to get re-elected than in representing the interests of their constituents will continue to vastly outnumber the number of honest politicians like Mr. Kucinich—so much so that many Americans think of the words “honest politician” as being an oxymoron.  The only way Mr. Kucinich could move into a “leadership” role under present circumstances would be to sell out and become one of the corrupt corporatists.

You want to know what Mr. Kucinich’s greatest accomplishment is?  It is his integrity, his unwillingness to bow to the pressures of a system that, with each passing day, is growing more rather than less corrupt.  It is his principled stand in refusing to sell off Muni Light & Power to the privatizers even if that meant that corrupt banks would be calling in their notes on Cleveland.  It is Mr. Kucinich’s steadfast opposition to the war in Iraq, at a time when Edwards and Clinton, blown by the prevailing political winds, rolled over.  It is his willingness to stand up on the floor of the House, brilliantly utilizing an arcane procedure known as a motion of privilege, so as to force the “do-nothing” corporatist charletons you so admire to take a stand on articles of impeachment.  It is his willingness to expose the lie in Sen. Obama’s claim that Democrats don’t have the votes to end the war in Iraq, when, in truth, the Dems had to power to end it, starting last January simply by blocking all further funds—a move that requires either a simple majority in the House or 41 votes in the Senate.

In your claim that I evaded your question, you failed to sit up and take notice that in underscoring the bogus nature of your attack, I had done just that.  But you still haven’t answered mine, to wit:  Name a single substantive position offered by “any” Democratic candidate for President which has greater substantive merit than the position taken by Mr. Kucinich, explaining the basis for your conclusion.  And I’ll go one better by extending an invitation to anyone posting at Truthdig to provide a logical and reasoned response to that question.

I am not surprised that I did not receive a response to that question from you—a point which I think underscores that when it comes to questions of substance on issues that are truly important to the vast majority of Americans—the middle and working classes—Mr. Kucinich, though short in physical stature, stands head and shoulders above the rest of the field.l

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, November 17, 2007 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

ITW

“It what Kucinich has done, or tried to do is enough for you, that’s fair. It’s just not enough for me, at least at this time.”

For whom are you planning to vote?

Actually, It is MPO that this is the worst slate of candidates since I began watching the political process in 1960! 

NOW THAT was a fun race!

It started off with fully 15 Democratic primary candidates, and 3 Republican candidates.

They were nasty, mean, personal, and said almost NOTHING of substance. The dark forces of Evil (in the form of LBJ joined with the VERY reluctant Kennedy brothers, and deep-sixed the credible opposition. Stevenson, Ross Barnett (Segregationist) Wayne Morse, Pat Brown, the governor of New Jersey (can’t remember his name) The governor of Ohio (don’t remember him either) Hubert Horatio Humphry, and a host of others.

Kennedy (who like Obama) was a freshman Senator without a single bill to his name, and a penchant for being absent, and LBJ Sam Rayburn’s aggressive under-study did a steam-roller over the opposition.

The mud, slime, and dirty-tricks were worthy of Lee Atwater. 

On the Republican side Nixon Slimed Nelson Rockefeller, and his aids spread untrue nasty stories about Barry Goldwater. Barry didn’t do much for himself either he came across on TV as a rather lame, squinty farmer… which is what he was!

Then came the run-up to the general election. Kennedy was wise to the ways of TV, and Nixon wasn’t . Kennedy looked like a mature Howdy-Doody and Nixon looked like an escaped convict. Even my Wall-Street Uncle who was a confirmed Republican said “Oh-my-god” when he saw him sitting there with the beads of perspiration on his balding head, and his five o’clock shadow.

Everyone was on the edge of their seat. Eisenhower refused to “endorse” Nixon until the final week before the election. This really hurt him. Then Richard Daley (The first) delivered Illinois with a massive “get out the dead” vote.

After the election most citizens felt as if they had taken a shit-shower.

So much for “The good-ole-days”

Report this

By Sleeper, November 17, 2007 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

Kucinich once stood at the podium and said “look no strings attached”.  That in itself is more then any other candidate can do.  If they tell you they can do something good for the people simply stated, they are lying.

The latest facist acts seek to allow our military to work side by side with federal and municipal police using military inteligence gathering on citizens.  Our government is now acting as though we are at war with the citizens of the United States because they speak too freely and don’t support this facist effort.

Here we are with our military might defending the Imperialists and the latter day global Robber Barrons against the evils of those who seek freedom, privacy, and a say in their government.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 17, 2007 at 7:17 am Link to this comment

Conservative Yankee on 11/16 at 5:31 am
(Unregistered commenter)

Inherit The Wind

What has Kucinich done?

Dennis KUCINICH, member of congress (D) Ohio; born in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, October 8, 1946; graduated from St. John Cantius, Cleveland, Ohio, 1964; B.A., Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, 1973; M.A., Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio,
1973; Youngest ever member Cleveland, Ohio, city council,
1969-1973, 1983; clerk of courts, Cleveland, Ohio, 1975; Youngest ever mayor ofa major US city (Cleveland, Ohio)
1977-1979; member of the Ohio state senate, 1995-1996; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Fifth Congress and to the five succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1997-present).

Mr Kucinich is a Democratic candidate, popular in a red state, he has proposed the only coherent single-payer health plan, He has proposed and written a bill to impeach the criminal administration currently in power. he has skillfully articulated a Iraqi withdrawal plan. he has authored bills which would get us out of NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO.

...and He has mounted at least two campaigns for the presidency, gotten his voice heard, without becoming beholden to large corporate contributors.

IMHO he has done far more than most of the current crop of candidates, AND of far more importance, he has exhibited the ability to accomplish far more!

AND

Thanks for the soapbox!

Really my kinda guy!  AND until this election I was a registered Republican!

**********************

You know what, CY? You are FIRST person to actually have the guts to TRY to answer my question: What has Kucinich done?  I thank you for that, with total sincerity.

Everyone else heaps abuse on me and throws the red herring of trying to make the issue what have OTHER candidates done.  But they ALL dodge that very basic question. 
They claim it’s “unfair”.
Why?
They claim it’s “bogus”.
Why?

Why is it unreasonable to ask what a person has done who is asking for my vote and yours to be President?

And the FUNNY thing is: I LIKE what Kucinich is proposing.  Really, especially impeaching Cheney first.  As I said: He has many great ideas.

My point is that he has been totally ineffective at getting any of it done, or even rallying significant support within his own party until Wexler (?) helped out in the last week or so.

Again, CY, thanks for answering, and doing it without the ad hominem attacks or red herrings.  It what Kucinich has done, or tried to do is enough for you, that’s fair. It’s just not enough for me, at least at this time.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 16, 2007 at 8:17 pm Link to this comment

Even though Kucinich was given less time, he had more to say with solid thought behind the statements. It would be great to see a real debate with even time for all.  The fact that Gravel was not on the debate tells it like it is.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 16, 2007 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment

Thank you CY and sleeper for your astute commentary.  While my past posts highlighted how the do-nothing Democratic “leadership” consistently blocks meaningful legislative change, such as the Conyers/Kucinich single-payer plan, last night’s so-called “debate” reflects the manner in which corporate media conspire to shrink the scope of political discourse.

Despite Blitzer’s “everyone will get a chance to speak,” we were more than a half hour in before Kucinich received the first narrowly circumscribed question.  The early portion featured the accepted big three (Clinton/Obama/Edwards) dissing one another over which of their variable health care insurer subsidy schemes, aka “universal coverage” was best while Kucinich was deliberately bi-passed so that he would not be able to compare and contrast these scams to single-payer.  During the later stages, when the topics of Iraq, Pakistan, Afhganistan & Iran were covered in questions from the audience, there were these supposed CNN “moderators” astutely avoiding Kucinich.  Biden’s comment that an invasion of Iran would give rise to impeachment would have provided the perfect time to segue into Kucinich’s position that we need to impeach now, before disaster strikes.  Kucinich raised his hand; Blitzer said we’ll get to you as he pressed on for another, unrelated question.  When Kucinich was finally given the opportunity, he used the unrelated question to return to the impeachment issue, only to be immediately cut off by Blitzer under the “off-topic” rule he announced at the outset—a rule in place obviously to see that Kucinich would not be given the opportunity to address the subject, though Blitzer wasn’t able to prevent the sustained applause from the audience in response to Kucinich’s “Impeach Now!”

Just once, I would like to see a debate on PBS moderated by Bill Moyers and Amy Goodman—real journalists not afraid to speak truth to power, journalists who would force each candidate to answer questions on issues that truly matter.  Certainly in a real debate, there would be no place for “diamonds or pearls?”

Report this

By Sleeper, November 16, 2007 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment

I just read this article by Robert Parry that speaks to this type of denial as a policy tactic.  These infractions ar serious and they are the most important issue concerning who is allowed to control our nuclear arsenal or is allowed to comand our global military might.  This collective might of ours should not be sold to foreign interrest after it is robbed from the American people.

Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who will even raise the issue of accountability.  Cheney and Bush need to be held accountable anything else is hypocritical.

Bush’s Clever Cognitive Dissonance

By Robert Parry
November 16, 2007

So, George W. Bush sees himself as the great defender of the U.S. Constitution.

Consortiumnews.com.

Report this

By antispin, November 16, 2007 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment

Since ITW can’t answer the question about what Hillary’s preferred legislation will do, I suggest he view this: http://www.politicswest.com/13546/video_clinton_thinks_naftas_consequences_are_funny

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, November 16, 2007 at 6:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Inherit The Wind

What has Kucinich done?

Dennis KUCINICH, member of congress (D) Ohio; born in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, October 8, 1946; graduated from St. John Cantius, Cleveland, Ohio, 1964; B.A., Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, 1973; M.A., Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio,
1973; Youngest ever member Cleveland, Ohio, city council,
1969-1973, 1983; clerk of courts, Cleveland, Ohio, 1975; Youngest ever mayor ofa major US city (Cleveland, Ohio)
1977-1979; member of the Ohio state senate, 1995-1996; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Fifth Congress and to the five succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1997-present).

Mr Kucinich is a Democratic candidate, popular in a red state, he has proposed the only coherent single-payer health plan, He has proposed and written a bill to impeach the criminal administration currently in power. he has skillfully articulated a Iraqi withdrawal plan. he has authored bills which would get us out of NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO.

...and He has mounted at least two campaigns for the presidency, gotten his voice heard, without becoming beholden to large corporate contributors.

IMHO he has done far more than most of the current crop of candidates, AND of far more importance, he has exhibited the ability to accomplish far more!

AND

Thanks for the soapbox!

Really my kinda guy!  AND until this election I was a registered Republican!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 16, 2007 at 3:53 am Link to this comment

Ernest Canning on 11/15 at 9:47 pm
(1117 comments total)

So, ITW after spinning your wheels on a phoney question for the past several days, you admit you can’t come up with a single issue of substance by any one of the candidates you support that you could demonstrate have greater merit that those offered by Mr. Kucinich.

I’ve just received the verdict.  You lost the argument.  Case closed!

*******************
What has Kucinich done?

You’re funny EC!  YOU’VE received the verdict? From whom? Like “Mad King George” from your “Higher Father”? I haven’t seen any “verdict”—wha’d I miss?  Another red herring?

Hey everyone! EC claims this is a phony question:

What has Kucinich done?

It’s a simple, ordinary question. A valid question. One that EC cannot answer at all.  So he calls it phony, tries to change the subject to other candidates, tosses out his red herrings.  Do other people think it’s bogus?

What has Kucinich done?

Is it a fair question? Yes or no.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 15, 2007 at 10:47 pm Link to this comment

So, ITW after spinning your wheels on a phoney question for the past several days, you admit you can’t come up with a single issue of substance by any one of the candidates you support that you could demonstrate have greater merit that those offered by Mr. Kucinich.

I’ve just received the verdict.  You lost the argument.  Case closed!

