STRICKLY CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Sir,

Please understand the urgency.References bellow.
Could you kindly give your consent for your assistance needed by the son of the late Camara Camara,a victim of political crisis in Ivory Coast,for the transfer of $11 million for an investment in wood and wood products in your country.
Please,I await your terms.
Documented details upon your request.
Camara Camara Jnr.

References:
http://lists.state.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-USIAINFO.EXE?A2=ind0 302d&L=dospress&D=1&T=0&H=1&P=812

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/17902.htm

http://208.179.27.199/fotoweb/grid.fwx?columns=3& rows=3&folderid=5001&SF_GROUP1_BOOLEAN=and&SF_F IELD1_GROUP=1&SF;_LASTSEARCH=(IPTC025+contains+(H earses))&Stemming=Enabled&Synonyms=Enable d&Phonic;=&SF_SEARCHINRESULT=0&SF_FIELD1=camara+yer efe&SF;_GROUP1_FIELD=

BOb, I agree with your position.  I just wrote Barbara Boxer, who is my Senator, to not campaign for Joe Lieberman in his primary battle with Ned Lamont. I hope others, who share your opinion on Iraq,  will urge her not to do it.
I read your columns in the LA Times for many years, and truly miss seeing them now.  I found out about this website from the Laura Flanders—RadioNation show, last night in which you appeared.  I will check this site out often to read you articles.

“Real Democrats?”  Are they out there, yes a very small minority…and I applaud their courage.  But in my opinion, for the most part the majority of Democrats are little better than the Republicans.  The future of our nation is at stake, and in my opinion, there is relatively little difference anymore between the two major parties.  I have been repeatedly disgusted by the pathetic weakness of Democrats, and am tired of simply having to vote for the lesser of the two evils.  Choosing a Democrat, simply because they aren’t as disagreeable as the Republican, is not sufficient for me anymore.

I want candidates whose priority is truth; I want to see more candidates with the courage of their convictions; I want to see outspokenness and boldness in stating and working for the things they say they believe. 

For me, this means focusing on purging corruption from all levels of government, creating true governmental accountability to the people, and an end to the rampant governmental intrusions into the private lives of citizens…how we live is our choice…we do not need “Big Brother” dictating how we should live.  We can take responsibility for own lives in choosing what activities we engage in, and as private property owners should have the right to determine how to run our businesses.  (For example, my state of Colorado just enacted a smoking ban, imposing state will on the citizens of the state…this, in my opinion, is one of the clear examples of unfairness and misuse of state power.  What kind of state legislators did this?  To me, the proper role of government should protect individual rights, and this includes property rights of business owners.) 

I like how Scheer asks, “Why is it so difficult for the Democrats to grasp that waffling doesn’t work as a form of leadership?”  If a candidate is unable to state what they believe and will work for…then I will not support them.

Since a candidate’s consistency or lack thereof on Bush’s war on Iraq is my most important issue, I refuse to vote for any candidate who has as Scheer writes “waffled.”  At every level of government, I am utterly disappointed with most Democrats.  I do not wish to continue to support a Party which in my opinion is just as much a part of the problem as the Republicans.  (In my opinion, if we had mostly “real” Democrats over the years, our nation would not be in the state it is now.) 

What is needed is a party of the people with charismatic candidates willing to boldly express their views…because I think the American people seek an alternative to the status quo.  I can easily envision at all levels many Americans supporting alternate candidates if such candidates voiced unequivocally their views of how this government works and what’s wrong with it and most especially the many ways it can be changed to benefit the people. 

In my disillusionment with both the Republican and Democratic parties, I have been researching a number of third parties, coming to a decision to become active in the Libertarian Party.  My positions seem to agree with much of their platform, and even in the areas where I currently differ, it seems we want the same outcome-it’s just a matter of how to achieve it.  To me, this provides the means to learn and grow, to explore the possibilities, and to work together for what each of us desire: freedom. 

If we want to regain truly representative government, I believe and agree with Scheer that we must get candidates into office who will passionately ” stand up for their values, rather than wasting {our} money, time and votes on those who won’t,” but I differ with him on thinking that the Democrats will do that.

I encourage those readers disillusioned, dissatisfied (if not disgusted) with their current political party, to explore the Libertarian Part as I did.  Through such a third party, and through our participation in it adding our voice/support into it, we could transform it into the party of the people so many of us desire…but to be a party of the people it necessitates more of us joining what is already a party with a good platform…what is needed now are the people nationwide to give it their energy thereby providing it/us the means to develop charismatic strong candidates for offices nationwide…giving the American people an alternative. 

Personally, I think our government is controlled by corporate tyranny; and I want no more of any party that produces “waffling” candidates; I reject the status quo; thus I now add my support to building a party of the people through my joining and becoming active in the LP.  Perhaps through our participation in a third party we can create the party of the people we deserve…it may take time, but let us begin.  I also like that the LP is made up of so many diverse political spectrums…former Democrats, former Republicans and more.

For additional reading on my decision to change my affiliation, visit The Truth Blog at http://www.christinesmith.us/cblog  and I invite you to the Libertarian Party website to read their platform at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml  and learn more (including taking a political quiz to see how your views compare with that of Libertarians) at http://www.libertarianism.com/

As for the Democratic Party, it’s too late as far as I’m concerned…because it’s the consistency and courage of convictions which is essential to me…I will only support someone and a party who strongly and unequivocally opposes Bush’s war on Iraq…and makes a strong stand for individual liberties…and whose priority is upholding of our Constitution.