Report this

By antispin, November 15, 2007 at 9:51 pm Link to this comment

Re the defense authorization bill, I wrote, “But why and how did the [posse comitatus] language ever exist?  What catastrophic event is the author planning for us?” 

Then the word “hell” appears.  I don’t recall writing that there…weird.

As regards to posse comitatus, from Wikipedia:

“The act was a response to, and a preemptive strike against the repetition of the then immediate past experience of the Confederate States to their military occupation by US Army troops during the ten (10) year period of Civil War Reconstruction, 1867 – 1877. Federal troops were withdrawn after the 1876 Presidential and Congressional elections rumored as part of a “Compromise of 1877” between the parties.”

Interesting in relation to carpet bagging.  Has Hillary been asked to opine on this language?  I’d guess not.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 15, 2007 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment

Here’s a question for you, ITW, name, on substantive grounds, one policy position of “any” of the candidates you support on any issue that you feel is superior to the policy position taken by Mr. Kucinich on the same issue, and explain to me why you feel that candidate’s position is superior to the position taken by Mr. Kucinich.  (This question, of course, presumes that you are capable of distinguishing said candidates true position from the media projected image of the candidate and their bland slogans).

EXACTLY the Red Herring I predicted you would throw!

Now if you or someone else wants to question what OTHER Dem candidates have done, (which is the next line of attack when you have no other defense of DK), that is for another thread, not this one.

You don’t have ANY defense against my questions about Kucinich except to attack and vilify me, and toss red herrings.

You get angrier and angrier because I keep asking the ONE question you refuse to answer: What has Kucinich done?

You refuse to answer it because the ONLY answer is: Nothing.

So you rage at me and come up with insults and attacks.  But you cannot get around this simple question:

What has Kucinich done?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 15, 2007 at 9:01 pm Link to this comment

Here’s a question for you, ITW, name, on substantive grounds, one policy position of “any” of the candidates you support on any issue that you feel is superior to the policy position taken by Mr. Kucinich on the same issue, and explain to me why you feel that candidate’s position is superior to the position taken by Mr. Kucinich.  (This question, of course, presumes that you are capable of distinguishing said candidates true position from the media projected image of the candidate and their bland slogans).

EXACTLY the Red Herring I predicted you would throw!

Now if you or someone else wants to question what OTHER Dem candidates have done, (which is the next line of attack when you have no other defense of DK), that is for another thread, not this one.

You don’t have ANY defense against my questions about Kucinich except to attack and vilify me, and toss red herrings.

You get angrier and angrier because I keep asking the ONE question you refuse to answer: What has Kucinich done?

You refuse to answer it because the ONLY answer is: Nothing.

So you rage at me and come up with insults and attacks.  But you cannot get around this simple clear question:

What has Kucinich done?

Report this

By antispin, November 15, 2007 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment

Mr. Livingston,

I think you’re criticism of Goodman is a bit extreme.  She obviously wanted to give Kucinich a chance to dispell the foolish UFO business and she has limited time to pose her questions.

The substance of the matter is article 1615 the Defense Authorization Bill is truly disturbing and deserves more time on DN, no doubt…as does 911 truth, but it seems that Goodman has decided it’s too divisive and could easily drowned out all other important discussion.

Take a look at http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4922 for an analysis of the bill in question.  It looks as if offensive language of this section has been removed?  If so, that may well be thanks to Kucinich.  One can have a lot of influence over legislation without actually introducing a bill.

But why and how did the language ever exist?  What catastrophic event is the author planning for us?  hell

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 15, 2007 at 4:13 pm Link to this comment

#113759 by Ernest Canning

I concur with your view of Kucinich, his constituants feel sure enough of him to keep sending him back.  If measured by the same standards, Hillary, Barack, Bush or Cheney never sponsered anything of note either.

Hillary, a carpet bagger, caved into AIPAC along time ago, and being a senator from New York, it is a prerequisite.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 15, 2007 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment

Rubbish, ITW!  I have said nothing of the sort, and this argument, I believe, is becoming circular. 

There are only two things standing in the way of good government in this country.  The corrupt politicians who will block every honest piece of legislation offered by the distinct minority of members of Congress who have the integrity to offer them and the imbecillic members of the public who seek to conflate the matter by placing the blame for our present malaise from the degree to which corporate monies have corrupted our democracy to the few honest individuals who have worked tirelessly for meaningful change.

The key issues are integrity and where a candidate stands on matters of substance that affect the vast majority of our citizens. 

Here’s a question for you, ITW, name, on substantive grounds, one policy position of “any” of the candidates you support on any issue that you feel is superior to the policy position taken by Mr. Kucinich on the same issue, and explain to me why you feel that candidate’s position is superior to the position taken by Mr. Kucinich.  (This question, of course, presumes that you are capable of distinguishing said candidates true position from the media projected image of the candidate and their bland slogans).

Report this

By Robert B. Livingston, November 15, 2007 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment

The second video is extremely creepy. 

Reminded by Amy Goodman that his party’s leadership had not invited him to an important upcoming event, Kucinich—who has appeared guarded throughout the interview, suddenly gets real.  He suggests that the election is already being manipulated by powerful interests.

He then relates that a passage in a bill he had read the evening before will give the executive sweeping powers in a catastophic incident.

“What is happening in this country? he asks Goodman.

Why then did Goodman suddenly pop her question about him seeing UFOs?

Goodman has confounded many in the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement, most notably Barrie Zwicker, Eric Larsen, and Kevin Barrett, for being reticent (if not antagonistic) about investigating significant questions many people have about 9/11.
 
Here once again—she appears to be kicking a ball out of a court where inquiry might come into play.  (And Kucinich himself appears to have discovered the limits to what is considered fair on her program.)

Gonzalez’s and Goodman’s canned laughter to Kucinich’s answer about UFOs was frightening to me.

Report this

By Robert B. Livingston, November 15, 2007 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

The second video is extremely creepy. 

Reminded by Amy Goodman that his party’s leadership had not invited him to an important upcoming event, Kucinich—who has appeared guarded throughout the interview, suddenly gets real.  He suggests that the election is already being manipulated by powerful interests.

He then relates that a passage in a bill he had read the evening before will give the executive sweeping powers in a catastophic incident.

“What is happening in this country? he asks Goodman.

Why then did Goodman suddenly pop her question about him seeing UFOs?

Goodman has confounded many in the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement, most notably Barrie Zwicker, Eric Larsen, and Kevin Barrett, for being reticent (if not antagonistic) about investigating significant questions many people have about 9/11.
 
Here once again—she appears to be kicking a ball out of a court where inquiry might come into play.  (And Kucinich himself appears to have discovered the limits to what is considered fair on her program.)

Goodman’s and Gonzalez’s canned laughter to K

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 15, 2007 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

Ernest Canning on 11/15 at 9:28 am
(1114 comments total)

ITW, by your measure, we should allow Bush/Cheney to carry out their putch.  If the true test is simply effectiveness, why not eliminate Congress and the courts and entrust our government to a fascist dictatorship.  If standing for truth, justice, the rule of law, and the interests of the vast majority of the American people—the middle and working classes—doesn’t matter, if the only measure is “accomplishment” regardless of what how corrupt and immoral those accomplishments are, then let’s end this charade we call the democratic process and surrender all authority to a dictator.

Sorry, ITW, but as stated earlier, your entire line of attack on the only Democratic candidate who has the integrity to abide by his oath of office which mandates that he support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign or “domestic”—and Bush/Cheney embody the domestic enemy of the constitution and rule of law—by having the courage and tenacity to stick with his articles of impeachment as the sniveling, do-nothing Democratic “leadership” scurries to scuttle that effort, is a bogus diversion that evades both the substance of Mr. Kucinich in favor of the hollowed out images of the greasy politicians who are Democrats in name only as they slavishly serve the interests of the corporate elites.

*****************

In other words, you concede that Dennis Kucinich is ineffective and has actually achieved nothing and you have no evidence to the contray. Everything else is fluff to try to cover that basic fact up.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 15, 2007 at 10:28 am Link to this comment

ITW, by your measure, we should allow Bush/Cheney to carry out their putch.  If the true test is simply effectiveness, why not eliminate Congress and the courts and entrust our government to a fascist dictatorship.  If standing for truth, justice, the rule of law, and the interests of the vast majority of the American people—the middle and working classes—doesn’t matter, if the only measure is “accomplishment” regardless of what how corrupt and immoral those accomplishments are, then let’s end this charade we call the democratic process and surrender all authority to a dictator.

Sorry, ITW, but as stated earlier, your entire line of attack on the only Democratic candidate who has the integrity to abide by his oath of office which mandates that he support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign or “domestic”—and Bush/Cheney embody the domestic enemy of the constitution and rule of law—by having the courage and tenacity to stick with his articles of impeachment as the sniveling, do-nothing Democratic “leadership” scurries to scuttle that effort, is a bogus diversion that evades both the substance of Mr. Kucinich in favor of the hollowed out images of the greasy politicians who are Democrats in name only as they slavishly serve the interests of the corporate elites.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 15, 2007 at 9:58 am Link to this comment

Ernest Canning on 11/15 at 8:31 am
(1112 comments total)

The real measure of the man is to be found in the “substance” of his proposals.

**********************

Why?  That’s a fine standard for a philosopher, or even a social critic.  By that measure, both you and I are better qualified to be President than everyone running.

But I, in no way, accept that as the sole qualification to be President of the United States.

It’s an executive position. It’s a management position. It’s a position that to be EFFECTIVE, requires the ability to get people to work with you.  It’s a position that requires you to realize that every scumbag with an agenda is going to try to manipulate you, and control you (like VP Svengali and President Pinocchio) and you have to recognize and resist them.

These are skills that Dennis Kucinich has never demonstrated to my knowledge.  Instead, he makes his proposals, and is content to rant and rave when they aren’t enacted, but never is willing to roll up his sleeves, and get to work to get it done.

So he has great ideas.  Great.  I have great ideas, too. So do you. He will never be able to enact them—it will take others to do that.  That’s why he’s not qualified.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 15, 2007 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

ITW, let me add something to my last post.  In posing the question “what legislation has Kucinich introduced that passed” you have attempted to “frame” the issue by suggesting that the measure of the man is to be found in the accomplishment of bills signed into law—a box I refused to be forced into given that the legislative process is thoroughly corrupt and under the control of K-Street lobbyists.

The real measure of the man is to be found in the “substance” of his proposals.  While Mr. Kucinich may be short in physical stature, the integrity of his positions places him head and shoulders above all the corporate-dominated pretenders to the throne whom you say you support.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 15, 2007 at 9:28 am Link to this comment

Ernest Canning on 11/15 at 8:17 am
(1111 comments total)

ITW, the answer to your latest question is contained within my last post, #113163.

Not in this thread. Sure you have the number right? Or do you mean #113663?

Because if you do, you STILL don’t answer my question: What has Kucinich done? In fact, you continue to show he’s done nothing. Nada, Zippo.  You have not addressed at all my contention that he is a totally ineffective Congressman.

In fact, I think even my Re-thuglican do-nothing, Mr. Zero, ditto-head congressman, Rodney Frelinghuysen, a guy who wouldn’t stand out in a crowd of two, is more effective than Dennis Kucinich.  And that’s really sad as RF is consistently ranked as one of the less effective zombies on the Hill.

Now if you or someone else wants to question what OTHER Dem candidates have done, (which is the next line of attack when you have no other defense of DK), that is for another thread, not this one.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 15, 2007 at 9:17 am Link to this comment

ITW, the answer to your latest question is contained within my last post, #113163.

Doug Chalmers, your suggestion that one of this nation’s pre-eminent scholars, Noam Chomsky, is crumbling into dust sounds strikingly reminiscent to Trotsky’s sweeping the old order into the dust bin of history, which is precisely what will happen to this constitutional democracy if we cannot awaken people like you from the corporate-induced, moronic slumber.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 15, 2007 at 8:39 am Link to this comment

Hillary offers nothing but status quo, my discomfort with Hillary is her connection at the hip with special interests.  She offers news speak sound bites and the feeds us a diet of pablum, we deserve much more as a nation. 

Politics the Hillary way is a continued vision of status quo, so normal in most of Congress. 

Kucinich, offers change and is not beholding to special interests, maybe there is a connection?

What kind of whispering goes on between special interests and candidates, why should special interests have more of a say than the people?  Posters like Chompers and others must feel special interests should have direction of our country.

Kucinich seems to feel the people should have a say in the direction we take our nation. 

Sound bite Hillary is not worthy of my vote.

Report this

By Alan MacDonald, November 15, 2007 at 7:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I hate to keep bringing up this annoying and tiresome issue of impeachment, but ....

Certainly the Democratic Party and its leaders have been held in low esteem for their gutlessness on the issue of responsibility for the war, which has now culminated in their failure to hold impeachment hearings.

It is clear that the Democratic Party is viewed as emasculated and having no real influence on Bush and Cheney.  In fact, it could be said, without exaggeration, that Barney (the dog) has had more influence on Bush than the Democratic Party. 

The Democratic Party has had less influence than Barney, but perhaps a similar influence as Barney’s poop——in that Bush knows it’s there, is annoyed by the smell, and simply steps away.

Perhaps the Democratic Party, in deference to the fair advertising doctrine, should really change its name to the Barney Poop Party (or BPP).  This name change to BPP would also convey a somewhat foreign-sounding party acronym (like a Kurdish or Pakistani party) and better reflect the contempt and distain with which the Bush global dictatorship holds the Democrats.

Oops, sorry for getting off-topic——- let me get back, ‘on message’.

Well then, in summary, perhaps the Democrats could actually grow some, impeach Cheney with his own ‘one percent’ logic, and thereby avoid falling the little bit lower toward being a party named for dog poop.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, November 15, 2007 at 6:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

113674 by Douglas Chalmers on 11/14 at 11:29 pm

“Its about time you stopped attacking people of merit (including Hillary Clinton)”

If by “merit” you mean deep pockets, a firm connection with the corporate masters, and name recognition because she had a relative in the business (didn’t we used to refer to this as nepotism?) than I agree, she has merit.

BUT unfortunately “merit” is subjective depending on which end of the bus one is seated. As an American worker without health care, and stagnant wages, living in a rural northern county where this year there is real danger of some citizens (not me) freezing to death, especially old people who have worked “hourly” ... and young children who have out-of-work, and/or drug addicted parents. 

The “social programs” offered by the Democrats have failed to change life habits of either employers or citizenry.

The “Trickle-down” economics of the Republicans are also a joke.  NOTHING trickles to Washington County Maine. Summer people have been buying up the coastal land, and the new McMansions are built on former wood-lots where in times past people obtained their winter fuel.

Heating oil (the source of warmth for 80% of Mainers is $3.099 this morning for “spot delivery” which is what most folks can afford. “Buy-down” costs $1,500 cash up front, and locks in prices UNLESS there is a 25% or greater rise in prices. It hasn’t reached that yet (last season $2.699 was the high) The “lock-in price” is $2.959.

Politicians might want to try eating in local restaurants, riding mass transportation, or visiting “regular” folks in their own homes (for something other than a photo-op) Then MAYBE they could find a cause with some “merit”

Most voters with whom I have spoken would sell Iraqis down the river, (and although this is a heavily xtian area) would vote for a practicing abortionist, would allow the imposition of homosexual unions, and even vote for Hill-the business-shill IF the candidate would talk (believably) about jobs, energy, and the future of our children… So far none of the “front runners” in either party have done this.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 15, 2007 at 4:53 am Link to this comment

Ernest Canning on 11/14 at 8:57 pm
(1109 comments total)

Sorry, ITW, but if you ask a bogus question, you are gonna get “flamed.” Substance, ITW, substance!

**********************

There’s NOTHING bogus about asking what a candidate who wants to be President of the United States has actually achieved. 

Say we asked this question of George W. Bush. He could say:

“I presided over more executions than any other governor in history and made sure they all happened, even when there was doubt of the prisoner’s guilt.”

“I re-arranged the controls on the University of Texas’s endowment so my friends could empty over 1/2 billion dollars from it without fear of legal reprisals.”

Yet when I ask what Kucinich has achieved, I’m told the question is bogus.

Why is it bogus to ask what someone has done who wants to be President?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 15, 2007 at 12:29 am Link to this comment

#113562 by Ernest Canning on 11/14 at 11:29 am: “ITW & Doug Chalmers are a product of media spin which has created what Noam Chomsky described in “Failed States” as a “democracy deficit”—the “substantial gap between public policy and public opinion.” .........Chomsky illustrates this by pointing to Reagan’s 1984 landslide election.  Polls “showed by 3-2, voters favored tax increases devoted to New Deal and Great Society programs…. The public preferred cuts in military spending to cuts in health programs by about 2 to 1.”......”

“None of this matters”, EC, as we have already discussed Chomsky in the Noam Chomsky topic recently. He has crumbled into the same dust where we find most of your opinions, uhh.

Its about time you stopped attacking people of merit (including Hillary Clinton) as you now have all the tenacity of a rag doll….....

Report this

By cann4ing, November 14, 2007 at 11:03 pm Link to this comment

antispin, let’s take one piece of legislation, introduced by John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich, but bottled up by the corporatists—healthcare reform—and compare it to what the so-called “leading” candidates—Obama/Edwards/Clinton—propose.

The Conyers/Kucinich measure calls for a single payer system that would eliminate for-profit health care insurers and HMOs from the system, unnecessary middle-men who account for 31% of the spiraling healthcare costs in this country, as compared to administrative costs of from 1% to 2% in single payer countries.

Hillary Clinton is the second largest recipient of healthcare insurance lobby monies of any politician in these United States—second only to Geo. W. Bush.  None of the big three, Hillary, John & Barack, will touch single payer.  All talk about “universal coverage.”  Each offers a variation on what amounts to be a subsidy scheme for the health care insurers.
All of these schemes ignore the core issue raised by “Sicko!”  Having insurance does not mean that one will be covered when it comes time to receive carrier approval of a necessary procedure.

As an attorney who represents seriously injured workers I can attest to how carriers abuse utilization review (introduced into the Cal. Workers’ Comp. system in 2004 by our celebrity Governor) in order to deny necessary care whenever and whereever possible.  In one case I had to proceed to a full blown trial just to get physical therapy for a client who had lost both his arms and both his legs.

ITW’s entire line of attack against Mr. Kucinich is totally bogus.  The core problem we have is a legislative process so corrupted by corporate money that real reform, like the Conyers/Kucinich single payer plan, never makes it out of committee.  Instead of appreciating the fact that one has to begin to break the stranglehold of corporate money by electing candidates who will not be bought, ITW points to the fact that honest legislative efforts are blocked by the corrupt corporatists at every turn and say, “See, that honest guy of yours, Kucinich, is worthless.  He hasn’t passed anything!”

Report this

By Sleeper, November 14, 2007 at 10:52 pm Link to this comment

I don’t think there has been any legislation that has been good for anything for quite some time.  Everything lately has some perverse name attached to the latest rip off of the American people. 

We have free trade rip-offs that have served global worker exploitation scams.  I can agree that we can have the most positive effect on the world through trade, but this exploitation which gives away our markets to some of the most oppressive regimes in existence.

Since Hillary had her little fling with managed competition our healthcare cost have approximately trippled.  Do you really want some more of that sham? 

Big Brother is already able to look into our bedrooms with Infra Red sensors.  Now we learn that lisening and monitoring devices are aimed at us all.  Do we believe the extent that they tell us?  We’ve already been told that we need this in a post 9/11 world.  The problem is that it was being utilized prior to 9/11/2001 and our congress is considering blanket amnesty for these Constitutional crimes.  The bastards are selling the farm and middle America pays with their Blood and their unappreciated labor.

The squeeze is on and it is only going to get worse as foreign interrests are being sold the keys to our kingdom.  Our government will make sure we know our place in this global fascist society.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 14, 2007 at 10:46 pm Link to this comment

Special Interests, lobbies a mass media caterers of deception,  so necessary for government to represent increased profits.  Why cannot some people see the hand writing on the wall, the nose in front of their face?  Take the light company episode in Cleveland,  move it,  to the federal government and you have our bought unchecked and unbalanced government.  Undue influence by special interests, lobbies bending ears of congress, while the people get the chaff, and go to war for profits. 

Who was it that said, we have the best government money can buy? (Mark Twain)?

Kucinich takes a stand, he cares for truth, the people and the future, while the other candidates seem to be dancing in the wind, depending on who is pulling the strings and which way the wind may be blowing that day.  Truth would be a nice change in government

Report this

By antispin, November 14, 2007 at 10:35 pm Link to this comment

Darn, didn’t mean to leave out Mike.  Mike Gravel: http://www.gravel2008.us/

He’d be my second choice.  Love this guy!

Report this

By antispin, November 14, 2007 at 10:33 pm Link to this comment

Re “what hath he achieveth?” we could have a score card listing pertinent legislative facts about Dennis, John, Barack, and Hillary (we’re so familiar, I use their first names.)  The bills they’ve proposed, and a short analysis of each, the proponents and benefactors, the funding mechanisms, how each voted on them, etc.  Is that kind of information readily available in a democracy? I think Kucinich would come out favorably in such a comparison, but I don’t really have enough detail to be sure. 

There are various organizations devoted to the evaluation of fair political measures and practices, are there not?  League of Women Voters? Wall Street Journal?

Report this

By cann4ing, November 14, 2007 at 9:57 pm Link to this comment

Sorry, ITW, but if you ask a bogus question, you are gonna get “flamed.”  Substance, ITW, substance!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 14, 2007 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment

Gee, how hard is it to answer a simple question: What has Kucinich achieved as a congressman?

For that I am flamed, and flamed and flamed again.

So, exactly what has the Hon. Congressman from Ohio achieved?

Report this

By cyrena, November 14, 2007 at 9:25 pm Link to this comment

#113459 by driving bear on 11/14 at 3:45 am

•  Bottom line Judge Thomas’ only crime was being Pro life.

#113363 by driving bear on 11/13 at 3:17 pm
•  Judge Thomas only crime was being conservative.

So, here we have it from the Driving Bear. At 3:17 pm (PST) on 11/13/2001, Bitter Thomas’ only crime was “being conservative”. Then, just over 12 hours later, at 3:45am (PST) on 11/14, the same Bitter Thomas’ only crime was ‘being pro-life’.

So, what should we think about all of this, as unveiled by DB? Well, there’s the question of whether or not a sitting SC Justice should be guilty of ANY crimes. Then, should we wonder how either of them is an “ONLY” crime? Well, to give the benefit of the doubt to DB, lets say that they are the SAME crime, or that they mean the same thing, since I’m fairly confident that in DB’s neo-conned ideology, ‘conservative’ does in fact equal ‘pro-life’, since he’s used a similar sort of terminology in earlier posts, specifically in suggesting that “Christian Conservatives” would never –stand-by while a million babies were aborted.

So, take a lesson DB. The political ideology of ‘conservatism’ is NOT what you think it is, which is why we call you morons ‘neo-conservatives’; as in NEW (that’s what neo means) conservatives. The neo-conservative ‘brand’ of conservative ideology that you practice (based on the slogans packaged in the ads that you hear in Sunday sermons) has absolutely NO resemblance to the conservatism that has been the ideology of the republican party for the many decades prior to the highjacking of our democracy by the neo-cons. THOSE republican conservatives, (Christian or otherwise) based their ideology on a belief of fiscal conservation, (no WAY they would have allowed this sort of debt to run up) and a basic minimalist mentality. (less is better). They were committed to small government, (not huge mess that pretends to be a government today) and anti-regulation, (didn’t want to be confined to their methods of increasing their personal wealth). And, for the most part, they were good with the Constitution as it was written, including individual rights. (such as privacy, which is what Roe v. Wade was decided on.) They also weren’t the least bit interested in having the Church make laws for the State. So, what you like to claim as ‘conservative’ is NOT what has always been ‘conservative’ in the beliefs of the repugs. Rather, the Dick Bush style of neo-conservatism is downright RADICAL, and the complete OPPOSITE of what ‘conservative’ has always meant. It is more RADICAL than anything we’ve seen in probably a century. This is of course why so many formerly staunch republican conservatives have distanced themselves from the neo-con regime in place now.