“I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party,” said the former vice presidential candidate, who last December made the anti-democratic claim that “We undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril”

Who does this clown represent, New Haven or the occupied West Bank illegal settlements?

I hear alot of anger, gloom and doom scenarios, and just plain frustration in these comments about two democratic leaders. At least everybody seems to be thinking! Whoever wins the democratic primary, it will be better than a republican. When they say we have to focus on the economy and not the environment, they are leading us to doom. I like Al Gore the best then John Edwards, then Hillary. I’m just rooting for the democrats.

To: Paul Kibble (#13265)

Somehow, I think you misread my comment. I don’t disagree with your points, or those of Kathy Sullivan (#13144), taken generally.

I stated Ms. Sullivan was on the right track. I only intended to correct a technical error concerning the effects of nuclear war. In this nit-picking world, I have tried very hard to be accurate. Otherwise, Conservatives, especially, and others will deride the argument as reflecting ignorance or stupidty. (Of course, on their side, the Siren of Slime need not have anything but a foul mouth.)

You restate some of the main points I made in my book, The Graduate Student’s Question, particularly with reference to culture.

What we may disagree about is whether the situation is correctable. I think it unlikely, as I hold the view that History is cyclically chaotic, but it is possible. Anything is possible.

Mr. Battalglia:

As you apparently concede, your two points of disagreement with Ms. Sullivan don’t really undermine her main thesis, which is essentially that we’re in the “final throes” (thanks, VP Cheney) of the American empire, if not of the world itself. The only question is an old one: will the end come with a bang or a whimper? 

1. Of course thermonuclear war would result in a thermonuclear winter, rather than by accelerated global warming. So what? How do you prefer your suicide? Hanging or poison? Bullet or gas? Different m.o., same outcome.

2. The ideals and aspirations you mention have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. Their most recent manifestation was in the late 60’s in the form of the counterculture. Many of the people from that time (my generation) consciously chose to abandon Western “civilzation” in favor of Utopian cultural, ecological, economic, political and social values.

As you may have noticed, over the past 30 years, they didn’t exactly triumph. They either died, were marginalized, or decided to make their “necessary compromises” and work “within the system.” But this time it’s going to be different because. . .? Rhetorical question.

Most human beings are creatures of habit(cultural, ecological, economic, political and social)and it usually takes a revolution or a catastrophe (often the same thing) to knock them out of their semicomatose state. By then it’s almost always too late.

Nearly all the posts here (mine included) reflect an unconscious belief in American exceptionalism: we’re the exception to the rule of how civilizations wax and wane because we’re uniquely horrible or uniquely wonderful. In fact, we’re neither. Other great empires have come and gone before us and we’re destined to join them on the toxic waste dump of history. The only difference is that this time we’ll probably take the whole human species with us. Thus the concept of “collateral damage” will achieve global reach. No one ever said we didn’t think big.

Ms. Sullivan’s final point stands: despite their pretensions to being “fiercely independent” and “freedom-loving,” Americans are among the most unreflective, conformist people on earth. So for these good citizens, two epitaphs for the sad parody of a democracy this country has become:

1. “In a functioning police state, actual police are no longer necessary.”—-William S. Burroughs.

2. “Some day the slaves will rush to put on their chains.”—-Rousseau.

In order to represent anything, Democrats need to get rid of “moderates”, really Republicans, who always provide enough votes to pass Bush legislation and give us judges like Alito. Among them are Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Joseph Lieberman. Here is Arizona, the Democrats are running another, Pederson. Even though I would like to get rid of Kyl, I will not vote for Pederson.

Of course Hilary supports the Iraq War. She is from New York and both New York senators support the Iraq war and more wars on islamic nations in the mideast.

This isn’t a one issue campaign.  As horrendous as Iraq is and Iran may possibly be.  War is still only one issue and finding the solution there will not answer other issues that are just as pressing.  The survival of our Constitution, now that His Nibs has undertaken a systimatic program to change our way of government, is to my thinking a more pressing problem than war.  Poverty, civil liberties,  lack of opportunity,  are all issues that must be considered.  So far the only voice I have heard addressing these concerns in a positive way is that of John Edwards.

bush was not coherent at his press cof. to many oohs,and ahs,equating hiv as being a terrorist,he was drunk or doped,this man has his hands on nuke weapons.peae

To Mill - Re: 13081

The term “middle class” is ill defined, but the fact is that the tax burden is shifting annually up the income scale while spending continues to move down the scale. In other words, the people with the highest incomes are paying more of the tax burden while the poor are receiving more of the govt. spending.  That’s why the lowest 40% of earners have seen their income tax burden decline to 0% and below in the past couple of decades (many are actually receiving govt. refund checks after having paid no taxes).  And it’s also well known that the past several years has seen a rising hispanic middle class.

The raw data for these claims can be found at the sites that collect and publish it:  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=7000&type=1, the OMB, and http://federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2006/financesu rvey.pdf, for example.  See http://www.bls.gov for things like unemployment rate (historically low at 4.6%) and wages.