The ‘pro-life’ slogan is new as well, and is the ultimate hypocrisy, since these neo-cons clearly are NOT ‘in favor of’ – LIFE! One does not show a preference for LIFE, by ordering wars that destroy literally MILLIONS of lives. So, Dick Bush can hardly be considered pro-life, and neither is Bitter Thomas. They might be ‘pro’ THEIR lives, but they truly don’t give a shit about any OTHER lives, or other forms of it. Starving people, withholding medical care and basic human services, outsourcing jobs, reverting to slave wages for the few jobs left, and killing the environment that we all depend on aren’t exactly in the nature of preserving or sustaining life either. Nor is it in line with the concept of ‘conservation’ as in conservative.

So DB, you’ve been neo-conned, in a very big way, by a bunch of radical crazies, using pathetic and unoriginal advertising slogans to make you believe that something means the opposite of what it does.

This has happened because it is so easy to fool the ignorant, and the ‘pretend’ -religion- has always been the most effective tool for controlling the ignorant. Don’t feel too bad. They used the same trick on the slaves, to keep THEM in line and stupid.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 14, 2007 at 8:56 pm Link to this comment

ITW says Kucinich was a “crappy, rotten Mayor of Cleveland”—an opinion for which he offers not one example of something Kucinich did that justifies the adjectives—“crappy, rotten.”

The usual spin for “crappy, rotten” is that Kucinich allowed the city to go into default.  Here is the reality, also taken from the recent Gore Vidal Nation Magazine article.  At “31 [Kucinich] was elected mayor of Clevland.  Once he had been stalled, in 1978, the city’s lordly banks wanted the new mayor to sell off the city’s municpally owned electric system, Muny Light, to a private competitor in which (Oh, America!) the banks had a financial interest.  When Mayor Kucinich refused to sell, the money lords took their revenge, as they are wont to do: they refused to roll over the city’s debt, pushing the city into default.  The ensuing crisis revealed the banks’ criminal involvement with the private utility of their choice, CEI, which, had it acquired Muni Light, would have become a monopoly, as five of the six lordly banks had almost 1.8 million shares of CEI stock; this is Enronesque before the fact.

“Mayor Kucinich was not re-elected, but his profile was clearly etched on the consciousness of his city; and in due course he returned to the Cleveland City Council before being elected to the Ohio State Senate and then the U.S. Congress.”

With much of the public domain in this country being placed on the auction block, as one public function or another faces the threat of privatization, I’d say America could well use someone like the guy you call the crappy mayor from Cleveland.

As with your insistence on reducing the electoral process to the idiotic race-track question as to which horse will win rather than which candidate best represents the interests of the vast majority of Americans, you erect passage of legislation introduced as a false measure of the man’s stature.  You chose to ignore that the reason a detailed measure like HR 1234, which provides a comprehensive plan that if passed when first proposed, would have had all coalition forces and all contractors out of Iraq six months ago, is not because of Kucinich’s lack of effectiveness but instead is due to the extent to which the “do-nothing” Democratic “leadership” would prefer to simply give lip service to ending the war, as they troll for the same corporate lobby monies from the military-industrial complex that two years ago was funneling the big bucks to Republican candidates.

If passage of legislation were the test, then you should get behind only those politicians that gave us the Military Commissions Act which resurrected the Kafka-like military tribunals that had been sharply rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court erstwhile disembowling the right of habeas corpus—a right that dates back to the Magna Carta.  If passage of legislation is the test, you should get behind those who brought us the Patriot Act, or Energy Legislation that gave away billions to the oil cartel, or bankruptcy reform that enhanced the bottom lines of the credit cartels, or those who successfuly brought us the Bush tax cuts which have driven the nation towards a bankruptcy of its own, or the bogus Medicare Prescription Drug reform designed enhance the drug mfg. bottom line.

Yeah, ITW, you seem to have come up with a real good standard for determining who we should vote for.  Indeed, if passage of legislation is the test, then I guess we should all be voting for the Republi-crooks, for they passed a whole lot of legislation under their watch.

Substance!  ITW.  Substance!  Where does the candidate stand on issues that truly matter?  Everything else is image.

Report this

By antispin, November 14, 2007 at 7:56 pm Link to this comment

ITW wants an example of successful legistation.  I couldn’t find much.  He cosponsored a successful bill to promote humane alternatives to animal testing and ban the importation of products made from dog or cat fur.  Yay cat and dog lobby!

Couldn’t find much else, but focusing on this is completely missing the point.  The point is that powerful supermoney is behind the suppression of representatives who speak for the people. He’s one of a small handful who propose good bills.  If good bills aren’t proposed then they won’t be passed. When they are proposed, you can see that outlines of the “invisible hand” of Exxon Mobile, et al, making sure they don’t advance.  So to say “look, Kucinich’s bills don’t succeed” is just to prove the points that EC has been making.


We need someone who will speak for what the majority of US citizens want.  Kucinich is one of a small few.  He embodies what’s left of the soul of the progressive dems.  I wrote “sould” by accident, but maybe it’s apropos.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, November 14, 2007 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

If legislation origination were the sole criterium for evaluating the work of a legislator, then I don’t think congress would come out looking so good.  As for me, I think a good legislator/rep is one who faithfully represents in congress the will of his/her constituency, especially if the will is constitutional.  F*** legislation.  There’s more of that then we can handle. 

It’s a real tragedy when the leader of the free world has brought his country to the point where its main concern has to be that religious extremists don’t infiltrate and blow up its citizens.  His is a failed policy which has the support of most in congress.  Kucinich talks a different strategy and a different strategy is now called for.  Beyond that, I don’t care what law came from his desk.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 14, 2007 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment

EC:

Can you name me ONE piece of legislation that Kucinich originated in the House that became law?  Maybe there is some but I don’t know what it is.

What has he done in the House that is constructive? He’s made a lot of noise, but what exactly has he gotten done?

Anything?  Has he ever been even VAGUELY effective as a congressman?  Educate me.

The man was a crappy, rotten mayor of Cleveland, he’s never shown himself to be a leader or a manager of anything.

He may say some great stuff, but that doesn’t make him America’s future.  He’s simply the Dems version of Ron Paul.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 14, 2007 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment

ITW & Doug Chalmers are a product of media spin which has created what Noam Chomsky described in “Failed States” as a “democracy deficit”—the “substantial gap between public policy and public opinion.”  US electoral campaigns are run by the PR industry—the same industry that devotes itself to selling products.  “Business spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year projecting imagery to delude consumers….As [Thorstein] Veblen pointed out long ago, one of the primary tasks of propaganda is the ‘fabrication of consumers,’ a device that helps induce ‘all the classic symptoms of state-based totalitarianism:  atomization, political apathy and irrationality, the hollowing and banalization of purportedly democratic political processes….’”  Ominously, Joseph Goebbels “conscripted the leading commercial advertising me in Germany for his propaganda ministry,” stating that “he would use American advertising methods” to “sell National Socialism” much as a business seeks to sell ‘chocolate, toothpast and patent medicines.’”

In packaging candidates, the PR industry “resorts to the same techniques” it uses in “marketing commodities.  Deceit is employed to undermine democracy, just as it is a natural device to undermine markets.”  In candidate packaging, the public is not presented with a detailed analysis of where the candidate stands on the issues of the day but on the projection of image.

Chomsky illustrates this by pointing to Reagan’s 1984 landslide election.  Polls “showed by 3-2, voters favored tax increases devoted to New Deal and Great Society programs….The public preferred cuts in military spending to cuts in health programs by about 2 to 1.”  “None of this matters,” Chomsky concludes, “as long as elections are skillfully managed to avoid issues and marginalize the underlying population, again in Veblen’s terminology, freeing the elected leadership to serve the substantial people.”

A more recent example is the blind Democratic poll conducted last August which set forth candidate positions on issues but deleted their names.  One candidate, Kucinich, received a whopping 58% of the vote while the rest of the field was at or near single digits.

Time and again I have seen posters like CY give solid substantive reasons why Kucinich is by far the superior candidate only to see their rational arguments bounce off ITW & Chalmers who are so blinded by image that they have become impervious to questions of substance.  They can only repeat the mantra drilled into them by the propaganda network, aka corporate media, Hillary is “electable,” don’t waste your vote.  The effort by these otherwise intelligent individuals to cling to that mantra is a testament to the mind-numbing effect of the imagery cast by the propaganda network, aka corporate media, which has them asking the wrong question, who “will” win rather than the right question, who should we want to win.

Report this

By Sleeper, November 14, 2007 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

Hillary is the neo cons favorite candidate.  She is all they talk about.  She is the leader when it comes to accepting the Corporate bribes.  Next to “W” she is the best candidate that money has been able to buy.

Edwards plays ball to some extent, but he did make his money as a lawyer getting some fairness for some real people.  He may be able to accomplish te most reform while still accepting many lies.  Dennis is standing for TRUTH.  It is a lonely job.  There is so much ugliness to hide.  He has real enemies on both sides and they have more backing then we can fathom.

Report this

By Alan MacDonald, November 14, 2007 at 10:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All right, let’s be fair and apply Cheney’s own logic to Kucinich’s issue of whether Cheney should be impeached.

It is well known (in fact there is a book about it) that Cheney was the originator and promoter of the Bush doctrine by which the Iraq war was launched—- “The One Percent Doctrine”.

According to Cheney’s own logic, the ‘one percent doctrine’ states that because he outcome would be so terrible, that if there is only a ‘one percent chance’ that Iraq might plung the world into nuclear war—- then preemptive action is required to prevent such a massive danger to the people of America.

OK, in the manner of the famous “Firty Garry” line, “ask yourself, punk” is there a ‘one percent chance’ that Cheney might cause the launch of a nuclear war on Iran before Jan ‘09??

As Cheney himself might say, “Well, have you been counting, punk?”  “I don’t remember if I have fired 5 wars of six—- so do you want to try me?”

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 14, 2007 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

ITW,
Giving pause can feel good, but the feeling is like, I got yah! Then what?

I agree with you, it can be tempting and could make the Hillary pill test less bitter. Change real change is not in the air, so you may have something there.  Hillary is business as usual, connected at the hip with special interests, plays the game by the rules, she may appeal to more neocons than you think.  Not being a man, may be the thing most unpalatable to them, her pandering seems to have helped her on the issues supported by the neocons.

Your giving pause comment is interesting, we have an opportunity to have Kucinich come to our community for a campaign speech, it would be nice to have him drop by this good old boy community, Hillary would never come to our little community. 

Hillary and Kucinich differences are, Kucinich tells it like it is and Hillary tells it like she is instructed to tell us like it is.  Truth compared to sos.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, November 14, 2007 at 6:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

113462 by Inherit The Wind on 11/14 at 4:23 am

“The ONE thing I LIKE about Hillary Clinton (and there’s much I don’t like) is that she drives the right-wing-nuts to distracted insanity, like no other Dem.”

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Bill drove the “rightwingnuts” crazy also, BUT he did nothing for the lUS workers either. NAFTA, GATT, a stupid war in another Muslim country, scandle, and a reaction which gave the right wing (led by Newt) the upper hand for most of his term, and Bush’s.

Bush got his power and did his damage using Clinton’s perfidy… why doesn’t that translate?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 14, 2007 at 5:23 am Link to this comment

You Kucinich-Klowns are no better than the tin-foil-hat conspiracy fantacists.

Look, if Dennis the Menace gets the nomination I’ll vote for him.

The ONE thing I LIKE about Hillary Clinton (and there’s much I don’t like) is that she drives the right-wing-nuts to distracted insanity, like no other Dem.  They fear HER as President more than any other candidate…Doesn’t that give you pause? It sure gives me pause. I think she’s playing the game, and once in the White House will be far more progressive than “playing politics” allows her.

And I think the rightwingnuts know this.

Vidal is a CRITIC, not a source, nor a statistician!  You can defend him to the hills, but his opinion is his OPINION, no more.  And his audience is a tiny, non-random sub-set.

The comparison of MY description of Gore as irrelevant to the neocons’ mis-use of that word for the UN is absurd, childish, and just plain STUPID—and you know it!  That’s a child’s argument on the level of “You said ‘butt’—nah, nah-nah-nah, nah!”

Report this
driving bear's avatar

By driving bear, November 14, 2007 at 4:45 am Link to this comment

reply to #113369 by Ernest Canning and  
  #113431 by cyrena on 11/13 at 11:57 pm

Just go to this web site and read if you can the full senate transcript of US Senate conformation hearing of Judge Thomas.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hill/hillframe.htm

FYI the FBI looked into her charges and found nothing to back them up.

Also Read after this “terrible Harassment ” Hill followed him around like a puppy.

Bottom line Judge Thomas’ only crime was being Pro life.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 14, 2007 at 2:41 am Link to this comment

#113202 by Ernest Canning on 11/12 at 5:02 pm: “...post the date, time and location of your intermediate school graduation so that all the adults at Truthdig could be there to personally congratulate you when you move on to the ninth grade….”

After #113182 by Leefeller’s “knickers” comment, you should confine yourself to “bras”, EC. The most appropriate next step is for you to tell us when you “graduate” to wearing a full-size one instead of your “trainer”, ha ha

Quote: “Bra Trainer is a fictional teaching aid designed to instruct adolescent boys to overcome the intricacies of opening the brassiere. When initiated the machine mechanically demonstrates the basic principles of clasp disengagement.  Following a short pause the machine then re-secures the bra ready for the next demonstration. The piece is inspired from accounts of repressive post-war institutionalised sex education…...” http://www.noamtoran.com/

Report this

By cyrena, November 14, 2007 at 12:57 am Link to this comment

#113428 by antispin

•  Hey, since this is a Kucinich Kucorner, of sorts, allow me to share an important letter I got from their camp just now:
Dear Auntie Spin,
OK Auntie Spin, (oh I do love that name, especially with the Auntie in front of it). Thanks for posting this. I’ll tune in. I also wanted to agree with your take on why your niece in college has found US/American history boring or otherwise uninteresting. Having now returned to college myself, (as an Auntie, and not a young one) I made the same comment not long ago, to one of my own colleagues. I explained that in HS, I learned absolutely ZIP of what I (and everyone else) needed to know about the history of this nation. Seriously. And, THAT was damn near 40 years ago, at a ‘so-called’ private school. Now, since then, I haven’t found any major improvements on this study of history, (at least not at the average public school) and so it’s even worse.

Ernest mentions this in one of his posts, and the piece by Amy Goodman, (Curiosity Didn’t Kill This Cat) says the very same…The United States of Amnesia, is one way to put it, (as Gore Vidal apparently has). Anyway, Amy’s piece on Studs Terkel makes this real clear. We are missing a sense of history in these United States. We just don’t have it, and that’s why things have been able to get to this point. Lot’s of reasons that I won’t go into now, but for sure, that’s got a whole lot to do with it. So, check out her piece, and send it to your niece.

#113358 by jbart

Jbart…on the donations, I’m on it. I can at least afford to give him as much as I gave Obama, back when I thought his head was in the right place. (which it may still be, except that if it is, he’s keeping it a secret). So yes, I’ll send something along, and I DO think it will help, if everybody can even send a little. This is exactly (though many would disagree) how Barack actually kicked his off, way back when…by soliciting everybody for small donations. So, I just wish we’d done that before with Kucinich, but…now we know. And, yeah, it probably is better than wishing for a nut job to off the evil doers. These nut jobs are never around when you need them, and when they are around, they’re working for the other side, and trying to off US!!

Speaking of which…

#113369 by Ernest Canning
•  driving bear, I don’t know what to say except to say you are wrong on your facts, wrong on the witnesses, and if you have an authentic source you can site to the contrary, please produce it. 

Ernest, he CAN’T. (produce anything of the sort) And, you already basically said why, but since you’re an attorney, you just did it too diplomatically for him to ‘get’.
•  …..”All outrageously unfounded accusations which can have an effect on the uneducated even though they don’t require a shred of proof. …”
In a nutshell, you’re dealing with an nut job ideologue here, and logic, proof, or anything close to that is not going to phase him in the least. He’s gonna believe what he wants to believe, and it doesn’t matter about fact or proof, or logic, or substantiation, or any of that. I figured that out a while back. These are the types that you keep at a 500 mile distance (minimum) if they ever show up in a jury pool.
You just say…DISMISSED!!! Never mind the reason. It speaks for itself!!

You got it right …. Here…

•  I suspect you don’t know any better, but if you do, I would ask the same question:  Have you no sense of shame?

Nope. He doesn’t know any better, and nope, he has no shame either. We’ve already been through that. And, if you don’t you any better, you can’t have any shame. I guess.

A wasted nut job.

Report this

By antispin, November 14, 2007 at 12:05 am Link to this comment

Hey, since this is a Kucinich Kucorner, of sorts, allow me to share an important letter I got from their camp just now:

Dear Auntie Spin,

This evening (Wednesday, November 14th) at 9pm EST the campaign will hold a national town hall meeting via our new streaming media capability on the web. The address is:

http://www.kucinichtv.com

This town hall meeting will provide an opportunity for the campaign to introduce the New Constitutional Convention Initiative to supporters and anyone who is concerned about the state of affairs in the United States. The New Constitutional Convention Initiative will include a a series of nationally broadcast discussions (via http://www.kucinichtv.com) that seek to accomplish three outcomes:

Outline the ongoing assaults on the Constitution
An educational component / civics lesson to clarify the intent of the framers and provide a foundation for understanding the ongoing assaults on the Constitution
Discuss in detail what can be done collectively and individually to restore crucial constitutional principles
Provide a venue which will lead to a coordinated and sustained national effort to renew the Constitution and restore accountability in government
The New Constitutional Convention Initiative will hold a national conference call each week for the next 10 weeks - culminating in a major event at the end of January. A complete list of dates, panel participants and moderators, and topics / themes for each week, will be made available in the next week and distributed to anyone interested in participating.

Either Congressman Kucinich or I will be on the call to introduce the initiative - depending on the outcome of an expected important Congressional vote.

Please pass the word and let’s get this party (Constitutional Convention) started.

Best regards, 
Mike

Michael Klein
Campaign Manager
Kucinich for President 2008

Report this

By antispin, November 13, 2007 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment

ITW: Your comments about Gore Vidal suggest you haven’t read his works and yet you feel bold enough to dismiss them.  I haven’t read much Norman Mailer (too many words) but I read, for instance, “Empire”, and got insight into US history that may not be available any other way. 

One of the aspects of this thread I’ve enjoyed (largely thanks to Ernest Cannings) is the attention paid to history.  Gore Vidal, I think, coined the phrase “The United States of Amnesia” to refer to amazing lack of US citizens to have any notion of their own history.  I have a niece majoring in history at college who dismisses US history as “uninteresting,” I gather because of the way it was taught to her in HS. 

If no one remembers anything for how it truly happened, then pols can invent truths on the fly, as is evidently the case.  This is the problem with 911: if you take a falsehood as an assumption, than anything may logically follow…and anything has: war without end, anthrax attacks unsolved, thousands of tons of $100 bills lost to the scheming profiteers via the Fed and CPA, insto-presto “homeland” security laws.

Wake up.  You’re about to be handed your ass by Hillary Clinton, after voting for her.  At least vote for Kucinich so you don’t have to suffer because of your own stupid ignorance.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 13, 2007 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment

Hmmm, ITW, it doesn’t seem all that long ago that Bush/Cheney were saying that the UN is no longer relevant.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 13, 2007 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment

Ernest Canning on 11/13 at 5:51 pm
(1090 comments total)

This from Gore Vidal in The Nation:

“I sometimes drop the name of the least publicized applicant to the creaky throne of the West:  Dennis Kucinich.  It takes a moment for the name to sink in.  Then genuine applause begins.  He is very much a favorite out there in the amber fields of grain….A member of the House of Representatives for five terms since 1997, although many of his legislative measures have been to usefull and original for our brain-dead media to comprehend.  I note his well-wrought articles proposing the impeachment of Vice President Cheney, testing the patriotic nerves of his fellow Democrats, but then the fact of his useful existence often causes distress to those who genuinely hate that democracy he is so eager to extend.  ‘Don’t waste your vote,’ they whine in unison—as if our votes are not quadrennially wasted on those marvelous occasions when they are actually counted and recorded.”

You listening, ITW?

**********************

Gore Vidal is an interesting, amusing and highly witty, though rather erratic social critic.  He is neither an “authority” nor relevant.  The audiences who come to listen to him are already a small, distinct minority.

In other words:  So what?[/B]

Report this

By cann4ing, November 13, 2007 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment

This from Gore Vidal in The Nation:

“I sometimes drop the name of the least publicized applicant to the creaky throne of the West:  Dennis Kucinich.  It takes a moment for the name to sink in.  Then genuine applause begins.  He is very much a favorite out there in the amber fields of grain….A member of the House of Representatives for five terms since 1997, although many of his legislative measures have been to usefull and original for our brain-dead media to comprehend.  I note his well-wrought articles proposing the impeachment of Vice President Cheney, testing the patriotic nerves of his fellow Democrats, but then the fact of his useful existence often causes distress to those who genuinely hate that democracy he is so eager to extend.  ‘Don’t waste your vote,’ they whine in unison—as if our votes are not quadrennially wasted on those marvelous occasions when they are actually counted and recorded.”

You listening, ITW?

For the full article and a chance to vote in The Nation Poll, go to

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/vidal

Report this

By cann4ing, November 13, 2007 at 5:23 pm Link to this comment

driving bear, I don’t know what to say except to say you are wrong on your facts, wrong on the witnesses, and if you have an authentic source you can site to the contrary, please produce it. 

Judge Hoershner confirmed Anita Hill’s account.  Thomas did not produce a single withess to rebut Hill.  After claiming that he wanted to clear his name, Thomas did not offer any specifics.  Instead he claimed he did not even listen to Hill’s testimony, promptly Sen. Robert Byrd (D.WV), who commenced his remarks during the final Senate debate that he had initially been inclined to confirm because he believed “the Court should be conservative” to state that he changed his mind because he believed Hill’s account.  Thomas’s account, he said, was another matter.  “He said he wanted to come back before the committee and clear his name…He was given the opportunity to clear his name.  But he didn’t even listen to it.  He said he couldn’t listen to it.  He was tired of the lies.  What kind of judicial temperament does that demonstrate?”

Rather than come up with the type of hard evidence you imagined existed, the Federalist Society team came up with obscure and bizarre references, trying to impugn Professor Hill’s very credible account.  Where Hill testitied Thomas once turned to her, asking, “Who put this pubic hair in my Coke?” and on another made reference to a porn star named “Long Dong Silver,” Sen. Hatch produced a copy of “The Exorcist” containing “a scene involving pubic hair and a glass of gin.”  The Federalist Society came up with an obscure 1988 Kansas district court case referencing the same porn star.  Hatch suggested that it was Hill and her “slick lawyers” who had pieced together her account from publicly available documents.  Sen. Spector openly accused Hill of “flat-out-perjury” and “Sen. Alan Simpson hinted darkly about derogatory personal material on Hill he had received ‘over the transom.’”—All outrageously unfounded accuations which can have an effect on the uneducated even though they don’t require a shred of proof.