Your contention that the Bush tax cuts only benefitted the rich while harming the poor and middle is a myth, and the published economic data refutes it easily, as does the current strong state of our economy.

Re:—-much ballyhooed death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi—-

That whole episode has a bit of a stench to it.
Not only did the ‘Zarqawi’ come through a demolition bombing and with little surface damage to live for about an hour but the govt substantiated the corpse by DNA! Why was DNA needed? And what was the source of the DNA that established the person of Zarqawi?

And why did they have to fly in to pathologists to do an autopsy?

Anyone have the names of the pathologists?

Not to mention the statements of onlookers who said nothing of efforts to keep him alive but accuse others of actually standing on his chest. Would not a ‘live’ Zarqawi been more valuable than a martered one?

Could the corpse be a ‘look alike’—and of course who would want him talking?

Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman ARE the “real Democrats.”

The party is controlled by big money interests, just as the Republican party is. This is not new. This is not hidden. It’s not a subtle sleight of hand. This has been reality for your lifetime.

American Imperialsim thrives when Democrats are in power. Democrats initiate wars, sign on to illegal war crimes, and NEVER prosecute the egregious Crimes Against Peace and Crimes Against Humanity committed by neo fascist Republicans or Democrats.

All of this posturing is so much horse shit, I can’t believe adults still defend these criminal enterprises.

Until the millions of idiotic Democratic Party members wake the BLEEP up and see how they have been reamed ( or grow a conscience about reaming the little brown people around the world) none of this will change.

Flush the Democratic Party down the toilet. Create a real people’s party that is beholden to the working men and women of this land, and actively OPPOSES the Robber Baron corporate thugs in charge. The Greens attempted such an insurgency, but failed mostly due to the Democratic Party expending more resources fighting the Green Party than fighting the Republican gangsters in charge.

We need a new people’s movement quite distinct and apart from the criminals of the Democratic Party and Republican Party. A movement that stands for justice (and for PROSECUTING THE HIGH CRIMES OF BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS).

But, alas, the drones on the bottom will hear none of it. Like blindly deluded flag wavers of all stripes, they support this malignant Democratic Party like battered wives defending the abuser. It is a sickening disgusting spetcacle, election cycle after election cycle. You people don’t learn. Or else you quickly forget.

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

Can anybody remember back when Clinton was president. He ran pretty much as a middle of the road president. If not for that he never would have been elected, We have to take into account that there a lot of Americans that rarely follow politics and rarely read editorial pages but listen to the diatribe that come from the likes of Fox News. It is a shame but in order for a Democrat to win the presidential
election they would have to come from the
middle of the road I believe that Hillary is taking her husbands advice and is doing the smart thing. After all to become the president is her first goal.

Kathy Sullivan (#13144) has it nearly right.

I generally agree with her proposed outcome, as discussed in my book, The Graduate Student’s Question (2006). But I think the driving force is culture, not specifics like currency or oil. The specifics are the mechanisms by which an errant culture dives into Dante’s Inferno.

I disagree with Ms. Sullivan in two points:

1. A Thermonuclear War will result in Nuclear Winter, as discussed by TTAPS (Science, v222 #4630 pp. 1283-129, Dec., 1983).

2. Americans might still save themselves by a conscious choice: “conversion” to appropriate (Utopian) cultural, ecological, economic, political and social values.

This is an argument from the Left, not the Right.

I do not support the war, but I do support both Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. I believe that if either one were president, this country would be 100 % better off than we are now. To me they are both people that I trust to do a good job, work hard and yes when it is their turn and they can do something about it I believe they would bring the war to a quick conclusion. I agree with the strategy they are pursuing. No democrat can end the war right now, so it is moot getting angry at either one. The democrats will not advance in November if they do not get behind border security in a big way even if it is a useless gesture.

The truth as I see it folks:  We’re over.  America as a country is done.  It was a wonderful experiment but it has failed.  And we are about to get our justice, karma whatever you want to call it.  So batten down the hatches; all hell is about to break loose.  The criminals and bullies are now in charge.  And they know, stolen elections are better than tyranny. At least the population still thinks there is hope when there really is none.  A display of outright tyranny might cause a rebellion, but this scenario has been planned too.  The rumor is that Halliburton has been busy building detention camps.  The bullies don’t think this option will be needed, however because Americans have been worn down and traumatized too much to give much of a fight.  The bullies are pretty much free to do whatever they want.  One of the main reasons Iraq was invaded was that Saddam wanted to nationalize the oil industry and wanted Euros to be the dominant exchange which would have decimated the American economy.  Iran is also on this same path (and we will not let that happen), hence, their possible invasion. Face it; if the Euro wins out against the dollar, it’s the beginning of the end.  The only reason it hasn’t happened yet, is because the rest of the world is afraid of our weapons of mass destruction and they know when push comes to shove, we will use them.  Why? Because, we are the only country who has used them before.  Which is why the rest of the world needs to be afraid (very afraid) of us; it’s our only ultimate ace in the hole.  Before or while we are succumbing to out-of-control inflation, we will be using our weapons of mass destruction far and wide in the Middle East or, if necessary, elsewhere.  We are not encumbered by any friendships now, so anything is possible.  Sure, there will be an outcry from the majority of peace-minded progressives in this country for all the bloodshed, but they will be overpowered by the scared, fat, ugly Americans, who would rather see Armageddon than miss a meal.  Eventually some of the other countries with nukes will have to unite against the United States and take us out. And global warming will not matter because we’re on a trajectory to extinction before that date.  Of course, the worldwide use of nuclear weapons will accelerate global warming.  And then it’s back to cave man status, maybe next time we’ll get it right.