I can well remember my near state of shock as I observed these proceedings from the comfort of my living room.  If any lawyer, in front of an impaneled jury, made references to a witness’s “slick lawyers,” openly accused a witness of “flat-out perjury,” or made allusions to unseen, supposedly damaging evidence “over the transom,” he or she would be severely sanctioned for misconduct; perhaps held in contempt.  For the U.S. Senate, this was probably the darkest hour since the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy.  Sadly, on this occasion no one stepped forward to ask, “Senators, have you no sense of shame?”

Brock describes his own role in the affair as being assigned to trash Hill in print.  He pieced together “The Real Anita Hill” from “legalistic, highly analytical theories, defensive hair-splitting, derogatory gossp and political spin” in order to create a caricature of Anita Hill as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty”—a line which, Brock informs us, elicited a “raw emotional reaction in the conservative grass roots” once in the hands of a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh.

If this was a “high-tech lynching,” it was Anita Hill who was left dangling on the end of a rope.  For you to continue to come forward, ignorantly spouting the propaganda all these years later is a grave disappointment.  I suspect you don’t know any better, but if you do, I would ask the same question:  Have you no sense of shame?

Report this
driving bear's avatar

By driving bear, November 13, 2007 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment

reply to #113239 by Ernest Canning on 11/12 at 10:28 pm

First off the Facts prove that A. Hill was lying.
She said that Thomas harassed her in the spring of 1981. Guess what Hill and Thomas did not even meet until September of 1981. FYI unless you are in the southern hemisphere September is not a spring month.

Also Hill had no other witnesses to support her case.
Judge Thomas presented other female witnesses that stated he was a gentleman.

Judge Thomas only crime was being conservative.

Report this

By jbart, November 13, 2007 at 3:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Although I’ve placed “comments” on this board, across several issues in the past, I’ve never “backed” any ONE candidate. I have my reasons, believe me. Simply, I really have a “trust” problem with politicians. I think Nader “pulling votes” enabled the Bush disaster, for instance. But maybe, just maybe, there is a way to get things straightened out. Dennis Kucinich needs $ to win.  I’ve already sent $ to his campaign, but can only afford the $ I sent.
What about a grass roots effort? Not a “get out the vote” effort, but one of a “support Kucinich” for President. What about a $5.00/caring American. It can be donated to his website. Maybe through this effort we can raise enough $ to “combat” the Corporate “bribes”. Maybe. And, if this effort “sprouts wings” the $ will be there to get the message out and, MAYBE, it will get enough support to win this damn thing. I’m much more hopeful that this can work than wishing for a nutcase to “off” the evil guys. Just another thought.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, November 13, 2007 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

113211 by Inherit The Wind on 11/12 at 6:30 pm

“Flash! Everyone of us who staunchly stood behind Eugene McCarthy against RFK, George McGovern (1968 edition) and even Hubert Humphrey got what we so richly deserved for our pig-headedness…Richard Nixon!  The ONE man who still rivals George W. Bush as the worst president ever, the most detested president since Hoover, and the crookedest president of the first 42.”

Nixon and Bush may be tied for second in the “crookedness” department, but James K. Polk is far and away the leader.

AND even for second, US Grant, WG Harding, J Buchanan, and even ole “Honest” Abe ran horrendous evil administrations.

The system as well as the individuals need change. Without a serious overhaul, we’ll just continue to get more of the same!

Report this

By John Borowski, November 13, 2007 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It appears to me that the game plan by the extreme right (Aka Republican Conservatives right wingers) in Washington controlled by their British masters is to end the concept of capitalism. Substituting another form of concept as to the way society should exist is sure to fail. Capitalism depends on the pockets of the average American to be filled to the brim. If the pockets of the average American is desiccated Capitalism will die on the vine. In the old days the pockets of the average American was filled to the brim because the Liberals were taxing and taxing, Today the average Americans’ pockets are empty because the extreme right Republicans (Aka Conservatives right wingers) are “flim-flaming” the average American in their phony tax cuts. When you look at the trillions of dollars worth of shopping malls, the trillion dollars of car dealerships, the trillions of dollars of small, medium, and large businesses that exist only because of the money in the average American’s pockets will determine whether they can exist; it tells you that capitalism is dead. The transition from Capitalism to this unknown form of globalization will surely be tragic. The iron fists of the right and the religious devils will be needed to suppress the world’s people.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 13, 2007 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller on 11/13 at 7:25 am
(509 comments total)

ITW

“Huh! I’m fascinated by a poll that shows that when only 3% of Dems are in favor of Kucinich.”

Your president doesn’t listen to the polls, do you believe polls are accurate, or couldn’t they just be another tool to direct or promote peoples votes? Could it be the president is lower than the polls show and Kucinich higher?

Seems to me polls are all a part of the grand deception, using mass media their personal voice to promote lies, so constant from our government, truth is not even in the ball park, if truth did show up we may never recognize it.  Polls just another part of the great whoppers fed to us daily, we seem to be a nation of high colonic supporters.

what me Skeptical?

**********************

ROFLMAO!  Yeah, Bush has Zogby, Gallup and Harris under his svengali control…...

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 13, 2007 at 8:25 am Link to this comment

ITW

“Huh! I’m fascinated by a poll that shows that when only 3% of Dems are in favor of Kucinich.”

Your president doesn’t listen to the polls, do you believe polls are accurate, or couldn’t they just be another tool to direct or promote peoples votes? Could it be the president is lower than the polls show and Kucinich higher? 

Seems to me polls are all a part of the grand deception, using mass media their personal voice to promote lies, so constant from our government, truth is not even in the ball park, if truth did show up we may never recognize it.  Polls just another part of the great whoppers fed to us daily, we seem to be a nation of high colonic supporters. 

what me Skeptical?

Report this

By cyrena, November 13, 2007 at 5:36 am Link to this comment

#113262 by Inherit The Wind

•  Huh! I’m fascinated by a poll that shows that when only 3% of Dems are in favor of Kucinich.
ITW, I admit I was sort of shocked to see this myself. But then, pretty much nothing surprises me anymore.

•  I still remember that Chuck Robb and Frank Lautenberg both voted to confirm Clarence Thomas.  Bastards.

I love this!! It’s become one of my favorite expressions, and even then…only in the past several years. ( I swear I never used to cuss this much before The Coup) But, I normally call ‘em Dirty Bastards. Just adds an extra umph to it for me, for whatever reason.

Anyway, I didn’t know who the traitors were who voted to confirm Clarence Thomas. So, thanks for that piece of info. Now, I’m still trying to figure out why neither Obama or Clinton registered a vote on Mukasey. Am I missing something? I don’t even know if they showed up.

That annoys me.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 13, 2007 at 5:19 am Link to this comment

Ernest Canning on 11/12 at 6:44 pm
(1086 comments total)

Flash, ITW—Dems lose when they run Republican-lites.  70% of Dems want Cheney impeached; 54% of all Americans.  The numbers are even higher when it comes to the percentage of Americans who want an immediate end of the war in Iraq.  That was also true when Kerry, rather than running as an anti-war candidate, campaigned to conduct a more efficient war!

This idea that we have to select someone who only represents what the military industrial complex wants is pure folly.

Finally, the latest news.  A Democracy for America poll, just completed, had Kucinich winning in 41 of 50 states.  Seems people are getting fed up with the “do-nothings” of the so-called Democratic “leadership.” What a surprise?

****************

Huh! I’m fascinated by a poll that shows that when only 3% of Dems are in favor of Kucinich.

But if it makes you feel better, if Dennis the Menace gets the nomination I WILL vote for him.  If he does a Nader and runs as an independent he can go f*** himself.

I still remember that Chuck Robb and Frank Lautenberg both voted to confirm Clarence Thomas.  Bastards.

Report this

By cyrena, November 13, 2007 at 2:41 am Link to this comment

#113204 by Ernest Canning

Cyrena, the principle problem with Gore’s response in 2000 stemmed from his narrow focus on the undervote by isolating the punch cards in a few heavily democratic counties.  His campaign failed to either examine the Katherine Harris/Choice Point purging of close to 90,000 otherwise eligible voters in the run-up to the election from Florida’s computer voter rolls (Greg Palast broke that story in November 2000, within weeks of the election) and a failure to understand the broader implications of the overvote.

Ernest,

THANKS for this!!! I’m just now seeing it, and it clears up some things in my memory bank. I don’t remember reading this from Greg Palast. BUT, I know why. I didn’t have much access to valid or truthful journalism at the time. So, this explains it. I’ve read several other things by him though…quite a bit really. He’s a favorite.

So, guess what popped right out at me from this, (which is the MAIN thing I didn’t know at the time, and probably wouldn’t have made the connection anyway). CHOICE POINT!! Holy Smoly!! What a corrupted mess of a thing they were eventually revealed to be!!! I think the law suits are STILL flowing from their disasters. I had what I can only call another horrendous experience with either them, or another company just like them. At least it was located in this same place in Georgia. (maybe they were just a different name). And THEN, there was ANOTHER company in this SAME place, Alpharetta, GA. But, maybe I remember them from Texas, and the guy that’s noted as one of the 13 most dangerous people in America, (at least by a piece at Alternet) is this guy Derek V. Smith, the CEO. They also call it Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s most dangerous data base. They used it to remove people (allegedly felons) from the rolls in Louisiana and I guess Texas as well.

This is so scary. Seriously. This is why it was such an overwhelming blessing for me to escape that place. I don’t know if it’s like that for everybody there, but man oh man, piss somebody off, and they sick Choice Point on you, and oh boy.

Then eventually, that big ol’ scandal broke out, because they claimed that all these jillions of their records were stolen.

OK. Thanks. All of this scum just keeps creeping out. (well, obviously others have known far longer than I). I didn’t know Choice Point was involved in Katherine Harris’s tricks with the over and under votes though. I just remembered when that recount was thuggishly interrupted. We’re talking Mafia style. It’s been a DANGEROUS new Century so far, eh?

So, I guess I’ll just go back to The Cherokee Nation vs The State of Georgia 30 U.S. 1 January, 1831 Term. It’s almost boring compared to the stuff that goes on now. But, I’ve gotta read it. Geeze Louise.

Report this

By cyrena, November 13, 2007 at 1:29 am Link to this comment

#113239 by Ernest Canning

Hi Ernest,

Thanks for the far clearer explanation on the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, and the horror that Anita Hill went though. (I remember always thinking how awful it was for her, because she so OBVIOUSLY didn’t wanna do it.) I mean, she would definitely have let it go, having already gotten on with her life and career. (or at least she was trying). Anyway, it was a nightmare, and I’ve experienced similar.

Still, I’m pretty much sure it’s wasted on Driving Bear. He doesn’t read anything except polls…and apparently real selectively.

Anyway, I’ve never read the book Blinded By the Right, though it’s been on my reading list for a real long time. So, I’ll make it a point to get to it. The one by Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson is also excellent, (though several years old). It’s titled “Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas”. I was really informed by that book, because at the time of the hearings, I simply wasn’t politically sophisticated enough to understand the background, and why they were obviously blackballing this woman. Once I got the history of how important it was to the regime at the time, to put Clarence Thomas on that bench, it all made more sense. Another one of those really painful lessons about how the world operates. It made a whole bunch of other things crystal clear to me as well. (though apparently not enough – since I didn’t avoid going through a similar experience)

Anyway, thanks for the tip on the other book. I’m familiar with Judge Hoershner as well, and it seems like her accounts were included in the work by Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson.

Report this

By cyrena, November 12, 2007 at 11:46 pm Link to this comment

#113236 by antispin

•  Does he come close to the sincerity of a Ray McGovern or Medina Benjamin or Cynthia McKinney?  No, no and no.

I’m in full agreement with you on this one antispin. He doesn’t come any where close to the sincerity of any of these people that you’ve named. Matter of fact, he may not be even as sincere as you or I ordinary folks, since I was doing similar things that you describe. Lots of marching on DC and other places.

So no, I’m not a government troll, (although I sort of chuckle at the thought – I wish I could pass myself off as such, and then maybe I wouldn’t have to live in fear of rendition, or have nightmares that Blackwater is after me).

And, I know a number of folks who in fact voted for Nader in the primaries. I lived in Texas at the time, and I swear I don’t even remember seeing him on a ballot. (not unusual for Texas – where they just sort of make things up as they go along, and/or make the results do what they want them to do, regardless of how people actually vote…sort of like the deal in Florida.) But, I remember Nadar from some decades ago, right here in California. Saw an old documentary last week featuring his sister, and some of the work that she’s done. It was quite good.

So, we can agree on that. I do think Al Gore is sincere though. I agree he didn’t run a particularly ‘popular’ campaign, but then he was never what we’d call an outgoing or ‘charismatic’ character like his cohort, the Prez. And, for some people, I guess that was a problem. I remember so well, (I’ll never forget it really) that I’d forwarded an e-mail that I received from a relative during that lead-up in 2000. It said – simply enough, The Bush-Cheney team is DANGEROUS: George Bush is dangerous because he is STUPID, and Dick Cheney is dangerous because he is NOT!

Well, there you have it. But, my I remember my cousin (who also lived in Texas at the time, and was equally stupid) told me that he really liked George Bush, and thought he was ‘sincere’. I nearly fainted. Sincere? Well yeah, I guess we could say that. All depends on how you look at it I guess.

Still, in his case, (and I see this a lot on this blog) some people are so firmly stuck in their ideologies, (that have been passed down) that they simply don’t (maybe because it’s simply impossible for them to do so) look at anything beyond the party. If somebody tells them they’re supposed to hate somebody, then by golly, they DO!! It goes hand in hand with that deep racist mentality. They thrive on hate, even though if you really were able to pin them down, they wouldn’t be able to tell you why they hate the person or persons. They just do. Somebody told them to, and they can’t think for themselves, but only as part of a group mentality. That’s where we see all of these pathologically partisan crazies. The Evangelicals and the Fundamentalists that describe themselves as righteous Christians, when in fact they’re just a political CULT, and a dangerous one besides. It’s like the guy who actually admitted (another Texan) that he’d vote for Mickey Mouse for prez, if he was the repuglithan running. I’m sure he was sincere as well. 

Thanks for that senate count on the Thomas confirmation. Told ya it was slim. And, just between us, Sandra Day O’Conner has realized (since leaving the bench of course) that she committed a grave error in that vote in Gore v Bush. Hindsight is always 20/20 – it’s just really frustrating when nobody bothers to pay attention to those who actually have the 20/20 vision IN ADVANCE of the bad decisions.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 12, 2007 at 11:28 pm Link to this comment

Driving bear, you are thoroughly uninformed about what transpired during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing.  First the man lied when he said that he had never given any thought to whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided in the 18 years between the date it was handed down by the Supreme Court and his confirmation hearings.  Anita Hill reluctantly testified, but did so in great detail, giving not only dates, times and detailed descriptions of unwanted sexual advances and backing that up with testimony about contemporaneous conversations she had had with friends including California Workers’ Compensation Judge Susan Hoershner, a judge before whom I have appeared and know to be of the utmost integrity.  Hoershner backed up Anita Hill’s account.

I would strongly urge that you read David Brock’s “Blinded by the Right,” which provides an insider account of how it was the hard-right, including Senator Hatch, who stopped their cross examination of Hill on the first day of her testimony because it was only serving to reinforce her account.  That gave them time to come back and trash her in a manner that, had it been done by an attorney in a court of law, would have led to the attorney’s being held in contempt, but for which the Hatchet men got away with it because of the lack of judicial controls inside the Senate chamber.  (As someone who has practiced law for 30 years I can tell you that at the time I watched the proceedings live, I was nothing less than shocked by the level of Senatorial misconduct.)

Hill was the first target of the right-wing spin machine which trashed her in the same manner that they have trashed everyone who stands in the way of their fascist agenda ever since—the Clintons, Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, Ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, to name but a few.  Brock would know, he was one of those who was assigned the task to trash her in “The Real Anita Hill.”  It was Brock who came up with the phrase, later adopted by Rush Limbaugh, of referring to Hill as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.” 

One of the principle reasons that motivated Brock to write “Blinded by the Right” is the guilt he feels for having abandoned principle to make a buck serving the hard right, and his book reveals that the right wing pundits who have continued on, in his absence, people who knew personally, like Ann Coulter, know full well that they are spewing a line of garbage—your reference to the Clarence Thomas “high tech lynching” is nothing more than a repetition of a piece of right wing propaganda that emerged from the Federalist Society confirmation team at the Thomas confirmation hearings.

There is absolutely no doubt that Thomas lied under oath about Roe v. Wade in order to get confirmed, and for that reason alone, he should be impeached.

Report this
driving bear's avatar

By driving bear, November 12, 2007 at 11:04 pm Link to this comment

reply to Cyrena

FYI Judge Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52 to 48

Also for the comment about how poor Ms Hill was treated what hearing where you watching. After the democrats attempted “lynching” of Judge Thomas the American people saw hill for the lying bitch she was.
the polls prove it

The Facts supported judge Thomas and not Hill’s account.

Also it’s not Bush’s fault that democratic / Gore voters are too stupid to mark a ballot.

Report this

By antispin, November 12, 2007 at 10:53 pm Link to this comment

Easy there, Cyrena, I voted for Nader in the primaries and held my nose for Gore in the GE.  He was an unnaturally bad campaigner, if you’ll recall.  It was like he was doing what he could to take the fall against all odds. 

As a youth, I marched on Washington DC to protest the Vietnam war many times in the late 60’s and early 70’s.  My bitterness towards Gore is honest.  It seems to me he was a corporate tool.  As for his global warming Nobel - well, maybe he’s sincere.  He sure seems to be, but how can you trust someone took your wagon and tossed it?  He did a few “how dare you” lectures after Bush trashed the government, but did he ever get arrested?  Does he come close to the sincerity of a Ray McGovern or Medina Benjamin or Cynthia McKinney?  No, no and no.

I suspect there are government minders who troll sites such as this one to twist opinions, but that’s not me.  I find it really creepy that you might say so…it makes me suspect you of the same.

Report this

By cyrena, November 12, 2007 at 10:26 pm Link to this comment

#113210 by antispin

•  Did you listen to the Scheer/Nader debate?  This was Scheer saying “how important the SCOTUS is and so elect Hillary” vs. Nader pointing out that Thomas was approved by a Democratic senate.  It was the Democrats that approved Thomas who (with Sandra) then handed Gore his ass, which he was glad to keep, it seems.

Yes antispin,

I did in fact listen to and read the excellent Scheer/Nadar debate. BUT, maybe more importantly, I even watched those 2 or 3 days of hearings for Clarence Thomas, back those many years ago. It was –in a word- HORRIBLE!! Seriously, I’ll never forget it. They ran Anita Hill through an absolute meat grinder, and Clarence Thomas was clearly seen as the psychotic pervert that he is.

Now, I don’t remember exactly what the party make-up was of the Judiciary Panel at the time. I remember that Ted Kennedy was right there in it though. And, while I’m guessing that you’re correct in that the Democrates were the majority in the Congress, I’m honestly not certain what the numbers actually were. I AM certain that Clarence Thomas was confirmed by the slimmest margin in the history of the US Supreme Court. EVER.

Now, that was 16 years ago antispin, so I’m really not entirely sure how we’re going to connect the Democrats to being responsible for the Supreme Court decision in Gore v Bush. I’m also not willing to accept your claim that Gore seemed to prefer to ‘keep’ his ass, rather than moving his belongings from the office of VP in the White House, to the Oval Office in the White house seven years ago. I mean, I really don’t believe that, and I can only imagine that someone very bitter, and maybe not liking Gore too much to begin with, might want to now say that the destruction of our country and our constitution, and the fact that we are bankrupt, is somehow all Gores fault.

Now I know that there are indeed people who would certainly prefer to do that. (and apparently you are one of them). But, it’s been my experience that most folks who feel THIS strongly about ‘blaming Gore’ (at least at this point) are the ones who voted for george to begin with, and now their pissed because they were so very, very, very, wrong. And, well….it’s always convenient to look around for a scapegoat, eh?

Now, that might not be the case with you, but I’ve certainly noticed it with others with whom I’m personally acquainted or related. And, the reality is, Gore got screwed, and in him getting screwed, the rest of us did as well. I didn’t hear any dems complaining too loudly at the time, (though I certainly did) but most of the people I knew then, didn’t want their asses handed to THEM, so they just kept silent.

And, such as it’s been for the past 7 years. I don’t know of anything more that Al Gore could have done in 2000. If you think of something, let me know.

Meantime, after the way he was trashed by the thugs back then, and seeing as how -like I mentioned- I didn’t see or hear anybody else coming up with any protestations, I can’t say that I blame him a damn bit for not running now. Why should he? To inherit a horrific mess that he would never have created if he had been able to take the job when we elected him the first time? So that he could be dogged out and villified again, by the same people?

Oh no. I don’t think anybody is that stupid or suicidal. Could it be that you’re just really annoyed that he wasn’t permanently ruined by all of that, and able to act independently to do some good?

Could it be that maybe YOU voted for Dick Bush yourself?

Just a thought. Meantime, I’ve said this before…Al Gore doesn’t own anybody a damn thing. You had your chance, and you’ve let Dick Bush screw you 4 ways from Sunday. SUch as it is.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 12, 2007 at 7:44 pm Link to this comment

Flash, ITW—Dems lose when they run Republican-lites.  70% of Dems want Cheney impeached; 54% of all Americans.  The numbers are even higher when it comes to the percentage of Americans who want an immediate end of the war in Iraq.  That was also true when Kerry, rather than running as an anti-war candidate, campaigned to conduct a more efficient war!

This idea that we have to select someone who only represents what the military industrial complex wants is pure folly.

Finally, the latest news.  A Democracy for America poll, just completed, had Kucinich winning in 41 of 50 states.  Seems people are getting fed up with the “do-nothings” of the so-called Democratic “leadership.”  What a surprise?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 12, 2007 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

Flash! Everyone of us who staunchly stood behind Eugene McCarthy against RFK, George McGovern (1968 edition) and even Hubert Humphrey got what we so richly deserved for our pig-headedness…Richard Nixon!  The ONE man who still rivals George W. Bush as the worst president ever, the most detested president since Hoover, and the crookedest president of the first 42.

But now the price isn’t a Nixon or even a Reagan—it’s the end of the United States Constitution.

But now’s the time to pick your favorites and fight for them—for two more months.  Then the shaking-out will occur and we’ll have to decide.

I hope I don’t have to hold my nose to vote Democratic this time, but if I have to, I will!

Anyone who thinks Al Gore hasn’t learned a HUGE amount in the last 7 years and will make the same mistakes all over again is a damn fool.

But I don’t think Al will run.  Why should he, unless the Democratic Party comes apart at the seams and needs a savior?

Report this

By antispin, November 12, 2007 at 7:03 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena writes, “The Supreme Court ruled against him in that historical case, and handed the White House to Dick Bush, in a 4 to 5 decision of the full court. This was allowed to happen (that razor 4 to 5 decision) because Bush the father had previously placed his crony (Clarence Thomas) on that very same court, surely to do the bidding for any repuglican agenda for as long as he shall live.  And, Clarence certainly delivered on that day, putting us exactly where we are now.”