What amazes me is how the “leading” Democrats are trying to appeal to voters who would never vote for a Democrat anyway, given how the right has managed to polarize the public around nonsense issues, and paint the Dems as the party of fags, weirdos, bums, foreigners, losers, etc..  The right owns the media and controls all the important levers of the political process.

The Dems should be talking about the issues the GOP is trying to distract the public from (jobs, education, health) but don’t. Is this because the DLC Dems really agree with the GOP on these issues, or are they just stupid?  The former seems more likely.

Tooooooo Late…  1984 is here again and this time for real.
——-
The president select signs away the consitution, American, and human rights with attourneys, judges and signing statements
——-
The war debt will be passed on to todays children and the nation will be crippled causing the international downfall of many a bank, institution and government. Ahhh, world bankruptcy (and not just the moral banckruptcy we enjoy today).. those with out access to, or force over those with access food production clean water etc. will die (slowly)
——-
Oh but thats okay because due to non-existant global warming we were all scheduled to die anyway.
——-
So smile and raise a beer to the human race (they were funny while they lasted)  the world will go on regardless, and your sentance has been passed.

May be one day there will be a truly intelligent species that can dig up our bones and ponder over what brought us to extinction.*

*...?

Scheer-
It’s not just about the war.  It’s also about the Alito cloture vote and his abysmal statements around women’s issues…like the one about Catholic hospitals not having to dispense “morning after” contraception to rape victims because another hospital in CT is a short drive away.
He’s a dirtball.

Bring on Al Gore.

I couldn’t agree more with the gist of this piece.  I would go even further stating the Dems should not be making any public statements about how we can win in Iraq.  When I hear this, I need to head for the vomit bag.  Instead they should tell the cold hard truth and admit that the war was a terrible mistake and then made worse by Bush and can’t be won.  It isn’t a message a lot of Americans will want to hear so how you say this is also important.  I think when Americans realize the total amount of carnage, costs projected as high as $2 trilliion, a civil war raging in Iraq, the cost to U.S respectability in the world, the creation of more militant Islamics and trained terrorists,  and the best we mght come up with is a Shiite Theocracy more tigtly aligned with Iran after all of this - not to mention - an unstable oil situation in Iraq that is worse than before the war - no one with a grip on reality can claim we are winning or will win in Iraq.

The Dems shouldn’t even use the term “We are at War” in Iraq because this is also an incorrect GOP phrase. If we are at war, what army will surrender?  Instead this quagmire should be referred to as Bush’s Folly or The Occupation of Iraq. Defined as an occupation, it makes more sense to Americans why we can’t win there and why there is a large resistance.

After George H. W. Bush, I predicted that another Republican would never be elected president during my lifetime. So far, I’m correct.

Lieberman’s real loyalty is to Israel.

Dear Mr. Wilson,
The Downing Street Memo is the proof that Bush lied.

Bush talks like a chimp, yet if the Democrats don’t think 10 moves ahead with Machiavellian mastery their strategy sucks?

The only reason the Republicans are in power is because they stole the elections in 2000, 2002, and in 2004.

That’s it! That’s their secret! It’s not Karl Rove, it’s the stolen Presidential and Congressional elections. Now they are set to steal the Congressional elections again in 2006, and prop up Rove again as some sort of marketing genius.

Find a solution to prevent stolen elections and you find a way for Democrats to win elections again.

It really is that simple, or not, since no one seems to want to stop the Republicans from stealing more elections.

If you don’t talk about it, if you don’t have it on the front burner, if everyone is not enraged and outraged every single day about stolen elections, then we will have more stolen elections, and Karl Rove will continue to look like a genius.

to John Keating

really confused ... what data are you seeing that shows rising middle-class incomes, and rising mobility from under-class to middle class?

Bush’s economic policies have only helped the really well paid to cut their tax bills ... hasn’t helped the middle or lower classes, and BTW are bankrupting our government to our peril

What “real” Democrats? If they ever existed, they went out with the Johnson Administration. And even if Lyndon insisted on prolonging THAT war, at least he had the signal decency not to run again for President. When a “real” Democrat DOES turn up, Matthews gets him on to run him down, as he did Kucinich back then. (And c’mon, everyone, Chris really loves Hillary, all kiddin’ aside.) Media decides who the Democratic candidate will be, and this time it will be Rodham Clinton, just as last time media decided on J. Kerry, Man of Steel, rather Tin or Aluminy-um. The likes of Kucinich and Nader are not to be taken seriously, since not only are they not purty enough, they are not, as (Calamity) Jane Harmon would put it, “realist.” They are idealistic dreamers, lost causes, persons possessed of outrageously outrageous ideas, not tough enough for the biz of America. And it IS about biz—moola, bucks, bringin’ home the bacon, to the real constituents: corporate owners, managers and shareholders (R.I.P. Kenny Boy). Citing one of the greatest of television heroes, a true populist and a true gent, that most steadfast of homes, Festus Haggen, in high-pitched voice, “Don’tcha see?” Where ARE Festus, and Marshall Dillon, and Miss (okay, Ms., though no-nonsense Kitty woulda had no truck with no B.S.in’ libs, radical chick that she was, one who knew how to work—quite rightly—any man for everything the bastard was worth) Kitty when we need ‘em? Now THEY were in possession of uncompromising values—based in a community, namely, Dodge City, Kansas, since someone asked “What’s Wrong with Kansas?” Who say’s TV isn’t instructive? Well, indeed no longer, what with the likes of Matthews & Co., whose values are based in the community of the anything-for-yet-another-buck Beltway—the world of Bill and Hill, and the DLC. Not, “What a country,” but, What insanity. (I’ve never been more goddam serious in my life.)

Since the armpit of the Democratic party, the racist southern democrats bolted the Democratic party , the party has never been in the majority.
Personally, I don’t like Joe L, but on a majority of the issues he is with the party. It is my belief that other then his corporate policies that some find repulsive his other problems stem from his religious beliefs and Isreal.

Response to Dave #13046

Your post suffers from the same problem the Democratic party does; an adherence to an overly broad sense of purpose that results in a myriad of conflicting policy interpretations.  How would any of your first two guidelines translate to policy?  Not to mention that the middle class in America has expanded in recent years as more previously underclass join its ranks and its overall income rises.  So the party in power seems to have that base covered already.

Excellent article, as always, by Bob Scheer.  But darlings, whine, scream and carry on all you want there are 2 behemoths to confront:  1)  The American public as a whole remains breathtakingly ignorant of our politics and how our country relates to global intricacies and 2) as long as these Diebold and like machines “record” our votes (don’t even trust absentee ballots…oh, no, they go to a central tabulation counter), ALL of our ranting and raving are for naught.  As long as the likes of Ken Blackwell can disenfranchise eligible voters, mostly of color, and get away with it, all the banshee cries will be heard as a sigh in a hurricane.

Neither Clinton’s nor Lieberman’s Republican-lite policies should come as a surprise.  Both represent the corporatist wing of the Democratic party.  There is a basic need for truly progressive candidates to challenge these pretenders head on.  Lieberman, Clinton and Diane Feinstein know that the great neocon adventure, aka the war in Iraq, is designed to enhance the bottom line of US multinational corporations, which through the Bremer edicts, subsequently written into Iraq’s constitution, have privatized every sector of Iraq’s economy, except the oil, and placed the money-grubbing hands of the corporations which fill the campaign coffers of the likes of Lieberman and Clinton, though certainly not to the extent that they contribute to the Republicans.  The only way out is a fundamental restructuring of how we fund elections in this country, major media reform and an extended effort to instill class consciousness in the working and dwindling middle class so that the Democratic Party becomes a truly democratic agent in society.

Considering the fact that, unless we do something about global warming, by the end of this century our children will be forced to compete with one another for real estate at the North or South Pole, being that those will be the only habitable places left on earth, why are we wasting time on this same old same old lesser of two evils?  Isn’t it clear now that this representative form of government is a failure, with those we choose to represent us always (with rare exceptions) selling out to the highest bidder?  What are we going to do, wait until Florida is under twenty feet of melted polar ice, hoping that somehow this will swing the electoral college our way?  Or do we say to ourselves, each and every one of us, “Hey, looks like there’s only one way to save the world and that’s for we the people to change it ourselves, beginning now.

“It’s the American public stupid.” Or is it the stupid American public?  If we allow once again Rove to spin the war in Iraq as a positive phenom, we deserve the stripping of our liberties, the sacking of our treasury and being percieved by the rest of the world as a reincarnation of NAZI Germany.  Regardless of where these two republicans’ lite stand, until the “sheeple” in this country come out of this coma and cease to fall for all the horse shit we are being fed, nothing will change.
Will

#12959 - Hillary’s ‘principles’ are whatever increases the bucks in her campaign chest.  Like the media whose business it is to sell eyeballs to advertisers, principles be damned, Hillary’a business is to sell herself to big money, principles be damned.

Here’s your democratic agenda

1.  Social issues - Adults may do as they please so long as behavior doesn’t pose reasonable risk of harm to another live being. 

2.  Foreign policy - we will put the safety of America and human beings first.

3.  Economic issues - we will create a pro middle class tax code that requires the uber rich to pay their fair share, balance budgets, and collect enough revenue to superbly fund our schools, health care, environment, parks, and other domestic necessities.

If a Democrat can’t live by these 3 principles, vote them out of the party.

Robert Scheer’s analysis of the Democrat’s continuing self-immolation is as accurate in its premises as it is oddly diffident in its conclusions.

He is, of course, right in asserting that Bush-Lite Lieberman’s kiss-de-Massah’s-ass take on the Iraq debacle doesn’t exactly qualify as an epiphany, although I found Joe’s fealty oath on behalf of the Chief Chimp’s “credibility” deeply moving. With a sincerity as complete as it is scary, Lieberman bows his pointed little head before the doctrine of Israeli infallibility; foreign policy shaped (at least in part) by the imperatives of that doctrine must therefore be infallible, too.

Scheer is similarly correct in noting that Senator Clinton’s “confusion is arguably more damaging to the Democrats, given her position as the party’s front-running presidential aspirant. . .Clinton continues to support a war that her confidants tell us she knows is wrong.” 

Yet surely “confusion” is the wrong word here. If someone as smart and tough as Senator Clinton “continues to support a war. . .she knows is wrong,” she isn’t merely “confused.” She is, rather, “opportunistic,” though in this case it’s an opportunism borne of fear (of alienating potential supporters) rather than, say, Rove-style cynicism. 

But whether Rovean or Clintonian, the results of this kind of looking-both-ways-while-covering-your-ass Realpolitik amount to a distinction without a difference: thousands of American and Iraqi casualties for a criminally illegal and insane war.

Which brings us to Mr. Scheer’s coda. “Why,” he asks, “is it so difficult for the Democrats to grasp that waffling doesn’t work as a form of leadership? The public takes it as a sign of moral disarray.”

Actually, the public—-or at least one member of it, namely, me—-doesn’t take this kind of waffling as a sign of “moral disarray.” That’s far too charitable a euphemism.

So let’s call it what it is: moral cowardice. If you know that something is wrong——deeply, unambiguously, wickedly wrong—-yet you persist in supporting policies that perpetuate that wrong, then you are (to borrow my grandmother’s expression) either a fool or a knave. In this case, probably both, since even Clinton’s poll-obsessed handlers by now should have picked up on the fact that most Americans currently feel the war was, and is, a mistake. (”Mistake” is yet another charitable euphemism for “catastrophe.”)

As for Mr. Scheer’s bigger question—-why the Dems can’t or won’t grasp that the waffling itself is a self-defeating strategy—-I suspect that he knows the answer as well as I do. The elephant—-or rather the donkey—-in the room is as unavoidable as it is, apparently, undiscussable: The Democratic Party as it is currently (mis)constituted is bankrupt.

As for the cause, I think sociologists have a term for it: professional deformity. All the Democratic machers are skilled pros, “tough-minded” insiders who are more concerned with keeping the institutional machinery of the party running at any cost rather than making it responsive to the needs of those pesky outsiders, i.e., us voters. 

Thus, can a Democratic president be impeached for the high crime of lying about a blowjob from an intern?  Of course, thanks to the concerted efforts of the tightly organized Republican rank and file.

But can a Republican president who has lied us into a disastrous war costing thousands of lives be at least censured (per the lonely Senator Feingold) for abusing his power by ordering illegal wire taps? Of course not, because the Democratic conventional wisdom is that this would be “counterproductive,” which is a code word for “bad PR move.”

As for the Democrat’s recent “principled” (and, in policy terms, meaningless) stand against the Republican resolution supporting the Bush administration’s Iraq policies and rejecting a specific timetable for withdrawal, Michael J. Smith has unkindly pointed out: “They didn’t vote for a deadline—they voted against being against a deadline.”

I suspect that Mr. Scheer—-who remains, hands down, the best regular political commentator around—-is, like me, a victim of the Dem’s serial abuse. Like me, he’s probably been told, time and again, election after election, that this time it was going to be different, this time the Dems had really changed, this time they were going to stand on principle and polls, focus groups, centrist wonks, etc., be damned.

So of course we’ve been willing to take the Dems back again and again, give them still One More Chance because the only alternative might be a—-idea that dare not speak its name!—-Third Party.

Or maybe it’s an idea whose time has come. . .again. Because frankly if I’m going to waste my “money, time and votes” on a candidate (probably only to have said votes highjacked by Diebold & Co.), I’d rather it be on someone who has the courage to speak the hard truth to power rather on someone whose spinmeisters will osterize his or real opinions into gummable little sound bites suitable for mass consumption.

Yes, I know: such a party would be a purely symbolic gesture, a prescription for ineffectuality, a claustrophobic little clubhouse of emotionally and spiritually arrested adolescents whose members keep the outside world at bay by talking only among themselves in secret code.

Which is a pretty good description of today’s Democratic Party. So never mind.

He should have instantly said, “Hell no, you lied to Congress and the American people…”

OK, prove it. Prove Bush lied.

Cheney, Tenet and the WHIG (White House Iraq Group) spoon-fed an incurious President precisely so he would have deniability, however implausible. Tenet’s Congressional Medal of Freedom buys his silence. And the threatened jailing of whistleblowers for treason—of “causing death to our troops”—insures their silence.

This goes way beyond Lakoff “framing” and anti-war “positions.” The fear-mongered American public will have to see hard evidence of deliberate duplicity for anything to change.

In short: where the hell is the Daniel Ellsberg of OUR time?

Reply to #12983 SamSnedegar
The other option (rather than eating out of dumpsters) is to spend a trillion dollars (while we can still raise it) on the development of our abundant renewable resources. The jobs stay in America, the infrastructure remains in America earning money for Americans long after the last bombs have exploded. The price of coal is going up; the price of installed wind power is cheaper than coal and coming down. Solar will sooner or later (depending on us) be cheaper than natural gas. The challenge is not who to criticize or get rid of, the challenge is to get rid of the need for oil, prosperity in fact can continue.

It is very hard to disagree with all the comments deriding the current crop of Democrats.  Still for me, the choice is clear:Any Democrat but Bush, plus at least one house in Congress.

This year’s Congressional battle is the forerunner.  Rahm Emanuel is going for winnable seats, a technique loathed by the Dean/“Nation” left.  (They care only about message, not winning.) See NYTimes,July 5,

A Reminder to Lieberman and others of his stripe.  Sen.D’Amato was elected the first time because so-called liberal Jake Javits didn’t win the Republican nomination. We suffered the wounded ego. Result, the NY Democrats lost a seat.

Irwin Moss, LA

Clinton and Lieberman should run as a team; a red light could be their symbol.  What a couple of whores!
Bonzo

Good piece!  Bob

They DID stand up: they’re almost all Greens now.

Come on, “secretmojo”: do you really think the Clintons have ideals?  They sold the Democratic Party to the Republicans long ago. Bill Moyers put that news on Frontline on PBS and got in a lot of trouble for it - at least 10 years ago!

Which makes me wonder why so many otherwise intelligent, informed people continue to whine about the Democrats “finding their backbone” or “standing up”.  There are a few honorable exceptions, like Feingold, and you might want to work for them; but for the party, it’s far too late.  These are “honest politicians,” and all the talk about the progressive grassroots “taking back” the party is just that - talk.  They’ve got themselves well-armored against that, as Howard Desn discovered.  Walter Battaglia is right:  wake up.  You’ve been had.

Start over.  Yeah, it’s hard.  The Greens need all the help they can get.  They need YOU.  And you, Mr. Scheer.  Get yourself another cup of coffee and act on your insights.

“It is high time the folks who make up the base of the Democratic Party took a page from the playbook of the Republican Right and backed candidates willing to stand up for their values, rather than wasting their money, time and votes on those who won’t.”

What utter bullshit! 

When ‘08 rolls around and Hillary is the democrat nom, Sheer and his pals at The Nation will be begging people to vote for Hillary.  “Oh, she’s not as bad as we said she is.” they’ll whine.  “She’s better than _____!”

Never forget that pwogwessive lesser-evilism is alive and well in the democrat echo-chamber.  The job of echo chamber sites is to make pretty noises, supress the antiwar movement and sell sell sell the prowar democrat candidate.  Every time these faux-liberal pwog shills try to tell “the base” how to vote they need to be called out.

I admire Joe Lieberman for supporting our troops in Iraq.  I think that pulling out now would be premature and immoral.  For if we pull out now, we’ll leave the country completely insecure and incapable of maintaining its government.  However, at the same time Lieberman has to be able to recognize that his convictions have consequences.  Convictions always have consequences and if Joe Lieberman is not able to acknowledge that his beliefs may stand in the way of his representing the State of Connecticut in the United States Senate than he is not the man that I once thought he was.

Andrew Pass
http://www.Pass-Ed.com/blogger.html

Robert, you tell it like it is!! The Dems will, as usual, lose the mid-term and 2008 Presidential election. They should nominate someone like George Clooney or Murtha for President who, at least, don’t grovel to Dubya.

The relationship our two party system has with America’s citizens is manipulative and damaging.

When both parties agree to follow the stilted recommendations to commit war on a blameless country, and those who would question the soundness of this decision are shouted down, is it the population who are at fault for its agreeing with our country’s former cheerleading war media?

Conversely, can politicians who seek to remain in office claim a moral authority by following the brainwashed majority of their constituents? At what point does the higher moral ground become more important then political victory? How many lives shattered and lost, how much of our energy and money thrown away to a useless cause before one has the epiphany that our war is immoral no matter how we wish it otherwise?

Now too late the tide is turning, and the media is tasting blood in the water, which is to say it will follow whatever will sell more to the hypnotized masses. They pander to the majority so to better sell their “news,” regardless of the verity of their information. They now circle our president and his administration freely nipping at what they perceive weakness. This puts the Bush cabal on the defensive, as more Republicans begin to lose faith in Neo-conservatives, feeling the mounting civil distaste for its war.

Where does this leave Democrats? They nearly all have been trying to play “catch up” to Republican war mongering. They felt themselves in need to look even more dangerous and menacing then Republicans, in order to remain in office during this tragic manifestation of our country’s blind and misplaced vengeance.

If ever there was a need for a third party I do not see it more apparent then in the face of this; one of the saddest American “two party” episodes on record. Two choices are not enough when each begins to look too much like the other.

The question is how to break free of this limiting politically polar trap, and would a third choice effect our elections for the better, or would it send our government forever to the camp of right wing extremism?

If we had such a “third rail” it is possible that it could shock back to life the democratic party, it could make it understood where the lines are drawn, rather then foisting this malleable and timid excuse for “real choice” on our people. With two parties you have a vying of each party into the territory of the other, trying to reach “undecided voters.” This makes for more deceitful politics, and the ruin of democracy.

This third option may then place Republicans solidly into the extreme right’s vicious religious Neo-conservatives. Those moderate Republicans would need to choose between that extremity, or become the more (now) centrist Democrats. Unfortunately as I see it, progressives would become the counter balance, the other side of the polarity of “extremism,” and the new “Democratic Party” would become the dominating standard of our new country.

Or would it?

The problem as i see it is that the presents of our troops in Iraq prevents the Iraqis to compromise with the different ethnic factions. Why should the majority Shia, especially, the religious ones, want to compromise and promise true equelity and true freedom of religion when they can rely on our troops to maintain order?

WE can have peace tomorrow is the Sunnis and the Kurds feel absolutely sure that they will get a per-capita income from the oil and that the Shia will not force religious sharia law upon them.

The small contingent of foreign fighers will evaporate.

we presents is a liability. One other idea, someone should do a statisical Runing Bull Anayslis of the violence (civilians and US troops) to compare the level of violence before and after Sarqawi’s death. I am sure the military already does this, but won’t release the data.

these are the arguments that the dems should use but are afraid of.

Nothing is more forceful than a graph showing violence which does not change with time.

And the valid argument that our troops prevent compromise. Thus a scheduled pullout.

We have done our job. We install a democratic government. Now, it’s up to them to decide what kind of govrnement they want, verses civil war.

Face it folks. With Democrats like Lieberman and Hillary Clinton, Republicans can rest easy.

What is particularly galling to me is that American liberals, progressives, AND conservatives have allowed the RADICAL Neocons (who are none of the above ... not even loyal Americans) to subvert our core values.

Americans of every stripe are shaking their heads and asking, “Who let these clowns take over?”

The answer is, from my way of thinking, the religious wingnuts who do NOT support the transcending ideals of our Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, and the politicians who use them to corner (I would add here, racist) political power rather than adhere to what we are as a nation ... a continuing work in progress in becoming what we ought to be.

Time and again, greedy, immature people trade their birthright for a pot of porridge.

The country knows we have to get back to our core values ... and only then will we be on track to fulfil our potential as a people.

Against the incompetent, pandering, groveling, Democrats… What a shame…!

I have often heard it said that the lack of a clear alternative plan that would extricate us from Iraq is hurting the Democratic party.  The plain truth is that THE mistake was to take the first step, because after that there was no telling what would happen or how it would end.  It’s as if we were bystanders watching while an arsonist set a house on fire and after that house is totally consumed we ask “How can that house be repaired?”  The answer is it can’t, at least not easily. The error was to light the match. That’s why previous administrations wisely chose not to make the fatal error that will be the legacy of the George W. Bush presidency for all time.

I cringe at the thought that Hillary Clinton would be considerd the Democratic “party’s front-running presidential aspirant.”

If the Dems can’t come up with a better candidate than Clinton they deserve to lose!

Some of these Democrats are nothing more than boils on the ass of humanity. I would like to tell them to “go lance” themselves.

California’s own esteemed “Republicrat”, Dianne Feinstein, marched like a drum majorette behind the Bush/Cheney “dog and pony show” on the flag burning amendment.

Since when do extraordinary rendition, rape, torture, and murder abroad, as well as warantless wiretaps, illegal searches and seizures, and denial of due process represent what Senator Feinstein refers to as the “spirit and values of America”?

The best way to honor the flag, and everything that it represents, is to uphold and defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

              robertfortyniner

How come you are always so correct and so many of the inept,weak Democrats are so wrong?

Can’t they read your columns and those of some of the great minds in the media?

We need more Feingolds and Kennedys to speak their minds and give us a chance to win back our government.

Come on Robert; Clinton and Kerry are only doing what the rest of the so called leaders know they have to do.

They don’t support the war; they support stealing Iraq’s oil. You have Conyers, Kennedy, Murtha, and Feingold all dead set against the war, but like you, unwilling to say WHY we are in Iraq, and why we accept that we must stay there.

If you state it succinctly, tell it like it is, and ask the public what to do, what answer do you think you’ll get?

Here’s how it goes: Knowing that retiring from the occupation of Iraq will result in the loss of control of Iraq’s oil, and as a result of that, result in the loss of wealth to support the American dollar and American life style, would you rather remain in Iraq and maintain what you have, or would you like to get our troops out of there so that we can all start eating out of dumpsters until the garbage runs out and then we start to starve?”

If you ask the question of the wealthy, you might put it a different way: “You have a cushy deal, with big money coming out of your ears; how’d you like to wake up one Iraqless morning and find that all your money put together with Joe Conason’s and Dan Perkins’s doesn’t come to enough to purchase a loaf of plain white bread?”

It happened recently to Argentina, and it happened to Enron. It eventually HAS to happen here. All the Iraqi oil is doing is staving off the inevitable, but that will be for historians to cover; we’ll be dead. What we have to do is live for today and keep the wolf away from the door for another week or month . . . .

Whether Hillary Clinton knows or believes it or not, it is for sure that BILL knows very well, and he isn’t out in front of the fake anti-war stance that you and the rest of the rich people in the Democratic party espouse. Just like Germany was forced to steal from Poland and elsewhere, we have been forced to plunder Iraq to stay afloat in our sea of debt.

How else do you think you can get all those people to go along with coveting, lying, murdering, and stealing?

It’s not about what happens because we lie and murder and steal; it’s about what happens if we DO NOT.

You are “right on” as always.  When will the Democratic Party find a backbone and start showing some leadership?  I wish Robert Sheer and/or Molly Ivins would run for Pres. !  :o)