Did you listen to the Scheer/Nader debate?  This was Scheer saying “how important the SCOTUS is and so elect Hillary” vs. Nader pointing out that Thomas was approved by a Democratic senate.  It was the Democrats that approved Thomas who (with Sandra) then handed Gore his ass, which he was glad to keep, it seems.  Why share your ass when you can drive it to rack up a Nobel peace prize for you, and not have all the bother of actually governing to boot?  It’s the best argument against man-made global warming: Gore says it’s so, so maybe it’s actually not.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 12, 2007 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment

Newsflash, ITW, Gore isn’t running.  Neither Edwards nor Obama offer an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  Both offer scam “unversal healthcare” plans that are simply variations on Hillary’s scheme to subsidize the healthcare insurance industry, though of those three plans, Edwards’ is the least offensive.  None of these three are willing to challenge NAFTA & the WTO.  For that matter, neither has Gore.  Edwards like Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq and until recently Obama voted for every funding measure.  Not one of these three candidates has either called for restoration of the Fairness Doctrine or a roll back on media consolidation.  With the exception of Richardson on the limited issue of Iraq, not one of those candidates represents anything that would amount to a meaningful return of representative democracy that is actually responsive to the will and needs of the vast majority of citizens in this nation—the middle and working classes.  The military-industrial complex would be comfortable with any of those you support, markedly uncomfortable with
Dennis Kucinich.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 12, 2007 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena, the principle problem with Gore’s response in 2000 stemmed from his narrow focus on the undervote by isolating the punch cards in a few heavily democratic counties.  His campaign failed to either examine the Katherine Harris/Choice Point purging of close to 90,000 otherwise eligible voters in the run-up to the election from Florida’s computer voter rolls (Greg Palast broke that story in November 2000, within weeks of the election) and a failure to understand the broader implications of the overvote.  It was this limited, court-ordered recount in Miami-Dade that was shut down by a John Bolton led riot of Republican Congressional staffers, and then permanently ended by a judicial coup in Bush v. Gore.

Keep in mind that the Harris/Choice Point purge only dealt with those illegally excluded from voting.  Exit polls provide an exceedingly reliable statistical analysis of how votes were cast from voter interviews conduct immediately after they vote—so reliable that they are used by our own government to measure whether foreign elections are fraudulent or fair.  In 2000 the Voter News Service exit-poll proclaimed Gore the winner by a whopping 7.3% margin—some 435,000 votes.

Both affluent and mostly white Tallahassee County and impoverished and mostly black Gadsden County voted on optical scan machines.  In Gadsden one in every twelve votes were “spoiled”—discarded without being counted either because of an “undervote” where no vote was recorded for President, or an overvote, where the scanner reads more than one vote for President.  Tallahassee did not lose a single vote.  As explained by Greg Palast, “Gadsden used optical scanners to read the ballots.  Any stray mark…and zap!—the vote was trashed.”  But in Tallahassee, if the voter made a stray mark, “zap!—the ballot returns to the voter.” 

As noted by Prof. Steve Friedman and Joel Bleifuss, “Counties and precincts with large African American populations, which were more likely to support Gore, had technologies where ballots would predictably go uncounted.  The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights…study concludes that although blacks made up 11% of Florida’s voting population, they cast 54% of the uncounted ballots.”

Placing the blame on Gore ignores the key role of the U.S. corporate media, starting with the election eve calling of the election for Bush by the President’s cousin, John Ellis at Fox News, promptly seconded by NBC at the insistence of its parent company CEO (General Electric)—a major weapons mfg.  This was compounded by the U.S. media’s non-coverage of the real issue. 

At a time when the nation was focused on hanging chads and electoral leads that measured in the hundreds of votes, one would have thought a story about the illegal suppression of thousands of African American voters, but as Palast laments in “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy,” the story ran “in the wrong country:  Britain.  In the USA, it ran on page zero….The theft of the presidential race in Florida also grabbed big television coverage.  But again, it was the wrong continent: on BBC Television, broadcasting from London worldwide—everywhere, that is, but the USA.”

Something to think about as the corporate media tries to sell us Hillary Clinton as it ignores Mr. Kucinich.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 12, 2007 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

It would be nice Doug Chalmers if you could post the date, time and location of your intermediate school graduation so that all the adults at Truthdig could be there to personally congratulate you when you move on to the ninth grade.

Report this

By antispin, November 12, 2007 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment

On Nov 7, 2000, Al Gore conceded to George Bush and then retracted his concession based on an early prediction of the vote in Florida, which was reversed as too close to call.  The thing is, he was *that* eager to concede and clearly did not have his heart in the fight.  It’s like he was reading the Rockefeller script and knew the general story line, but fumbled his lines.  “Please let me know when I can concede.” 

I know I’m over-simplifying, but this was my gut feeling throughout: that Gore couldn’t counter the “Sore Loserman” monicker because he didn’t have a feeling of entitlement because he knew how the story was supposed to end.  There were various ups and downs over the tortuous month, like when in Nov 23, the Florida Supreme Court rejected an emergency plea by Al Gore to force Miami-Dade County to resume manual counts and Gore’s lawyers argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should stay out of the Florida controversy.  But what about the caging?  What about all the blatant fraud subsequently revealed by Greg Palast? 

When it came down to it, the SCOTUS seemed to ask, “who among these contenders most seems confident with their victory?” and it *clearly was* Bush.

Report this

By laughoutloud, November 12, 2007 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You americans are so eff’d up!  Can’t say it’s totally your fault though, what with the media there being manipulated by your gov’t.  (by the way, I LOVE fox news, we watch it here like you watch sit-coms, lots o’ laughs!)

As an outsider, it is painfully obvious that Mr. Kucinich is the only person with enough testes to call it as it is.

Shame though, if only he were 6’2”, fair-haired and as striking to look at as his wife, the american public would probably take him more seriously.

As for me, I actually would prefer that you americans vote in Hiliary.  She’s sure to keep the mighty USA on it’s current path which will continue driving down the US dollar, which in turn makes it a real joy for me when I come over on business and not only aid in the outsourcing of your beloved ‘middle class’ jobs, but also when i go to pick up gifts for the kids at bargain basement prices!

Apparantly world history is not on the US education curriculum.  Oh well, enjoy it while you can!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 12, 2007 at 4:48 pm Link to this comment

#113182 by Leefeller on 11/12 at 2:58 pm: “...For a guy who gets his knickers in an uproar every time someone misspells his name, your alleged retort to Earnest Canning does not make any sense…”

Knickers! And, mind your own business, uhh…..

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 12, 2007 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment

Douglas Chalmers,

For a guy who gets his knickers in an uproar every time someone misspells his name, your alleged retort to Earnest Canning does not make any sense?

Report this

By cyrena, November 12, 2007 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment

•  #113134 by antispin on 11/12 at 10:50 am
(7 comments total)
ITW writes “Me? My first choice is Al Gore. Then John Edwards, then Barack Obama, and finally Hillary Clinton, then Richardson.”
Al Gore is just the sort of surrender monkey that got us into this bush shit in the first place.  Why was he so eager to cede the election?
Antispin,

You’ve mentioned this before, regarding Al Gore and his supposed willingness to cede the 2000 election. Every once in a while, somebody else comes up with this fallacy as well, but it’s not the reality of the day. Now it may seem like a small thing, but it isn’t when you look back on history at any given point in time, to mark what have been very monumental events. So, accuracy is more important sometimes than others, but most times (like since that fateful Judicial Coup of 2000) it is absolutely critical to be accurate.

So, for the record, we might argue that John Kerry conceded too quickly and too easily in 2004. That CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be said of Al Gore in 2000. In that case, accuracy very much matters.

So, here’s the deal. Al Gore did not ‘concede’ the election. Rather, he fought back first by dealing with the issue as it applied to the farce in Florida. The Florida State Supreme Court ruled in his favor, and the recount was to begin. The rethugs went into their actions (similar to Nixon’s back in the 70’s) and STOPPED the recount. Quickly, Al Gore filed another action with the Supreme Court in Gore v Bush. The Supreme Court ruled against him in that historical case, and handed the White House to Dick Bush, in a 4 to 5 decision of the full court. This was allowed to happen (that razor 4 to 5 decision) because Bush the father had previously placed his crony (Clarence Thomas) on that very same court, surely to do the bidding for any repuglican agenda for as long as he shall live.  And, Clarence certainly delivered on that day, putting us exactly where we are now.

So, read the events of that. Read the case. And, once you’ve familiarized yourself with those events, then you can decide if there was anything else that you could have advised Al Gore to do, beyond what he did. But, please keep in mind that until that point, we were still a democratic government, allegedly governed by the rule of law and the separation of powers. THAT COUP, by the rethugs via the Supreme Court, marked the highjacking of our country by this same group. To suggest that Al Gore simply ‘ceded’ the election is a gross inaccuracy, and it incorrectly represents the extreme seriousness of what it all meant to the history of this nation. Because, that was indeed the first point of the downfall. The next was 9/11. That finished us off.

Now, looking back, (because hindsight is always 20/20) we know that this may have all happened anyway, because Lieberman after all, WAS the VP running with Gore at the time. We can look now, and possibly suspect that even if the election had been accurately recorded, he may have eventually taken over in the same way that Cheney has run the government into the ground since. I don’t know, but it’s worth a consideration. It’s hard to believe that Al Gore (as President) would have allowed it. But, we’ll never know.

Still, it doesn’t do you or any of the rest of us any service to make the claim that Gore ‘ceded’ that election, when he did nothing of the sort.

As for John Kerry, we could possibly, (even probably) make that accusation. But, don’t blow off what happened in 2000, because that was what brought us down. That judicial Coup, that hijacking, was the beginning of the end. And, short of some armed insurrection, (and he would have needed his own version of Blackwater) there was little else that Al Gore could do.

Report this

By Sleeper, November 12, 2007 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment

There is no way this is going to fall into Dennis’s lap.  Raising the Articles of Impeachment will help if hearings proceed with a genuine pursuit of TRUTH.  We already have had the 9/11 Commission Cover-up pushed on us and that should get some mention in some upcoming investigations.

The media will play the virtues of any of the other candidates before they will give Dennis any credibility.  The extent of the other candidates willingness to sell out needs to be brought out for all to see.

We are in the mist of TREASON by many of those in the highest of offices.  Backing the lie is backing the TREASON.  We need to shed as much light as possible on this darkness for it is BLACK.  It is EVIL.  IT is the GREAT WHITE SATAN.  The real enemy is us and our ability to serve a seemingly lesser evil. 

If they serve Corporatism over the Constitution there is TREASON and a perversion of what should be held sacred.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, November 12, 2007 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena, You’re right.  I have a bad attitude and I’m going to try to keep my hopes up.  For people who really see the corruption and the assault on our liberties and our constitution, Kucinich is the only clear choice and, if there’s anything at all to right winning out in the end, he will get elected.  I love his optimism.  I hope he’s right about advancing into the top three after the first primaries.  Wouldn’t you just love a three-way debate—a REAL debate?

Report this

By antispin, November 12, 2007 at 11:50 am Link to this comment

ITW writes “Me? My first choice is Al Gore. Then John Edwards, then Barack Obama, and finally Hillary Clinton, then Richardson.”

Al Gore is just the sort of surrender monkey that got us into this bush shit in the first place.  Why was he so eager to cede the election?  Why was Kerry?  Perhaps they had been threatened with a Taser?  Pathetic cowards.  How could you possibly want to go through that again?  Gore, as VP, is seen in Michael Moore’s movie presiding over the senate and giving his blessing to the Supreme Court’s coup de tat.  Unbe-friggin-lievable.  And you want more of that?  I no fathom.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 12, 2007 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

Me? My first choice is Al Gore. Then John Edwards, then Barack Obama, and finally Hillary Clinton, then Richardson.

If SOMEHOW Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich got the nod, I’d vote for them as well.

I think Ron Paul is by far the best Republican but he’s there just to give them cover from the charge they are all the same.  I totally find his abortion stance reprehensible, but at least he uses his brain, at least in public.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 12, 2007 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

Real mature retort there, Douggie boy.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook