Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
May 28, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Rising Star

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Email this item Print this item

Gore Vidal’s Article of Impeachment

Posted on Jun 11, 2008
AP photo / Stephan Savoia

Fightin’ words: Rep. Dennis Kucinich brandishes his pocket Constitution on the campaign trail in New Hampshire last January.

By Gore Vidal

Listen to the author read this essay.

On June 9, 2008, a counterrevolution began on the floor of the House of Representatives against the gas and oil crooks who had seized control of the federal government. This counterrevolution began in the exact place which had slumbered during the all-out assault on our liberties and the Constitution itself.

I wish to draw the attention of the blog world to Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s articles of impeachment presented to the House in order that two faithless public servants be removed from office for crimes against the American people. As I listened to Rep. Kucinich invoke the great engine of impeachment—he listed some 35 crimes by these two faithless officials—we heard, like great bells tolling, the voice of the Constitution itself speak out ringingly against those who had tried to destroy it.

Although this is the most important motion made in Congress in the 21st century, it was also the most significant plea for a restoration of the republic, which had been swept to one side by the mad antics of a president bent on great crime. And as I listened with awe to Kucinich, I realized that no newspaper in the U.S., no broadcast or cable network, would pay much notice to the fact that a highly respected member of Congress was asking for the president and vice president to be tried for crimes which were carefully listed by Kucinich in his articles requesting impeachment.

But then I have known for a long time that the media of the U.S. and too many of its elected officials give not a flying fuck for the welfare of this republic, and so I turned, as I often do, to the foreign press for a clear report of what has been going on in Congress. We all know how the self-described “war hero,” Mr. John McCain, likes to snigger at France, while the notion that he is a hero of any kind is what we should be sniggering at. It is Le Monde, a French newspaper, that told a story the next day hardly touched by The New York Times or The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal or, in fact, any other major American media outlet.


Square, Site wide
As for TV? Well, there wasn’t much—you see, we dare not be divisive because it upsets our masters who know that this is a perfect country, and the fact that so many in it don’t like it means that they have been terribly spoiled by the greatest health service on Earth, the greatest justice system, the greatest number of occupied prisons—two and a half million Americans are prisoners—what a great tribute to our penal passions!

Naturally, I do not want to sound hard, but let me point out that even a banana Republican would be distressed to discover how much of our nation’s treasury has been siphoned off by our vice president in the interest of his Cosa Nostra company, Halliburton, the lawless gang of mercenaries set loose by this administration in the Middle East.

But there it was on the first page of Le Monde. The House of Representatives, which was intended to be the democratic chamber, at last was alert to its function, and the bravest of its members set in motion the articles of impeachment of the most dangerous president in our history. Rep Kucinich listed some 30-odd articles describing impeachable offenses committed by the president and vice president, neither of whom had ever been the clear choice of our sleeping polity for any office.

Some months ago, Kucinich had made the case against Dick Cheney. Now he had the principal malefactor in his view under the title “Articles of Impeachment for President George W. Bush”! “Resolved, that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.” The purpose of the resolve is that he be duly tried by the Senate, and if found guilty, be removed from office. At this point, Rep. Kucinich presented his 35 articles detailing various high crimes and misdemeanors for which removal from office was demanded by the framers of the Constitution.

Update: On Wednesday, the House voted by 251 to 166 to send Rep. Kucinich’s articles of impeachment to a committee which probably won’t get to the matter before Bush leaves office, a strategy that is “often used to kill legislation,” as the Associated Press noted later that day.

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.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By tburns60, August 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment

Well, now that I got that out of my system I remeber part of what I wanted to post regarding the article above and the last few comments that were not R & R’s.
Baghdad also used to have a form of open democracy some five hundred to one thousand or so years ago. Town hall meetings were held once or twice a week. The local merchants who were not out on caravan would preside and anyone who came could ask them questions regarding the ways they had made their fortunes and other lesser questions…pretty much any thing on their mind.
Their is actually a small book called ‘The Merchants of Baghdad’ which relates various Q & A sessions from that era. A most informative book.
To bad that the guy they propped up in office after the coup a few years ago couldn’t do that. I’m not talking about Baghdad either.
As to my third point. If the Bohemian Grove/Tri-latereal Commission/Oil/Puppet Masters or whatever cartel was responsible for that last coup is still around does anyone out there believe they won’t do it again…and again…and again?
Thomas Jefferson once said something to the effect that if the people of this new Republic ever deem
their government has become corrupt then the people have the perfect right to over-throw that government.
What the hell are we waiting for? I want my country back.

Report this

By tburns60, August 24, 2008 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment

I’ve been away from this site for almost a year. I just read this piece from Vidal and before posting a comment I always try to read the other comments. Goodness gracious, ya’ll, I felt like I was reading rants & raves on craig’s list!
Now I can’t remember what I wanted to post. LOL
Reminds me of what we call the L1011 syndrome. Remember the Jet-Blue L1011 that went down over the swamps outside Miami? The investigation determined that what caused the horrible crash started when a warning light came on in the cock-pit. The co-pilot couldn’t find the problem so the navigator began helping him as the pilot turned off the auto-pilot to manually control the plane. When the nav. & the co-pilot couldn’t find the problem the pilot joined in out of concern. In the ensuing panic he forgot that no one was flying the plane…the plane went down. The investigation also found that the only thing wrong with the plane was the damn light; the system it indicated was mal-functioning was perfectly all right!
Moral of the story: Don’t let the small stuff devert your attention from what is important…ya’ll.
[Jet Blue recovered from almost total financial failure due to that crash by changing their name.]

Report this

By cann4ing, June 28, 2008 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

The initiative process in states like CA entail a form of direct democracy.  But with a corporate media which fails to perform the information dissemination function for which the Framers gave us the First Amendment and with the ability of corporations to conduct propaganda campaigns via expensive 30-second sound bite ads, the value of direct democracy as a means for public control of policy has been substantially diminished.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, June 28, 2008 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

While it lasted, about 500 B. C. to its suppression by Macedonians in 322 B. C., Athens had the first direct democracy.  Participation was limited to males who had completed their military service and whose parents were both native Athenians, but without regard to economic or social class.  That limited it to about 30,000 of a population of at most 300,000, or roughly 10%.

Other instances of direct democracy were the town hall meetings characteristic of early colonial New England in America.  Participation included all “white men.”

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 27, 2008 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment


Not sure,  someone asked if there was ever a true Democracy, my little bit historical knowledge seems to recall the City of Athens 500 BC was a direct democracy?

Report this

By cyrena, June 27, 2008 at 8:19 pm Link to this comment


I meant to respond to this yesterday..mostly because it was (as usual) an excellent post, but also because this part made me laugh out loud..

“...this reminds me of a friend of mine who used to call up the time lady and make obscene phone calls, which caused me question why he did so, I asked he answer was she does not know what she is talking about…”

All you can say to something like that is…OOOKKKK..whatever you say good buddie. smile

The time lady, eh? Yep…I’ve known a few to do the same thing. Many years ago, not long after I’d moved to Texas, I remember asking some people why they didn’t utilize their turn signals when changing lanes or making turns while driving. (usually at a minimum of 75 mph). I was a pet peeve for me, because I’m a conscientious driver, and so if I know somebody needs to get over into the lane that I’m in, or out of it, or whatever, then I’ll respond appropriately by giving them space, or whatever. Same with turning a corner right? Just some indication of what the other drivers are doing. Besides, ISN’T THAT WHAT PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO? I was sure that didn’t apply ONLY in California, because I’d seem normal people driving the same way in other places as well. Don’t ALL cars come with turn signals, no matter what state they’re purchased in?

Now this was an extra bad problem because of the speed that they all maintained. I mean, in bumper to bumper traffic, they did their best to maintain at least 70 mph, MINIMUM. So of course you wanna know where they’re gonna switch lanes and hop right in front of you. Or…cause a hair raising screech from behind.

Anyway, I asked this one old dude, and he told me that the reason he didn’t use any signals while driving, was because he didn’t want anybody ‘knowin’ his business’. OOOOKKK for him too. Then I asked a lady that I worked with (safety related stuff too, required driving airport equipment) why SHE didn’t use any turn signals while driving her own vehicle on public roads and highways. She said, “Oh, I always look around and make sure I have plenty of room before I change lanes.” 

Now, maybe that’s not quite as bad as making obscene phone calls to the time lady, but still. And I guess you’re right. Social retardation, (and maybe a dose of mental retardation too) seems to be as good an answer as any I suppose.

But ya know what? Seems to me like there are a whole lot more mentally retarded people around now, then there used to be. And the end result is that the mental illness of some, can and do frequently terrorize everyone else.

Just look at Washington DC. How did it happen?

Report this

By Amon Drool, June 27, 2008 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment

lol…cyrena, i’ll end this “obsession” that i have with u by not posting again at TD as long as you’re here.  and that’s a promise.  have a good life, girl

Report this

By moineau, June 27, 2008 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment

amon, i see your point. thanks. i deliberately left out that first sentence as irrelevant. i don’t like that stuff either. i hoped to make a larger point than an address to jg, so i probably shouldn’t have named her.

i too think i have gotten and given about as much i can on this commentary. it’s been very good, the comments have been for the most part thought provoking. thanks to everyone and i’ll see you on other topics around td. xoxox

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 27, 2008 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment


Always enjoy your comments.

Comments from your consoler reminded me of my dad, when he was teaching me how to be a carpenter,  he told me “there are no rules” of course he was referring to carpentry, but it could be a metaphor for life.

Hate has the support of blindness, making very easy to digest for those filled with it.

Today in Iraq they are trying to set up an election, and the comments from different people in Iraq was interesting.  People from all sides said, if the elections do not go as we feel they should,  then we will not honor the election.  Sounds like someone is not going to be happy?

Yes, I feel that TD does provide an opportunity to express our opinions with different degrees of agreement or disagreement as posters wish. As you mentioned, I feel disagreement can be healthy for open discussion and developing enlightenment, how else can one evolve and use reason?

Report this

By cyrena, June 27, 2008 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

Amon Drool,

What’s up with you anyway? Can we try to figure this out? You claim that YOU do not have access to all of my or Jersey Girl, or anyone else’s posts, but as it so happens, I DO. I at least have access to my own. In fact, I keep copies of every single comment that I post on TD, AS WELL AS THOSE THAT ARE RELEVANT TO ME, regardless of whom has posted them.

Now what we (or at least you and I) know from these posts, is that you’ve spent the past several weeks ON MY CASE, bashing and bad mouthing me for really NO REASON that anyone can think of…including me. What you’ve written in this most recent post, is a literal repeat of things that you’ve written in the past, and they ALL amount to personal attacks against me.

After initially trying to ignore you, or basically just avoid getting involved in any details with you, by NOT TAKING YOUR BAIT, I eventually realized that I’d have to respond as respectfully as I could, but that hasn’t worked either.  You seem to have some sort of an obsession with me Amon, and at this point, it’s become noticeable to more than just me. That should be apparent to you from the comments you’ve received from other posters, as a result of your most recent bashings. This isn’t good Amon. It’s really very bad.

In short, these attacks against me are unwarranted. I’ve never insulted you, and while you claim to be ‘irritated’ by some things that I’ve posted here, none of it has been directed at you –personally- so why have YOU chosen to be ‘irritated’?

Amon, while I have numerous posts *from you* that would certainly categorize as *bigoted* both racist and misogynistic, I have NOT ever accused you of such. YOU have admitted to possibly harboring such feelings yourself, but I have never suggested it.

So, let’s work this out NOW, Amon, because you’ve long since crossed this line, and it’s time for you tell all of us, why you have this ‘problem’ with me personally, and what you think it’s going to take for you to get over it.

Please, let us ALL know that Amon. Until you can muster up the courage to deal with issues like the 60 year old man that you claim to be, please stop these typical tactics of sneaky, devious and underhanded perfidy that resemble that of mean spirited gossipy old hag. You claim that you take offense to my making a note of this stuff, but exactly what the hell do you expect? My comments are RESPONSES to you (and previously the beer doctor, which is what seemed to get you going on this, so maybe you and the beerdoc are one and the same?) I don’t know.

But, let’s get this worked out Amon, because I’m pretty tired of you bad mouthing me in each and every post that you make on this site, in the underhanded tacky way that you employ, instead of directing your complaints specifically to me.

I look forward to hearing from you…on this PUBLIC forum, since that’s where you’ve been showing your ass all along.

Report this

By Amon Drool, June 27, 2008 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment

moineau…i’m feeling a bit foolish here.  i keep on saying i’m gonna take a break from posting at TD and then u post something which draws me in.
in this case, it’s your 2 part post to jersey girl.  i do agree with u in telling her that she probably won’t be finding nirvana on any blog out there.  i wouldn’t worry about her becoming a hardcore ideologue…she doesn’t seem like the SLA or squeaky fromm type to me. but i can see her reason for getting away from TD.  that reason being: why deal with cyrena if u don’t have to.

look at your 6/28-5:24pm post.  u quote a paragraph from cyrena with some wisdom in it.  at the end u approvingly nod in agreement saying “that’s the gist of it.”  but look at the first sentence: “Another difference is that you have a visceral and very emotionally motivated hate for Obama.”  HUH??  i don’t have access to all jg’s posts on this thread, but i feel most of us would agree that her case against obama stemmed from his falling far short of a kucinich/progressive point of view.  cyrena’s saying that it was basically visceral and emotional is irritating at best and personally insulting at worst.  now, u may think i’m making a mountain out of a molehill by inflating this one sentence.  i’ve been at TD for 5 mo’s and, believe me, this is standard procedure for cyrena.  when people make a case against obama, cyrena attempts to knockdown their argument(sometimes she does), but then she’ll go on to say that she sees thru them and that their REAL problem is either an emotional one or an ideological(racist) one.

so, if jg decides to leave…fine.  i like her passion and her i-don’t-need-this-shit attitude.

Report this

By cyrena, June 27, 2008 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment

You’re beyond hope and change…which is why Obama is just fine by you.

No Max, he’s not ‘just fine’ by me, because that would mean that I blindly agree with every position he takes. I don’t.

He’s just the best HOPE Americans have had in a very long time.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 27, 2008 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well Blueboy I agree no one will be removed from office before the election(if at all) but I also realize that even if Bush were impeached and Cheney took over it wouldn’t make a bit of difference anyway since Cheney has been calling the shots all along. As for Pelosi, who in the hell would want that? I’m supporting Shirley Golub!

If it hadn’t been for bluedog democrats and their republican buddies, the same people who went out of their way to impeach Bill Clinton for lying about having sex, both Cheney and Bush would be out on their ears by now. This is the historical significance I was trying to relay along with those who have ignored the constitution and are in the record books forever. Some may even eventually face war crimes, just as Pinochet and Kissinger. Or perhaps as Bugliosi has suggested. My point was it is a step in the right direction whether anything comes of it or not.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 27, 2008 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well Moineau, you have to keep pushing for peace to get it. As Robert Scher recently mentioned in his article about the Obama/FISA capitulation, it doesn’t matter who wins in November. What does matter is that we keep pushing them. It is an endless struggle. As he puts it, “When we push well, and show that there is broader public support for ideas too bold for narrow-minded Beltway elites to accept, that’s when we move our nation forward.” The same goes for Israel and Palestine.

Though I will admit it looks like we have a better shot in getting progressive values accepted here then their ever finding peace there, I believe that ultimately as oil becomes less and less important, so too will our support for a military watchdog in the Middle East. It is inevitable. Not in our lifetimes perhaps but eventually. When that day comes Israel will have no choice but to negotiate with its neighbors and hopefully their people will vote out the extremist right Likud party and replace it with it’s own kind of progressive government.

Report this

By moineau, June 27, 2008 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

“That Obama is so clearly of that legacy is “maddening” only when you are trying to change opposing forces. The only successful solution, is to walk away from it and take that energy and put it into the world you really want. That is where change begins and continues.”

can’t one do both?

Report this

By Max Shields, June 27, 2008 at 11:51 am Link to this comment


You’re beyond hope and change…which is why Obama is just fine by you.

Report this

By moineau, June 27, 2008 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

pt 2
a case in point: jews and arabs. for many among them, the hatred is so ripe and profound as to wish genocide upon each other. my hope for peace between israelis and palestinians is shattered every time i venture into reader comments on ha’aretz and now the jerusalem post. as long as there are so many willing to raise a gun, a sword or such wicked words, peace will be impossible. and that’s sad when so many in israel and palestine have realized that peace is what they really want and need. but i guess you have to hit bottom to get there.

so i say to jersey girl, stop! don’t go! don’t fall into the trap of the ideologue. stop talking with the words of the greenwald set and listen to (read) the diversity of ideas on sites like truthdig. it’s true that the content will be more moderate, that, in fact, some compromises may have to be made in order to have results we can all live with.

for example, perhaps a jewish family will have to leave the home they’ve made for twenty years. that home holds all the memories of the family, the children; pets are buried in the garden. and a palestinian family may not be able to return to the town where its ancestors lived and worked the land for centuries.

hard stuff. but if you think about it, we all have a choice right here and now. let’s not join the ideologues of history who shot themselves in their own foot, lived with arrogance, and ultimately condemned the other, raging all the way to war.

amon said at the end of his letter that he didn’t think the more radical progressives would condemn to death us more moderate progressives for voting for obama. well, i’m not so sure it was such a “stupid” way of ending; in a way it’s already happening over at the comments section of greenwald. it’s beginning to look a lot like ha’aretz. my fear is that it will end up looking like the jersalem post.

i had a counselor once who said to me that there is no “one way”. those words were some of the best counsel i have ever had. and it’s this “one way”, this cynical “one way” that ultimately leads to hatred and war. just as there is no “one way” there is no “one future” we can read in the tea leaves. we need to stay open to “possibility” and i sincerely hope we can approach the possible together.

Report this

By moineau, June 27, 2008 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

pt 1
good post, leefeller, i couldn’t agree more.

i’ve been reading a blog that is new to me, glenn greenwald and reader comments that follow. i decided not to post and get into that fight; however… some thoughts.

it’s a lot nastier there than here because there is little to no balance from inclusion of other viewpoints. while i am all for filibustering the fisa legislation, there are other points that glenn and his bloggers make that i strongly take issue with, but if one dares post an argument there, he or she is sure to be viciously attacked. even among those that agree, the stress level is palpable. i’ve learned that negativity takes a lot of energy.

last night i was doing some searches and wound up on the jerusalem post. now, i’ve been to ha’aretz before and have been shocked by a hatred i didn’t even know could exist among human beings. perhaps they have forgotten how to be human beings but, i swear, those people are threatening to kill each other. and kill other people too. it’s disheartening.

however, the jerusalem post gets the prize for the most hatred ever expressed on a public website. the posters on those articles are in complete sync with one another and, if another view is expressed, that person is sure to be called every name in the book with an almost competitive attitude among the throng as to who can be the most cruel, violent or racist. and there are graphic threats of violence.

jersey girl says that she is through here and going to a “better” blog. i want to say, stop! that’s not a solution. but it’s actually worse than that. cyrena talked about cynicism, and i think that’s how cynicism starts, surrounding yourself with one viewpoint or ideology until you are convinced that there is a war on with us against them and you arm yourself with the professions of your fellow ideologues and raise the sword in the name of the one way, the one truth, the groupspeak, in the name of the righteous. in fact, you’ll go as far as hope for the worst to happen in order to see the official outcome and say, see? we knew it! that’s just how they are! (i use you generically here.)

Report this

By cyrena, June 27, 2008 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

We can debate that until the cows come home. There is no guarantee of anything. Did you know that G.W. Bush was going to invade Iraq and occupy both Afganistan and Iraq for most of his 2 terms? If so what in his first POTUS campaign would have led you to that conclusion?


You are correct in saying that there is no guarantee of anything. That is a no-brainer, and we don’t have debate that. Actually, we don’t have to debate much at all, because I’m fully aware of your ‘purpose’ here, and I’m sure you know that I am.

Your sensationalism and hyperbole is intentionally splattered in each and every one of your posts, to provide distractions and create impressions that have no connection to anything.

….A history of a blood bath in LATIN AMERICA that McSame and Obama will

    *CLEARLY ADVANCE*??????????????????

You’re full of it Max. Many may be fooled, but am not. Your tricks are as old as dirt.

The only thing I did NOT know that Dick Bush would do, was the treasonous attack on 9/11. That took me completely by surprise. I DID know, that once they went into Afghanistan AND Iraq, that it would be forever. Yes. I *did* know that was there plan. I’ve already told you this. I lived under the Dick Bush regime in Texas. I knew very well what they were capable of. And, if anyone had paid any attention to the fact that Dick Cheney assigned himself to be the shrub’s VP, that would have been your indication that the never ending wars would be a cornerstone of the take-over. The only part of it that has surprised me, (and it now seems so very long ago) was the false flag attack on 9/11.

So, every time you drop in with more bullshit, I will probably take note of it. This issue with your so definitive statement that McSame and Obama will ‘clearly advance’ a history of blood bathing in Latin America is just one of them. And, I’ve also told you before, that this is how you give yourself away. You make RIDICULOUS claims, rather than staying within the boundaries of some measure of credibility, and you’re always all over the map. You jump from one ridiculous statement to another, and they never have any connection.

These are straw men Max. That’s it. You might get away with it for a certain amount of time, particularly as people come and go from this site. It just doesn’t happen to work with me.

Report this

By it's the constitution stupid !, June 27, 2008 at 11:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Regarding Dennis Kucinich’s support (or non support) for Obama:

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, June 27, 2008 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

I didn’t say that introducing impeachment resolutions was a “waste of time” Michael Shaw, only that they will go nowhere.  To the extent that they make the administration malfeasance a matter of public record, they serve a purpose.  However, the idea that they will result in the removal from office of either Dick or Bush is fantasy.  The prospect of a President Cheney upon removal of Bush is not remotely funny.  The reality that there would be someone of the radical conservative right in office until January, 2008, whether one or both of them are removed, makes all this an exercise in futility, as far as any practical outcome.

Do people actually believe that somehow both would simultaneously go, to be replaced by next-in-line Speaker Pelosi?  Poppycock!  All palaver notwithstanding, the best hope of “regime change” in the United States is an orderly November election and transfer of power come January.  No excuse should be given for Bush to declare a national emergency and suspend the November presidential elections.  Given his flaunting of the Constitution so far, that is not outside the realm of possibility, sadly.  The way McClone has been subsuming his fairly moderate and often reasonable positions to those of Bush and company lately, he would probably go along with it.

Report this

By Max Shields, June 27, 2008 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

Michael Shaw,

While I think you are a thoughtful and committed progressive, I must disagree with view of the Democratic Party.

First, this Party has had moments, very brief as the oldest Party in US history, of progressivism. It was a proponent of slavery and has a history at the Presidential level of presiding over more wars and conflics than the other War Party. (This is by no means, as I’m sure you know by now an endorsement for the atrocious warmongering Repugs.)

But we need to be honest, or at least read some of the history before we can run with mythology as truth. The narrative of the Democratic Party is just as strongly (more so? perhaps) bluedog than Northeastern/West Coast Liberal). Remember George Wallace during the peak of “liberalism” in the Dem Party. He was an incredible racist/bigoted force as a Dem and Presidential candidate. And he’s no exception but nearly the rule.

I’m not denying that there are progressives who have found a kind of home in the Dem Party, but it is more of a blacksheep home of convenience.

You can not take back what has never been yours, is what I’m trying to say. There is no born-again FDR Party. JFK was not progressive. LBJ, while domestically progressive, was an at uber-warmonger, the Progressive (ex-Princton Pres) Woodrow Wilson not only marched this country into the malstrom of WWI but rounded up Germans, and progressives and put them in jail. German citizens were lynched on a regular basis, all pamphlets were confiscated by the Feds, all under his proclamation!

The endless war and destruction world-wide was done mostly under Dem regimes.

I think that the illusions you (I once had) and other have about a progressive Dem Party has been the illusions of many who have come before you. Just read the history of all the very progressive (when this country had a strong socialist and progressive populace with a surging labor union) attempts to change the course of this country through the duopoly that in the end is on another course.

That Obama is so clearly of that legacy is “maddening” only when you are trying to change opposing forces. The only successful solution, is to walk away from it and take that energy and put it into the world you really want. That is where change begins and continues.

Report this

By Michael shaw, June 27, 2008 at 9:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Max I would further add I agree with you, these are the most crucial times in US history. The neocons must be vanquished! This is why in my view, Nader should attempt to tackle a congressional seat or a senatorial seat or perhaps even a governorship before he jumps into a presidential race. If he won a governorship or even a congressional seat, opposing a bluedog democrat or a republican and did a good job of it, he would not only be helping the progressive movement, he would be helping his own bid for the presidency by laying down a substantial foundation. I’d like to see him come out here and go after Feinstein. He would get my vote. Why doesn’t he?

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 27, 2008 at 9:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Actually Max I think we both have the same goals, only we are going after them from different perspectives. Where you might see my standpoints as capitulations or a waste of time, I see opportunity. Remember the democratic party was hijacked from within, not from without. So what better way to tackle this situation than from within the party?

The only thing you’ll get by voting for Nader is some sense of self gratification. It won’t leave you in a better position to correct these many wrongs we face. It will leave you exactly where you are, on the outside, without power but a clear conscience. Well a clear conscience is a great thing but is it enough to dis empower the neocons? Of course my path may not do it either, but at least I have some progressive representatives who already yield some power and influence to work with. All you have is Nader.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 27, 2008 at 9:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yes Moineau, Farr is a great guy. We need more like him. I have had the opportunity to meet him on a couple of occasions. Both times concerned the unconstitutional aspects of the US Patriot Act. It is because of people like him I still cling to the democratic party.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 27, 2008 at 9:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Even when he intends to vote for a bill that gives bush the ok to spy on us

Jerseygirl Obama as of yet hasn’t voted on this bill. I realize what he said. Frankly I don’t think he will vote on it one way or the other, not in the midst of an election. His response was basically the same as Feinstein’s. But again he is campaigning to win red state voters who think we need to be spied upon to be safe. Frankly and as much as he pissed me off, I think it is politicking albeit to the detriment of the constitution. I also believe this bill will fail thanks to Feingold and others who will filibuster.  And no Obama is not my dream candidate.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 27, 2008 at 8:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Blue boy, I wouldn’t call either attempts to impeach a waste of time. Kucinich’s efforts to impeach Dick Cheney accomplished far more than expected and the idea to impeach Bush has gathered even more momentum. Although you are right the resolution was buried in committee, it still doesn’t mean it’s off the table. It can simply be reintroduced. Whether either resolution fails or not, it had to happen both constitutionally and historically. The fact it has not been acted upon only proves that those who stand in the way of these resolutions stand in the way of mandated constitutional laws. Another fact is that Kucinich’s resolution to impeach had more co-sponsors than any other resolution to impeach in US history.

From the Huffington Post:

Kucinich introduced a resolution last year to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. That resolution was killed, but only after Republicans initially voted in favor of taking up the measure to force a debate.

Kucinich won 50 percent of the vote in a five-way House Democratic primary in March, beating back critics who said he ignored business at home to travel the country in his quest to be president.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 27, 2008 at 8:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Jerseygirl it doesn’t make me crazy you are voting for Nader. Although he no doubt helped Bush in Florida, I actually do not believe Nader has the power to alter this election. If he wins 2% of the vote he’ll be lucky and if voting for him eases your conscience then go for it. Now maybe he is the right guy for the job, but I have to go along with Ernest on this one. He doesn’t stand a chance in hell and a lot of people who do like him understand this. So ultimately the question will be, do they like Nader more than they hate republicans?

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 27, 2008 at 8:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well Max I think we have all gotten a bad taste in our mouths concerning compassionate conservatism. As for Clinton and his DLC, their alleged strategy in winning more seats for the democrats gave us the bluedog democrats instead, or in other words an opened door to right wingers to infiltrate and eventually control the party. All these democrats who vote with Bush are not cowards, they are traitors and intentional ones. All they are is the infiltration of the democratic party by republicans. These infiltrators are what make the democrats look like wimps. They are the ones we need to focus our anger upon and unseat. These are who I believe third party candidates and their progressive allies should be going after. It is doable and in fact has already had some success. The PDA is doing a great job thus far.

The democratic party is in great turmoil, there is no doubt about that. It is fighting for its very life and I believe it is the duty of anyone who has ever belonged to this party to see to it that fight is won by progressives. We need to take back our party from those who have hijacked it rather than completely destroy it. I believe that can be accomplished.

Report this

By Max Shields, June 27, 2008 at 6:52 am Link to this comment

“What continues to amaze me is your crystal ball that allows you to say that Obama and McCain will CLEARLY ADVANCE THAT.”

And what kind of crystal ball do you have that says otherwise?

We look at what’s in front of us and draw our conclusions. Your conclusion disavows or makes minor the very things that I see as indicative of the outcome I’m expecting for an Obama.

We can debate that until the cows come home. There is no guarantee of anything. Did you know that G.W. Bush was going to invade Iraq and occupy both Afganistan and Iraq for most of his 2 terms? If so what in his first POTUS campaign would have led you to that conclusion?

Not a whole lot is my answer from his “compassionate conservative”, “my administration won’t do nation building (ala Bill Clinton)”... The point is the duopoly (which does in fact exist - dominant two party system) is run by a foreign policy legacy which DOES NOT change (you remember Obama was all about real change?) with administrations or parties.

So, as I said, it’s not Obama or McCain (though they represent different sides - it’s still the same coin). Obama has not provided an inkling of change regarding his committment to the duopoly agenda however he may play the cards differently than McCain.

Mine is not a crystal ball, it is the same empirical data science uses - it’s called repeatability. Only a radical change from what we have would alter these events - and Obama certainly is not a radical change agent starting with the fact that he has played by DLC rules from the get-go.

Report this

By cyrena, June 26, 2008 at 11:08 pm Link to this comment

•  “No hyperbole, just a god awful blood drenched history of US imperialism in Latin America. Obama and McCain will clearly advance that.”

The first part of this is obviously true Max, since there is this god awful blood drenched history of US imperialism well documented, not just in Latin America, but pretty much around the globe.

What continues to amaze me is your crystal ball that allows you to say that Obama and McCain will CLEARLY ADVANCE THAT.

I would ask you how you ‘know’ that Max, but of course I’ve done that every time you make such outrageous statements, and of course you can never answer, because it’s all a bunch of shit.

Like Jersey Girl, you don’t KNOW anything of the sort.

Let’s face it Max, you’re the worst kind of troll, and you’ve been exposed as exactly that.

Report this

By cyrena, June 26, 2008 at 8:18 pm Link to this comment

“…You, on the other hand, will defend anything he does.  Even when he intends to vote for a bill that gives bush the ok to spy on us now and retroactively, without consequence…”

Oh please JG. Stop with the histrionics. It’s all so boring and tiresome. You sound like my nephews when they were much younger, always (both of them) accusing their mother of ‘defending’ the other one. It was (thank god I guess) a ‘phase’ that they went through. They’ve long since grown-up, (early 20’s now) so I can only wonder when you might get around to that.

It’s really quite pathetic to accuse me of ‘defending’ Obama, when I’ve done no such thing. I simply take him at face value, based on what he says, and what he does. And, I’ve voice legitimate criticisms when they seem appropriate. If you honestly think that *I* could provide some sort of *defense* for Barack Obama, you’re crazier than a betsy bug. He’d be in really serious trouble if he was depending on ME for any sort of *defense*. I mean, if Samantha Powers had to resign from her volunteer advisory work within his campaign, just for calling Hillary a ‘monster’, they’d be ready to lock my big mouth up. My occasions of diplomacy are very erratic, and there’s just no telling when I might let a big time truth rip, without the least bit of sugar coating. I use my ‘seniority’ as an excuse to get away with it. It also helps tremendously that I’m not currently dependent on any person or corporation or other organization for my survival. If I still was, then I’d probably be on far better behavior.

Here’s an example, (again) of where you consistently shoot yourself in the foot Jersey Girl…

•  “…Even when he intends to vote for a bill that gives bush the ok to spy on us now and retroactively, without consequence.

I’ve pointed this out a few dozen times to you. YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT HE ‘INTENDS’ TO DO/VOTE FOR, because he HASN’T SAID! The pathetic part is that you even posted –yourself- what his remarks were, and his remarks included no mention of what he was ‘going to vote for’.

And, you repeated to this, over and over again. You repeated claim to be able to read Barack Obama’s mind, as to what he’s going to do with the military, and it Iraq, and with the Constitution, and on and on and on. YOU claim to know his ‘intentions’ that HE may not even know, because he won’t have a full compliment of information by which to make detailed decisions with, UNTIL he gets the job.

How many times does the difference between fact and speculation have to be drawn for you? Mr. Canning has done it, and I’ve pointed it out less diplomatically, but it’s still the essential truth. YOU DON’T KNOW. None of us can go on anything other than what he says, and what he actually does. He SAID that he didn’t like the retroactive immunity part of the House bill, and that he would work (obviously not alone) to remove that provision. And, while I haven’t had a chance to check in with the other news of the day, and Senator Feingold’s filibuster, it would APPEAR that these Senators actually are attempting to do exactly what was suggested by Barack Obama. You of course, in your extreme hate, have interpreted his words, (even after POSTING them yourself) to be something entirely different than what they actually are! In other words Jersey Girl, Barack Obama DID NOT say what YOU insinuate that he did. That’s how simple it is.

In the end, he may indeed do exactly what you have already accused him of ‘intending’. But, that hasn’t happened yet, and I don’t believe in manufacturing the ‘intents’ of others. I don’t even like broadcasting MY OWN.

I appreciate your promise not to post any other comments here, but I admit that I’ll probably not believe it until I see it. I’ve read such promises before.

Report this

By Max Shields, June 26, 2008 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment

Jersey Girl,

I’m still here. The next move is re-inventing where you’re at. I’m voting for Nader but the national discourse is so corrupt that the conversation might as well be taking place on another planet, except it’s not.

The harm of American Empire is deep and horrific. You might want to take a look at the Empire’s Workshop by Greg Grandin. No hyperbole, just a god awful blood drenched history of US imperialism in Latin America. Obama and McCain will clearly advance that.

The only good news on TD, in general, is that the Obama “madness” has faded. A bit of buyers remorse has set in. That’s healthy.

I don’t hate Obama (and if I can venture a fairly reasonable guess, neither does JG). The issue isn’t even Obama, it’s the people who demand we think he’s some think he has demonstrated through word and deed he is not.

cyrena, what you thought the Clintons were? That’s what you’ll soon be saying about Obama. It will take an election and you may not face it until (and if he gets in) out of office, but I suspect you’ll get it eventually.

Ernest and most of the “vote for Obama to ensure McCain doesn’t get in” are pretty much there. They’re thinking about mitigating the damage. Cyrena has that blind eye because she so wants to believe.

A little advice, don’t give your power away so easily.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 26, 2008 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

Seems ongoing, that some people take their posts and go home. Been here at TD long enough to remember many bygone posters.  Some people get tired of the some o, same o.  Posters preaching to the choir and insulting them at the same time has never made sense to me, this reminds me of a friend of mine who used to call up the time lady and make obscene phone calls, which caused me question why he did so, I asked he answer was she does not know what she is talking about. 

My foremost pet peeve has always been bigots, during the Hillary confrontations, I did my share of calling people on their racism, of course racists never see themselves in the same light as they are heading out the door to the local KKK meeting.

Presenting ideas with cow chips on ones shoulder leads to nothing positive,  social retardation may be the only reason for this kind of action. Why people try to base opinions with contention is beyond me? Is the intention to cause knee jerk reactions or responses?  I believe there is no option to discuss the issues with equal and fair intentions. 

My opinion is open to change by reason, but not by insult. Seems human nature to me.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, June 26, 2008 at 6:30 pm Link to this comment

Don’t be absurd, jg.  I covered that in an earlier post, which has dropped off, I guess.  I didn’t think I had to mention it again.  But, since you brought it up:  The Cheney impeachment resolution was killed in committee last year and is now totally irrelevant, except to demonstrate what will happen to the Bush impeachment resolution.  Kucinich was very clever to realize that it made sense to get rid of Cheney first.  However, the end result would have been that Bush would have appointed someone to replace him, assuming the impossible that an evenly divided Senate would vote the 2/3rds majority needed to convict.  So all the wishful thinking of Gore and others that either Bush or Cheney could actually be removed from office by impeachement is just a vehicle for fantasy.

The reality is that they will both be gone on a date certain in January, 2008, thanks to the Republicans pushing through the 22nd Amendment in reaction to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s four terms.

Report this

By moineau, June 26, 2008 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

“Another difference is that you have a visceral and very emotionally motivated hate for Obama. I don’t ‘hate’ the Clintons. I voted for them twice, because I they were better than the alternatives, and because I didn’t know then, what I know now, (sound familiar?) and because they ‘fooled’ me. What can I say? I’ve never claimed to be sucker-proof, and we live and we learn. (or at least I think that’s supposed to be the case). And, what seemed to ‘work’ then, isn’t what we need to ‘work’ now. Since hindsight is always 20/20, we don’t even know for certain that it did in fact work then, or what will in fact work now.”

that’s the gist of it, live and learn. xoxox

Report this

By Amon Drool, June 26, 2008 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

i figured it would come to this.  oh well, time for me to take a break from commenting at TD, too.

Report this

By jersey girl, June 26, 2008 at 4:59 pm Link to this comment

cyrena: Amon Drool is at least honest with himself about why he’s voting for Obama.  You, on the other hand, will defend anything he does.  Even when he intends to vote for a bill that gives bush the ok to spy on us now and retroactively, without consequence.  And to top it off, in his defense of it, he sounds just like bush and his merry band of constitution shredders. It’s all because of the big bad terrorists that we have to take your civil liberties away.  Jesus, how can ANYONE defend that??

In not speaking out against such a move, you are no better than those who have defended bush for the past 8 years.  Shame on you.

I won’t be commenting here anymore.  I’m sure most of you will be very pleased about that.

Max:  Keep up the good fight.  I hope you will join “break the matrix”.  I think it’s your kind of website. If you’re a glenn greenwald fan, I’m sure you’ll appreciate what they are trying to do.

Take care,
Peace xo

Report this

By jersey girl, June 26, 2008 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment

Max:  This one’s for you.  The other’s wouldn’t appreciate it.

Report this

By cyrena, June 26, 2008 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment

Re Jersey Girl #165604

“…The way you feel about Hillary is how I feel about Obama.  I think obama is a false choice. He’s been packaged and sold to us by the msm.

If Hillary were the nominee, feeling as you did, that she was equal to McCain in “evilness”.  Would you still have voted for her?

If so, why? “


JG, I doubt we have any substantive common ground, but I’m willing to answer your questions here.
First though, I believe you’re mistaken in your suggestion that I feel the same way about the Clinton’s as you do about Obama. That’s another backward sort of example, since if ANYONE has been bought, sold, and packaged for us, it’s been the Clinton’s. You’re incredibly obtuse if you don’t get that the Clinton’s are the representatives of the ‘machine’ (Max’s term) and what has long ago gone wrong with political representation in this thing that we call a democracy. The Clinton’s represent what has long ago become a MONARCHY, which is why the ‘new kid’ was able to win the nomination. In short, the old ‘not so silent’ majority now, has REJECTED the monarchy/oligarchy/whatever you wanna call that old machine that did not represent or work on behalf of the interests of the people.

Another difference is that you have a visceral and very emotionally motivated hate for Obama. I don’t ‘hate’ the Clintons. I voted for them twice, because I they were better than the alternatives, and because I didn’t know then, what I know now, (sound familiar?) and because they ‘fooled’ me. What can I say? I’ve never claimed to be sucker-proof, and we live and we learn. (or at least I think that’s supposed to be the case). And, what seemed to ‘work’ then, isn’t what we need to ‘work’ now. Since hindsight is always 20/20, we don’t even know for certain that it did in fact work then, or what will in fact work now.

But like you, I digress. To answer your ‘what if’ question though, (always a very tricky and loaded question for nearly any scholar of the humanities) I can say that IF Hillary had won the nomination, I would have voted for her.

I would have voted for her for the same reason that the Amon Drools of the world are going to hold their noses and vote for Obama. Because, stacked up against McCain, there is ONE difference that is ultimately and critically important. That is the likely appointment of the next Supreme Court justice. LIKE John McCain, I see Hillary as a hawk and committed to the militarism, interventionism, (she’s already proved this by the way) and the goal of US hegemonic control of the globe. Hillary at least, is a died-in-the-wool corporatist, and an ‘elitist’ since birth. (Slick Willie’s origins are slightly more humble, but he was smart enough to ‘marry into it.) I believe that Hillary is also fundamentally dishonest. (she’s proved that as well…lying when there’s been no need to lie).

ALL of that said, I do believe that there is a huge difference in who she would appoint or nominate to the Highest Court, and that would have been reason enough for me to vote, not so much FOR her, but AGAINST McCain.

That is entirely different from my reasons for SUPPORTING Barack Obama. I see him as an OUTSIDER who is willing to do the work, to help us help ourselves. So yes, I have some hope that ‘we the people’ can in fact re-take our country, and have a part in making it what most of us want it to be. I don’t ever expect ALL of the people, to be satisfied ALL of the time. That’s life.

As a side note, MSM didn’t sell Obama to me, since I don’t much interact (and never have) with MSM. I’m never satisfied with ‘one take’ or ‘one view’ on anything. It generally means I have to do my own research to find the other views.

So, maybe you think Obama was ‘packaged’ by the MSM for others. But, that didn’t happen with me, the renegade.

Report this

By jersey girl, June 26, 2008 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment

A truly worthy cause.

If only I had an extra $100 laying around to send them ~sigh~

Report this

By jersey girl, June 26, 2008 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

ernest:  You missed my post where I said I don’t believe Nader has a snowball’s chance in hell.

I’ve stated this before but let me make it clear one more time.  I’m not voting for Obama because I don’t like what I see in him.  Of course I like even less of what I see in McCain.  Having said that, I am voting my conscience.  Not lesser of two evils.  Sorry if that makes you all crazy that I’m exercising my constitutional right.

My state is blue so there is no chance McCain will take it. My entire family is voting for Obama. So, no worries. Obama will win unless there is another false flag attack and martial law is imposed or the election is stolen in favor of McCain.

Report this

By cyrena, June 26, 2008 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment


I just wanted to take some time to say how very much I appreciate your heartfelt post/comments. (#165642) In other words, the wearing of your heart on your sleeve. It don’t see that as a bad thing. Not at all. It speaks of honesty, and that is something we’ve had such a short supply of.

I also believe, (in my own and this time humble opinion) that you speak for millions of us. Yes, the past 8 years have had millions of us questioning our sanity, and others losing it outright. I’ve mentioned this dozens of times..that we’ve all been traumatized to one degree or another, whether we realize it or not. So, I sincerely thank you for your courage in putting that out there.

I slightly disagree with your assessment of your own cynicism. I fear that we use that work too casually, even though I do the same thing. I think what WE have, (because I share nearly all of your concerns) is a healthy SKEPTICISM. And, there’s a real difference there. It is understandable and admirable to be skeptical. I once admitted that there were many who would call me ‘paranoid’ even though I don’t think I have any ‘excessive’ amount of it. A response from another poster, (Louise..she’s a delight if you’ve not yet read some of her pearls of wisdom) was this: “If you’re NOT paranoid, it means you’re not paying attention.”

Now maybe that’s pretty broad, but that’s OK. I prefer the broad to the very narrow in most contexts. (not always, but most of the time). So, that means that we can extend that healthy skepticism to include caution, THOUGTFULNESS, pragmatism, realism, and balance. It is GOOD to question, and it reality, that’s all ‘skepticism’ is. It doesn’t mean that we’re necessarily doubting of everything, but just that we DO think out the pros, cons, and interconnected realities of anything. (or we should). But that is not the same as cynicism. Cynicism is what we’ve seen from the Thugs in DC for nearly a decade. (or even longer, if we really wanted to break it down). Cynicism is the sheer mockery that they’ve made of what was once a democracy. Cynicism is the hubris of ‘damn the consequences”, or as Cheney said when asked about the statistic that 80% of Americans were highly critical of the War on Iraq. He said: “So?” THAT’S cynicism. With many more in DC, it’s closer to Hannah Arendt’s explanation of “The Banality of Evil.”

But, I deter. Mostly I just wanted to thank you for your honesty, and to say that I’m glad you’ve posted here. Over time, you’ll come to know more of who is what, as well as what they are NOT. And, I’m convinced that you’ll figure that out on your own, as you already have displayed that.

It’s funny about Amon Drool claiming that I like to ‘irritate’. In reality, that clearly is NOT my intent in posting here. But, I DO play devil’s advocate from time to time, just to get people (honest ones) actually thinking (for themselves) about what they actually hold as their own positions. And more importantly…WHY?

So, I guess that CAN be ‘irritating’ to some folks. But other’s welcome it. So, as gramma concept would say, we have to just keep on taking care of each other. I personally believe that as an administrator and leader, Obama can certainly provide a far greater collection of tools for us to manage that. But in the end, that’s still very much what it boils down to. We have to rebuild the kind of society that we want to have. It’s been badly damaged, but unlike Max and a few others, I don’t believe that we have to ‘start from scratch’. I don’t see the wisdom in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Rather, I think we need to repair what has become broken, and that we have to do it efficiently.

Meantime, thanks again.

Report this

By cann4ing, June 26, 2008 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment

JG.  With all due respect, your post confuse speculation and conjecture with probability and the reality of choice.  The poll numbers I posted reflect clearly that the next POTUS will either be John McCain or Barack Obama.  Therefore, our choice is, at this point in our nation’s history, to select one of these two candidates.

There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to even remotely suggest that what you have proposed—to convince all the Dems we know to vote for Nader—has “any” prospect of success, especially since it does not appear that any posting on line at Truthdig, individually or collectively, have a major corporate network at their disposal with which to do the convincing. 

You are right, false hope is never a good thing, and the false hope you have pinned on the prospect of a Nader victory lies well beyond mere speculation and crosses way over the border into fantasy and delusion.  That hardly seems an auspicious strategy.

I have demonstrated repeatedly the fundamental difference between Obama and McCain on the federal judiciary—an issue which is of such vital importance that a McCain presidency and ensuing Federalist Society appointment portends to the end of constitutional democracy and the rule of law as we know it.

That you come back time and again with “there is no difference” between McCain and Obama merely suggests that you have a blind spot that is so pronounced it prevents you from seeing that which is right in front of you.  How sad!

Report this

By moineau, June 26, 2008 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment

anyone check out “an unexamined threat” on truthdig? marie coco’s style reminded me of cyrena’s. it’s an excellent article. did anyone else notice the similarity of thought and expression?

Report this

By moineau, June 26, 2008 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment

that farr letter is so great, michael, the author himself! very heartening!

i received a similar letter from david wu, our rep in the house. wish i could share it, but i accidently erased it from my hard drive, dammit!

david wu is someone i have tremendous respect for.  check out his voting record sometime: no on war funding, no on fisa, etc etc. there are some great dems out there, and thus are we still fortunate. ~laura

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 26, 2008 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

moineau here is a little more encouragement pertaining to impeachment:

Dear Michael:

Knowing of your interest in making the Bush Administration accountable
for its actions, I wanted to let you know that I voted with Rep. Dennis
Kucinich to bring impeachment charges against the president. That vote
occurred on June 11, 2008 and passed the House by a vote of 251-166.

I am a cosponsor of this current resolution, H.Res. 1258, against the
president. You may be aware that Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) previously
introduced H.Res. 333 calling for impeachment proceedings against Vice
President Cheney. I am a cosponsor of that resolution as well.

Impeachment proceedings may be commenced in the House of Representatives
by a Member declaring a charge of impeachment on his or her own
initiative, by a Member presenting a memorial listing charges under
oath, or by a Member depositing a resolution in the hopper, which is
then referred to the appropriate committee.

I feel strongly that President Bush has mislead the country and done so
knowingly. His actions in my opinion have not been those of an upright
public servant. He has been instrumental in entangling the United States
in a war that has no clear exit strategy and has damaged this nation’s
standing among the world community.

Though this impeachment effort still has a way to go, we have taken a
big step. I will continue to work to restore integrity in our government
and bring transparency to our federal policies. I appreciate your input
to this debate and your dedication to good government.



Member of Congress

Report this

By moineau, June 26, 2008 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

my turn for “whoops”:

Report this

By moineau, June 26, 2008 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment

wow, terrific action in oregon against a regional warmongering aipac. check out this petition for oregonians to the democrats who attended a cozy night of war talk and carter bashing in portland recently. hip-hip… and PLEASE pass it along to any oregonians you know. thanks.

Report this

By moineau, June 26, 2008 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

thanks for your sentiments, amon, very kind of you. i agree with you about where we are and where we could. your ideas are interesting regarding the senate and the court. perhaps if you have some time, you can flesh more of that out for us. and thanks for taking the age survey.

i’ve felt my heart race a few times on this commentary but ultimately realize that we are all in this together. our hearts are definitely in the right place even if our rhetoric gets ahead of us sometimes. plus, i’ve had a stress illness for over 10 years now; i’ve learned to breathe through the pain lol.

actually, i think that’s why i’m here… here on the end of an article about impeachment: i have hope in the future. and why? because many young people are engaged and they are engaged intelligently. they are angry about what is being done in their names. yes! my 30-yr-old son, just out of 10 yrs in the navy, with wife and baby, is totally engaged in/absorbed by the political process. and even though he is 30, he keeps me hopeful about obama. in our weekly telephone discussion, i’m usually griping about his latest pander, yet, my son always brings me back to reality. things like, “you want him to win, don’t you?” my son and russ feingold. i just hope we don’t meet with some unforeseen curve ball, like a successful swift boating or a false flag attack.

these last eight years almost destroyed my mind. i’ve often asked how americans can do anything at all anymore when people are suffering so much; when this administration and its henchmen are engaged in blatant torture and crimes against humanity; when our children are coming home broken physically and mentally; when the “war on terror” seemed to mean perpetual spin and perpetual war.

and then there came obama in stark contrast to bush, cheney, rumsfeld, rice, and mccain. in stark contrast to the clintons. (i didn’t know what i would have done if it had been clinton…) takin’ the high road most of the time. struggling with his heart en face a father figure whose ego seriously let him down. (i’ve been there and i pity them both; there were no good answers.) taking endless heat from the media. and he just kept rising in the polls. of course i’m skeptical but ya also got to have some hope in this! there is a buzz in the air right now, lots of americans have acutally seen some light! i’ve felt hopeless so long. i may get on and off the obama bandwagon, megaphone in hand or not, but i still have hope. i thinnk this whole process is changing me for the better.

and if i’m disappointed? it won’t be the first time lol. but this is serious stuff. enough blood has spilt; enough treasure has been stolen. and i’m living for the day when these criminals are made low. i hope i see that justice.

must rest now. wow, pardon my long spiel.

Report this

By moineau, June 26, 2008 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

jg, you say the elite has scared us to death and i say they have scared you guys to death… you have all glommed on to worst case scenario à la bush. obama does not = bush or mccain and if you say he is, then you haven’t been listening.

Report this

By Amon Drool, June 26, 2008 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

moineau…i was gonna take a vacation from blogging after the bullshit i encountered with scott a couple days ago.  but your comment about age and the lesser-evilism/principled progressivism divide brings me back for a post.

first of all, i’ll say…what a breath of fresh air you’ve been as a TD commenter!  u combine intelligence with humility and u have a way of wearing your heart on your sleeve without a trace of the maudlin.  and from what i’ve seen, no one has handled cyrena as well as u.  cyrena likes to irritate and u handle it all with cool…not taking the bait on small stuff.

i’m 60 yrs old.  and yes, i’ve become less prone to be a believer in radical (hard to define) change…  altho, it can’t be ruled out completely.  how one achieves a more socially just society when balancing out the reality of economic determinism and the need for personal autonomy is a task that our species will face as long as we exist.  having been of the working class all my life, i have no sense of anyone thinking a proleterian take-over would be for the better.  one turns to politics.  john dewey wrote about making democratic experimentalism a way of life.  i think the american people feel they have a democracy just because they have a constitution that “guarantees” them one. democracy, like everything else, should be thought of as an evolving and experimental entity.  and i believe max is right in saying that the dem/repub duopoly has quashed democratic experimentalism.  i’m all in favor of proportional representation, IRV, lessening the power of the senate (why in the world should wyoming have as much power as NY and CA), lessening the power of the supreme court.  hopefully, all these changes would lead to a multi-party system that would be more representative of the american people.

back to the age thing.  max and jerseygirl are probably a little younger than us and that may account for their more hot-blooded principled progressivism.  they both have said that we all have to vote our own indvidual conscience and i don’t think the’d ever slaughter us pragmatic obama voters if they(principled progressives) ever came to power….ha, that’s a stoopid way to end this, but i couldn’t think of anything else

Report this

By jersey girl, June 26, 2008 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

moineau:  False hope is never a good thing.  You’re in for huge disappointment if ur pinning your hopes on Obama..Obama’s core support comes from the bankers and the financial elite — Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse) healthcare industry and the nuclear power industry.  He hasn’t fought the FISA bill instead he is all for the compromise !(what else will he compromise as far as our freedoms?) He’s backed away from quick withdrawal from Iraq and has no problem with attacking iran for israel (at least that’s how it sounds in his speech)  His healthcare plan doesn’t benefit we the poeple but the insurance companies.

The elite sure has you guys scared to death just hte way they like it.  What you don’t realize is, both candidates ARE the same.

So vote for him, but no, don’t get your hopes up.

Report this

By moineau, June 26, 2008 at 10:52 am Link to this comment

jersey girl, there are no guarantees in this life. so what is wrong with a bit of hope? i thought i was the ultimate cynic but i think i’ve met my match. with obama there’s a chance at drawing down this war. i’m beginning to see cyrena’s point: there is a lot hypersupposition here. perhaps we can thank the last eight years for making us all too fearful.

and max, i’m not so sure that obama uses the term “re-engagement” with latin america the way you interpret it. you don’t have any proof because he has not yet re-engaged “obama-style”.

if anyone wants an alternative, nader is there. (seems lots of republicans do.) as for me, i’ll take my chances with the dems who can beat mccain. this election is too important for a roll of the dice. and even if it weren’t, nader would not be my man. i like his letters, but just let him try to implement his ideas! the man is not a diplomat.

Report this

By jersey girl, June 26, 2008 at 10:50 am Link to this comment

blueboy:  perhaps you’ve forgotten.  DK introduced articles of impeachment for cheney first.

Report this

By moineau, June 26, 2008 at 10:36 am Link to this comment

wow, patriotact, passionate. i like that kind of passion to convict these war criminals.

Report this

By cann4ing, June 26, 2008 at 10:31 am Link to this comment

Good assessment Michael Shaw.  While many might suggest that the words “honest Republican” are an oxymoron, last night I had the opportunity to hear and meet Vincent Bugliosi.  He said that he had given a copy of his book, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” to a Republican Senator from a Southern state.  The Senator called Bugliosi and told him that he, the Southern senator, was convinced that Bugliosi was right; that he intended to share the book with his Senate colleagues.  Bugliosi declined to reveal the senator’s name, stating that he would have to clear it with the senator first.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, June 26, 2008 at 10:20 am Link to this comment

I’m sorry, but I thought the article was about impeachment.  That being the case, I will try to address that issue, rather than the plethora that attach.

Rep. Kucinich’s impeachment resolution will go precisely nowhere, because Speaker Pelosi is too smart to let that happen.  It was referred to committee, and it will die in committee.  Why?  Because, even if it were to pass in the House, an extremely unlikely prospect, the evenly divided Senate would not vote to convict.

It doesn’t matter how nefarious the current president and vice president may be, it ain’t got the votes.  Besides, if Kucinich’s current attempt to remove President Bush from office were to succeed, the practical effect of that would be a President Cheney.  Who’s up for that?

Cheney would then simply appoint a vice president, and that would be the end of that.  If you think Bush might manage mischief before the 22d Amendment removes him from office in January, 2008, what do you think Cheney is capable of?  Think about it.

Report this

By jersey girl, June 26, 2008 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

ernest:  It’s all speculation.  You have no guarantee that Obama will be what you want him to do you?  You are going on sheer HOPE. He is all things to all people.  You don’t have a clue.

Now let’s not have anymore silly arguments about who is speculating and who is “in the know”.  Please.

Report this

By cann4ing, June 26, 2008 at 9:18 am Link to this comment

Actually, JG, the Chevy remark is not an original.  It is one my torts professor in law school used every time one of his students resorted to speculation.

Report this

By jersey girl, June 26, 2008 at 8:55 am Link to this comment

ernest:  Mabye if your mother had four wheels she could have been a lamborghini.  Don’t sell mom so short ernest wink

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 26, 2008 at 8:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s often said that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. False. The vast majority of honest public servants in Congress are Democrats. However, it would not be safe to say that the majority of Democrats are honest public servants. About half of the Democrats and a small handful of Republicans take seriously their sworn oaths. The rest would be arrested in any other walk of life.

Report this

By cann4ing, June 26, 2008 at 8:39 am Link to this comment

Jersey Girl wrote, “if we all convinced every dem we know to vote for say, Nader, we COULD do it without spending millions of dollars.”

Yes, and if my late mother had had four wheels, she would have been a Chevy.

Meanwhile, back in the land of the real, I have utilized PDA to link to the leadership of groups like and am seeking to convince them to go beyond their efforts to get single-payer through the California legislature and look to an exercise in direct democracy via the initiative process.

Report this

By jersey girl, June 26, 2008 at 8:37 am Link to this comment

cyrena:  I think we have some common ground here.  Firstly, 2000 WAS a coup.  The election was stolen and then again in 04.  9/11 was an inside job to take us to war planned years before by pnac. I had many questions on 9/11 and when I read pnac, I knew who was behind it..but I digress.

The way you feel about Hillary is how I feel about Obama.  I think obama is a false choice. He’s been packaged and sold to us by the msm.

If Hillary were the nominee, feeling as you did, that she was equal to McCain in “evilness”.  Would you still have voted for her? 

If so, why?

Report this

By Max Shields, June 26, 2008 at 7:03 am Link to this comment

” So if such a duopoly does exist, (and contrary to Max’s poor mimicking, of the us/them mentality which is the opposite of my own) it would only be represented by the 1 percenters and the rest of us.”

That comment should speak for itself, you can’t somehow get your mind around the idea the form of government regarding voting options (for all practical purposes and with the full thrust of the corporate media) is a DUOPOLY.

How many people (%)vote for non-Dem/Repub national candidates? Because it’s a winner take’s all system, people who would prefer someone other than Obama and McCain have NO PLACE TO GO. Their vote is cast aside. Instant Run-off Voting would give you and others an opportunity to vote for someone you really thought would be the best POTUS, not what one of the two Parties put up there. (the Dem Primary is completely rigged, as JG noted; candidates were marginalized right from the beginning and it was all about who raised the most MONEY).

The political system is broken. And when someone like Feingold tries to fix it with campaign finance reform, candidates like Obama say, I can raise more money by screwing the public funding. THAT’S a BIG DEAL. Our system is already bad and HE just made it MUCH worse by bringing it back to donars (and those are big money).

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 26, 2008 at 7:01 am Link to this comment


Thank you for that!

Report this

By cyrena, June 26, 2008 at 6:45 am Link to this comment

•  “With an outside progressive party challenging the democrats and showing the republicans there are liberals that have the guts to speak the truth to the american people, our political system can only improve. With so many people, on both sides, disgusted with their party, the time to look outside the duopoly is now. (
•  Why does that scare you so?

JG, the thing that scares me so happened long ago, when my fellow citizens voted for Dick Bush not ONCE, but TWICE. The thing that scared the shit out of me that far back, was when these same people were able to follow the first Coup, (the judicial appointment) and then do the coup d’etat, which was 9/11. That was 7 years ago, and the same ones are still in charge. THAT SCARES ME!

And it scares me that we almost didn’t have a choice again, and would not have, if the Clinton’s had been successful in their operation.

I don’t buy your duopoly argument, at least not in respect to the political party structure. The point I’ve just made about not having a choice if Hillary had become the nominee gives voice to that. To break it down even more, what I’ve mentioned a few hundred times, is that I never saw an ounce of difference between Hillary and McCain. So if such a duopoly does exist, (and contrary to Max’s poor mimicking, of the us/them mentality which is the opposite of my own) it would only be represented by the 1 percenters and the rest of us.

The reality is that none of the current 1%’ers represent the interests of either party, regardless of which party they happen to claim a connection to. The Dick Bush thugs are not representative of the repugs of old, and we know damn well that the Clintons and others of their ilk don’t represent the interests of the Democratic Party or the principles that it once claimed.

So, your ‘party’ argument has no validity in my book.  And, it’s NOT because I don’t agree with most of what Ralph Nader claims to ‘support’ now, or that I don’t appreciate the contributions that he’s made in the past. I do. But, he’s as much a part of the past that became this rotten, seeing as he never wanted to bother doing the hard work to change anything before now. All he does is show up every 4 years and file the necessary papers to have his name on the presidential ballot. He doesn’t bother campaigning, or actually ASKING the people to vote for him, and explaining why they should. He hasn’t done anything actually.

His supporters like to point out, NOW that he’s in favor of Impeachment. Where the hell was he 5 years ago, when my fellow insignificants and I were forming citizen impeachment groups. Where were you and Max? Why have there not been dems, repugs, greens, libs, and independents all gathered together to impeach the bastards long ago? Were any of you around on Feb 15th, 2003, when millions of us (an unprecedented number world wide, from ALL political parties) were demonstrating and protesting the soon to be launched war on Iraq? Maybe you were among us. I don’t know. I DO know that Obama was. (as just another insignificant).

So FINALLY, after somehow NOBODY manages to do much of ANYTHING to stop the bastards, (some have tried you know) Obama comes along, and happens to be a democrat. Would you have felt better about him if he was an independent. (like Nader changed himself into, or like LIEberman changed himself into?) It sounds to me like if your house was on fire, and had been burning for days, with the neighbors occasionally dosing it with extra fuel, and a lone fireman came along to try to help you put the fire out, you’d send him/her away because they were a democrat, or maybe a repug, or maybe any other party that you’ve designated as part of the machine or the ‘duopoly’. How stupid is that? Do you wanna save your house/ass, or not?

Or, are you just proving that you have ‘guts’? I’d rather you didn’t at the expense of the rest of us.

Report this

By jersey girl, June 26, 2008 at 6:36 am Link to this comment

Speakin go of more of the same from the candidates.

From Ralph:
Senator Obama said earlier today that I haven’t been paying attention to his campaign.

Actually, I have.

And it’s clear from Senator Obama’s campaign that he is not willing to tackle the white power structure - whether in the form of the corporate power structure or many of the super-rich - who are taking advantage of 100 million low income Americans who are suffering in poverty or near poverty.

Senator Obama is opposed to single payer national health insurance.


Because he favors the health insurance giants over the millions of Americans in poverty or near poverty who are uninsured or under-insured. Eighteen thousand Americans die every year because they cannot afford health insurance, according to the Institute of Medicine.

Senator Obama wants to expand the military budget which is loaded with waste, fraud and abuse - instead of cutting it and investing the long ignored peace dividend in the inner cities with good jobs and public works - including schools, clinics, and libraries.


Because he fears and favors those thousands of lobbyists in charge of enlarging the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us against.

Senator Obama says he favors a living wage. But he doesn’t say he would immediately increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour, which is the equivalent of the 1968 minimum wage adjusted for inflation - because by doing so he would offend the big corporations who exploit labor in places like Wal-Mart and fast food chains. (The minimum wage needs to be increased immediately, not phased in over a number of years, as Senator Obama would have it.)

So Senator Obama, let’s get specific.

We’re looking for deeds, not, as Shakespeare put it, words, words, mere words.

Your public career, which I have also been paying attention to, is long on words, and short on action when it comes to consumer protection, cracking down on corporate crime, curbing the violence of toxic environmental racism, and extending clean, affordable public transit, among other issues.

For the purposes of the here and now, three things:

One, why don’t you support single payer national health insurance, which is supported by a majority of doctors and the American people?

Two, why do you favor expanding the military budget which is replete with waste, fraud and abuse?

And three, why don’t you come out and support an immediate increase of the minimum wage to $10 an hour?

When can we expect the authenticity of hope and change?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 26, 2008 at 6:31 am Link to this comment

Well the sum of it, is we get to vote for the best of the worst again, between the two, Obama has my vote.

Voting for Nader would only let McCain in to mop up for Bush.

Change is only the pennies in my pocket.

Report this

By Max Shields, June 26, 2008 at 6:03 am Link to this comment


Let me be clear, both of these guys are clueless regarding what needs to happen given the situation the world is in. They are each playing a role. McCain is clinging to what he perceives is his “strength” - defense; Obama counterpoints with “soft power”. Both have kept the same options on the table.

But the neocons are clearly happy with the race just the way it is. They have two people who are on board with the imperial agenda. Both have committed to protect and defend the 51st State of the US - Israel and to use ANY means necessary to ensure that - even though Israel is a unipower in the Middle East region with hundreds of nuclear warheads. No matter. BOTH these guys are there for Israel.

Obama wants to re-engage the US in Latin/South America. Read our history there to get an understanding of what “re-engagement” would mean. It has been a blessing to SA that the US has been pre-occupied during the Bush admin. Obama will return us to where we left off - it’s an ugly tale but it’s how the US has always “engaged” South America. He has shown no vision which would state otherwise.

As our cities are blighted and ghettoized with ethnic cleansing and oligarchies - where is Obama on these issues, not to mention health care, or much else?

I think you’ll agree Obama / McCain NO VISION, NO FRESH IDEAS…just more EMPIRE. How they go about it may be different, but in the end the results are the same - war and murder. Since most people don’t read American history they just don’t get it. They really think voting for one of these guys will change things. It won’t.

Report this

By Max Shields, June 26, 2008 at 5:44 am Link to this comment


You’re with the machine. Your minor concerns are all rationalized because the world is simple - them (Repubs) and us (Dems). Everything else is a nusiance.

I’m a nusiance, jersey girl is a nusiance…because in the end it will be 40% of the people voting for your guy or theirs. The winner will assume a mandate over the other 80% of the American people who either voted for the other guy or someone/no one else.

That’s the winner take-all system that has given us endless war and a pathological economy and empire, regardless of Repub/Dem administration. And your guy Obama is right there with them. And as Nader with sheer directness said, the only difference between this Dem candidate and the last dozen or so is the color of his skin. His ideas, his presentation, etc. are all retreaded DLC talking points with corporate strings.

Nader is asking more of the Dems and the candidate to not be a candidate for the elite as have the others in the past but to get a backbone. The fact that he is a black man is not Nader’s point, after all isn’t it the constant hum of the MSM saying that we have the first African American candidate for POTUS? Is that offensive? If not than surely Nader’s point should be clear and viewed without malice.

Report this

By jersey girl, June 26, 2008 at 4:36 am Link to this comment

cyrena:  re: the spelling of Kristol. I may be wrong but I think Max was being facetious when he spelled it Crystal.  He even made reference to him as “billy” at one point. 

Perhaps he was inferring William Kristol was a comedian.  He sure is hard to take seriously with that constant smirk and his ridiculous theories.  I don’t believe Max is a fan of Kristol tho he may enjoy Billy’s work.

Report this

By jersey girl, June 26, 2008 at 4:20 am Link to this comment

cyrena:  Nader or any other true progressive doesn’t stand a chance because people with your closed mindset just won’t allow it to happen. 

I certainly know a third party candidate won’t win this time around.  Though, if we all convinced every dem we know to vote for say, Nader, we COULD do it without spending millions of dollars. Imagine how that would rock the msm’s disgusting little world !

Competition is a good thing.  The democrats don’t like competition within their ranks.  They prefer the go along to get along type candidates. Or at least it sure seems that way.  Just remember how they set up the debates.  Who was always center stage and who was practically in the wings?  Who did the msm pump up as the two main candidates very early on?  Who was asked all the questions and who was ignored?  Kucinich was practically bound and gagged and Edwards, in comparison to Clinton and Obama didn’t get much face time either.  Hmmmm game sure sounded fixed from day one to me. ANd that’s exactly all it is.. a game.

With an outside progressive party challenging the democrats and showing the republicans there are liberals that have the guts to speak the truth to the american people, our political system can only improve. With so many people, on both sides, disgusted with their party, the time to look outside the duopoly is now. (or after you all vote for obama)

Why does that scare you so?

Report this

By cyrena, June 26, 2008 at 12:19 am Link to this comment

•  “By the way, if you want to talk about bashing, do you ever listen to what the media says about Ralph Nader? Now that’s bashing. The guy comes out and says Obama is not raising the real issues that effect poor, and minority and the whole Dem African pundits come out saying Ralph doesn’t know what African American people want or need.”
Nope, I don’t listen to what the media says about Ralph Nader. At least not the mainstream media, or even your Black Agenda Report. So, I’ve not heard any ‘bashing’ of Ralph Nader by the media. HOWEVER, if he claims that Obama is not raising real issues that effect the poor and the ‘minorities’ (if that’s what you’re claiming here) then he would be WRONG, because I HAVE heard Obama address these very real issues. He addresses the need for JOBS, and the need for equal access to all forms of opportunity, specifically EDUCATION. So yeah, if Ralph Nader is making such claims, I would call him on it myself. I would wonder if he was paying any attention to what the other candidates have actually put out there, or if he’s just doing his standard perennial run for the office.

Additionally, it COULD actually be very possible that Ralph Nader does NOT know what African-Americans want or need. Does he have anything at all in his background or experience that would give us any indication that he DOES know these things? I don’t think he knows it as well as John Edwards does. How is he an authoritiy?

•  “When Nader says Obama is pandering to white conservatives (something people like Ishmael Reed agree with as well as the staff of Black Agenda Report)when he chastises African American males during a campaign (hardly the time to be chastising your constituency - don’t hear him chastising anyone else) the media implies he’s a racist.”

You’re all over the place here Max. How do you and Nader figure that Obama was chastising African American males ‘during his campaign’, because he made a speech on father’s day, which happened to be at a mostly black church in Chicago? And you’re worried about the 24/7 crap that people watch on TV? Quite frankly, the content of Obama’s speech was in fact very connected to the ISSUES AFFECTING poor people, INCLUDING the black ones. In short, it’s a major handicap to the whole, for people of ANY color to have a bunch of kids that they are either unwilling or unable to take some responsibility for, since kids can’t raise themselves, or feed or clothe, or house themselves, and they can’t usually get jobs until they’re at least 15 or so.  From what I heard of Obama’s Father’s Day address, that’s pretty much what he was pointing out. HELLO! Anybody paying even the slightest attention to some BASIC COMMON SENSE, or do we just ALWAYS have to ‘spin it’ into something else? If you can’t afford babies, (for whatever the reasons) and/or you are emotionally or psychological unprepared to take on the responsibilities involved with having them, then MAYBE YOU FUCKING SHOULDN’T! Or, maybe one should wait until Obama follows though on his promise to hook ‘em up with some jobs and education. How complicated is that? How DIFFERENT is that from any of hundreds of other addresses/sermons that were being delivered on that same Father’s Day, by NON-politicians?

So how did you and Nader decide that he was ‘pandering to white conservatives’ when he made this point? (how many white conservatives were in the audience?) And, what’s up with Nader? Couldn’t he think of anything else to say? Can’t you?

You call this critical thinking on Obama? Who’s really brain dead here? You just keep making yourselves sound more and more desperate.

Nobody needs MSM to know that Nader doesn’t stand any better chance this time, than he did the last 4 times he ran. Quit whining and bashing.

Report this

By moineau, June 25, 2008 at 11:58 pm Link to this comment

cyrena, agreed! i think we are all feeling frustrated right now; obviously there’s a divide between those who don’t worship obama but will vote for him for various reasons and those that don’t believe that change is possible at all within our present two-party (or one-party, as they see it) system. one side is called irresponsible and the other is called naive.

i was the first to misspell kristol’s name and i am glad to know how for the future. however, i do think there are less offensive ways to present these things. for example, most people would infer that they are being called ignorant if they read, if you knew how to spell the name you might be able to fool someone into thinking you know what you are talking about.

one thing i’ve been wondering, as to our divide here, is if our ages would match up with our positions. perhaps this will prove innane, but i’m interested. i’m older, 51. last night, my partner and i were discussing how he and i have both become less prone to radical change as we’ve gotten older; he’s 61.

an application during this election year? anyone willing to give up their age for inquiry’s sake?

Report this

By PatriotAct, June 25, 2008 at 11:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Misprision of Felony strategy for impeachment using the prosecutorial provisions of the USA Patriot Act, using the powerful discovery articles associated and the unlimited prosecutorial tools included with the USA Patriot Act, (and FISA continuation of that body of law), can discover that the CIA tapes of high level terrorist suspect detainees were destroyed in an effort to conceal.

The CIA destroyed the tapes to conceal them from government offices, but most importantly you. The law doesn’t protect you from concealment, only your government. Brilliance and great care coupled with great knowledge of the USA Patriot Act body of law will make some prosecutor extremely famous, I wish Bugliosi would get a clue.

Sentiment will not bring about the successful impeachment of bush; only the accusation of felony crime, crime so horrible so as to shock and awe America will suffice to bring about the impeachment of the President of The United States of America in a time of war.

Impeachment is the great American Shakespearean drama. This drama will be played out on T.V., if it’s good enough material. The media will kill it or it will live, they decide. Blogs alone won’t do it. The great coliseum is the T.V., not the halls of Congress. The masters are Rupert Murdochs, not the men we elect, bitter truths that empower and free all of us.

So let’s play ball. I got felony violations of the USA Patriot Act in my corner, what’ve you got Kucinich?

An impeachment that commands the attention of Americans and grabs the short hairs of Congress, (including Kucinich), is the only impeachment that will not be ignored. Americans understand fear and terror. Any person who is indicted under the felony provisions of the USA Patriot Act will be terrified. People get stupid when they are afraid, when they are terrified. Would you like to see bush and cheney terrified, trembling, scrambling, sweating, branded as un-American?

Kucinich is being ignored. I said Kucinich is being ignored.

Americans would be absolutely fascinated and marvelously entertained by an impeachment trial of bush and cheney using articles of impeachment based solely upon felony violations of the USA Patriot Act, destruction of evidence, (CIA tapes), false information on terrorism, (Saddam linked to Bin Laden and the entire tapestry of deception), hundreds of felony violations of the USA Patriot Act, in plain sight. And this would go to trial, nobody is going to ignore a laundry list of USA Patriot Act felony violations.

Imagine the posse of FOX television consultant contractors hired to pontificate on USA Patriot Act theory, imagine the ratings. Imagine the discovery powers a prosecutor would have under the USA Patriot Act. Imagine what a good American could do with the felony prosecutorial powers of the USA Patriot Act at their fingertips, imagine. bush imagined, and look what it got him.

Can you imagine? Can you act as a good patriot must by using the USA Patriot Act to prosecute bush and impeach the President of the United States of America?

The USA Patriot Act is your law and it is the only law that will terminate this un-American administration. bush and his gang are literally pressing the Adz into your trembling hands, daring you, teasing you, playing you.

Tens of millions of dollars have been spent by the ‘media’ at large in conjunction with government propaganda offices to sell the war and the USA Patriot Act to Americans. This law shines, radiates an energy that when cast upon the accused paints them instantly and forever as horribly and terribly un-American. This is a directed political weapon and it must be focused on those who have committed felony violations of the USA Patriot Act.

Report this

By cyrena, June 25, 2008 at 11:34 pm Link to this comment

Nope moineau, I’m obviously NOT the only one who should be blogging, because then it wouldn’t be a blog, and we wouldn’t learn anything from it at all. Right? There would be no sharing of viewpoints, and people would remain in the dark about any way of thinking about anything, other than their own. (some still do, but there’s not much we can do about that, because it’s their choice).

So, you may have missed my point in even mentioning the spelling, (and I was actually writing that part to Max) of Kristol’s name. In reality, his the spelling of his name isn’t that important, but then again, if we’re going to talk about him (or anyone else) on the blog, or in the public discourse, then yes..everyone SHOULD know who we’re talking about. And if people don’t know who William Kristol is, then we should at least start with that first, before we come across as the ‘know it all’s’.  Right? And if Max knows as much as he wants us to believe that he knows, then he would be more credible if he knew how to spell the guy’s name. (And yes, I see Kristol as one of the personalities that happens to be a great danger.)

So on this…

•  “ was, perhaps, a weak argument to include kristol. but the truth is, i don’t trust mccain not to attack iran. for me, that’s a big big issue, interventionism.”..

I’m not sure that it was a weak or not weak argument to include Kristol. I didn’t see a direct connection, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. I don’t know how much he (Kristol) has to do with the subject of interventionism, or attacking Iran, because I admit that I don’t keep up with what he says. I know the guy is bad news, just like I know Dick Cheney is bad news. If I were inclined to give in to my purely emotional side, I would never listen to or read ANYTHING that ANY of them have to say. But, that would be stupid. We NEED to pay attention to what these people say, because we need to KNOW how they think, at least to the extent of how it affects our own survival. So, I guess I just don’t have patience for the all of the drama.

But, I certainly feel the same way that you do about the BIG, BIG, issue of interventionism. The problem is that THIS HAS BEEN US FOREIGN POLICY FOR DECADES! And, as things stand TODAY, I think that Barack Obama is the first VIABLE candidate for the POTUS that could change that basic imperialist mentality that has been the bulwark of US foreign policy for most of my own natural life!

So YES! McCain would most certainly attack Iran, if Dick Bush doesn’t do it first, and there’s even Congressional action in the making, (sponsored by AIPAC) to set it up…NOW. Again, this is NOT NEW. It has always been part of the original plan by the neocons who were all signatories to the PNAC documents. I certainly don’t disagree with you there, and this isn’t a ‘contest’ to see who knows the most of any given subject. Most scholars see themselves as lifelong learners, and they rely on multiple sources of information for that knowledge.

So you seem to mistake my own posts here. I am primarily interested in weeding out the bullshit. Things that are either TOTAL propaganda, or so much spin as to totally distract from the real issues. The other attempt here, (at least on my part) is to connect the appropriate dots. The ones that matter and have relevance to the larger picture. I have ZERO interest in pissing contests. My purpose is in sharing information, and gaining it at the same time. I’ve learned it’s the best way to come up with solutions to problems that concern large groups of people.

But, it’s NOT a flippin’ CONTEST!

Report this

By cann4ing, June 25, 2008 at 10:46 pm Link to this comment

Wow, Max, Obama has “pandered to get white conservative votes.”  Hmmm, sounds like he’s a shrewd politician who understands that he will never accomplish anything as President Obama if John McCain wins.

If your point is that Ralph Nader’s positions are substantively superior to Obama’s, I would wholeheartedly agree.  And if Nader ever demonstrates some much needed horse sense by joining PDA, running first for either the Senate or a Congressional seat, rather than as the perennial footnote of American presidential politics, I will vote for him if he is in my state or district; support his candidacy if he goes elsewhere.

In the meantime, those progressives who understand the disaster that would ensue if McCain were elected, will continue to line up and be counted for Obama.

You missed a salient point reflected by the LA Times/Bloomberg poll.  In a head-to-head race, Obama beats McCain 49% to 37%.  When Bob Barr (3%) & Ralph Nader (4%) are added to the mix, Obama drops only a single digit to 48% but McCain drops 4% to only 33% of the total voting electorate.  Translation, since not all of McCain’s 4% loss can be located within the 3% voting for Barr, at least one in four Nader voters are conservatives who would otherwise have voted for McCain.  Go figure!

Of course, the other salient feature is that neither third party candidate stands a chance of carrying even a single state.

Report this

By moineau, June 25, 2008 at 10:34 pm Link to this comment

i don’t believe KRISTOL, max or jg.

(wow, i feel so much better now, thanks, cyrena! maybe you alone should be blogging… at least all the names would be spelled correctly… if i was writing an article, i might have looked it up—i don’t read him regularly, i just hear him now and then. but you study law and politics, don’t you? i have degrees in english and french. parlez-vous français, ma chère, et si oui, à moins montrez-nous un peu de respect, s’il vous plaît!)

it was, perhaps, a weak argument to include kristol. but the truth is, i don’t trust mccain not to attack iran. for me, that’s a big big issue, interventionism. was it just a random exercise that israel flew 100 jets over the mediterranean in a “dress rehearsal”. expensive dress rehearsal (and more serious than the comments of kristol).

france is getting friendly with israel and syria; israel is getting friendly with france, hamas, lebanon and syria. seems to me, everyone is trying to take the heat off israel, and why? to isolate iran? ok ok i’m just like kristol, i’m whistling in the wind… but like you, i’m watching the world from my little window. and lots of thinkers are looking out similar windows.

i have said why i’m voting the way i am, something could change, i suppose, but i can’t imagine what. i want my grandson to have a future, although i’m cynical about what kind of future, and i’m willing to do my part so that he does, in spite of my cynicism. (e.g., called wyden today and asked him to join any filibuster on fisa.)

read my three main reasons once again: the war, the economy, the courts. that’s why i will vote against mccain and for obama.

besides, i’m a lot like feingold: i don’t hate obama. although i disagree with him on lots of stuff, i don’t think he is an evil man. i think he is as misguided as, say, conyers or feingold or kennedy or I, maybe more so, but not evil. in fact, although he has made some politically advantageous decisions, i see him on a learning curve (as are we all). and like feingold, i think he’ll be a good president. he certainly has a lot to live up to and, like most in political life, a lot to live down. i mean, who the hell would want to be president in these times???

we try to choose those that will do more good than bad, not an ideal world, i know, but it’s reality. i believe we will begin to move in the direction of enlightment these next four to eight years. just keep doing what you guys are doing, working locally, advocating for real change, for third party candidates… it’s all good… and i’ll do what i am doing, keeping mccain out of power and calling issues as i see them.

the united states has one hell of an arsenal of dangerous weapons. i trust obama with them more than mccain who i don’t trust at all. bottom line.

and that’s just my take on iran! mon dieu, que le monde soit fou…

Report this

By cann4ing, June 25, 2008 at 10:11 pm Link to this comment

Marshall, one of your posts had content!  When?

Report this

By Max Shields, June 25, 2008 at 8:37 pm Link to this comment


There’s a whole lot of us just don’t get it when it comes to Obama. Try reading the last post by Chris Hedges (The Hedonists of Power).

At the end of his piece, you can just add: ditto!Max.

Report this

By Max Shields, June 25, 2008 at 8:27 pm Link to this comment


It’s apparent you don’t follow some of these events. Lieberman said this way back when Obama came to the Senate…before 2006 election.

I really don’t care which wing of the war Party Lieberman belongs to.

By the way, if you want to talk about bashing, do you ever listen to what the media says about Ralph Nader? Now that’s bashing. The guy comes out and says Obama is not raising the real issues that effect poor, and minority and the whole Dem African pundits come out saying Ralph doesn’t know what African American people want or need.

When Nader says, the only thing different between Obama and previous Dem candidates is that he’s half black, he’s “crossed the line”. When Nader says Obama is pandering to white conservatives (something people like Ishmael Reed agree with as well as the staff of Black Agenda Report)when he chastises African American males during a campaign (hardly the time to be chastising your constituency - don’t hear him chastising anyone else) the media implies he’s a racist. Even though the numbers and facts clearly refute that Nader was a “spoiler” in 2000 the media continues - all in the same breadth - to throw that in for good measure. Furthermore the pundits throw out questions to one another about whether Nader has any chance of breaking low single digits (and answer with no more knowledge than a tetsi fly - of course not). That’s thrown in so independents who don’t see any significant difference between McCain and Obama won’t get any ideas about voting for Ralph - after all you don’t want to “waste” a vote.

That’s why we get this echo chamber. It starts with people watching the 24/7 crap and when it comes out of their mouths they think they had a thought!?!?!

And Leefeller, that’s why I call bashing. What some of us are doing here is compensating for the total lack of critical journalism and brain dead thinking when it comes to the likes of Obama.

Report this

By cyrena, June 25, 2008 at 8:12 pm Link to this comment

You don’t get it Max

•  “…I don’t even know why you insist on your own facts regardless of what was never refuted until election time…”

I’m NOT insisting on ‘my own FACTS”, since this is exactly the kind of stuff that is bullshit hyperbole, and doesn’t even belong in the consideration of any ‘facts’. This is my whole point. You and jersey girl roll up with some bullshit terms that you throw around in the creation of association innuendo. “Mentor”? Give me a flippin’ break. How does a “mentorship’ between any person’s for any purpose, because a relevant FACT to anybody other than the people who are involved in it? (if it exists).

This is such a perfect example of the emotional hysterics that you people use, to say absolutely NOTHING that is relevant to ANYTHING! And then it becomes an exercise of attacking and name calling anyone who points this out. Like this hysteria from jersey girl…

•  “..cyrena: Wow, your arrogance is outta control. You just can’t handle the truth. Facts mean nothing to you. Your personality is very right wingish. The truth is..we’re screwed. Whether by McCain or Obama, we’re still SCREWED. They are both power hungry, say anything to win, beholden to corporate america, political shills.

Jersey girl says ‘facts mean nothing to me’. The irony is laughable. FACTS are my stock in trade. They have the highest priority for me, because I’m a realist. But you all never put forth any FACTS here. You put forth YOUR opinions, which everyone is still entitled to, but that damn sure doesn’t make ‘em FACTS! Like me and my alleged ‘right wingish’ personality. That’s hilarious to anyone who knows me, but what other purpose does jersey girls hype and hysteria serve? None.

And, it’s the same with the rest of what you spew here. It’s all neurotic, subjective hysteria, and unconnected to any roots, or any trajectory. Jg says we’re SCREWED. Well…NO SHIT Sherlock! Where have you been for the past decade? Obviously you weren’t around when I was the Cassandra running around predicting the final fall if Dick Cheney were allowed anywhere near the white house.

from moineau..

•  “..i would venture a guess that most of the people posting on this commentary regularly are aware of the history of FISA. yours is an arrogant assumption…”

I don’t think that you SHOULD ‘venture to guess’ because you’d be wrong. Mine is not an arrogant assumption, but an informed opinion based on the comments posted here. There’s as much ignorance as there is arrogance on these forums. Matter of fact, they generally go together.

Max, I didn’t ‘call’ you a liar, in order to make Obama look better. All I did (which I’ve suggested before) is ask that you stop making these subjective and emotional associations, by way of distractions and strawman arguments, and parsing even more words. Framing LIEberman into a ‘mentor of Obama’ is just one of these occasions.

It’s just like all of your and JG’s other crystal ball predictions. She says neither of Obama or McCain is going to ‘restore the Constitution’. She doesn’t know that, and if anybody cared about anything more than hysterical rhetoric, they wouldn’t make such stupid statements. The Constitution can be restored when the THREE branches of government decide to do it.

For the sake of keeping things semi understandable, could you all try to spell the names of the characters correctly? Please. William Kristol is spelled William Kristol. That’s how he signed his name on the PNAC papers as well. NOT ‘crystal’ or ‘cristal’ but Kristol. If you spell things like that correctly, people are more likely to be fooled that you actually know what the hell you’re talking about.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 25, 2008 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment


Lieberman, dropped out of the Dem party so he could have his cake and eat it too.  Why would what he says be important to someone like you anyway.

Are you pissed off because he is not in the Republican party even though he went over the edge?

Lieberman is playing politics, I was a mentor to Obama, but I support McCain sic, your Lieberman premise is tainted.

Conformational agreements aside!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 25, 2008 at 7:50 pm Link to this comment

Jersey Girl,

Vote for McCain, I will vote for Obama, thanks for the insight.

Report this

By Max Shields, June 25, 2008 at 7:08 pm Link to this comment


You may want to talk to Joseph Lieberman about why he referred to his role as a mentor.

One person’s bashing is another person’s critiquing a potential POTUS. Given the results of these two Parties for giving us some butes, I’ll continue to “bash/critique”. Thank you.

Report this

By Max Shields, June 25, 2008 at 6:22 pm Link to this comment

“cristal said on fox, i think, that if bush thinks mccain will win, he’ll let mccain take care of iran, and if he think obama will win, he’ll do it himself… we’ll see”

Let’s think about this. Critical thinking can be valuable, so let’s see how we can go beyond the surface.

I had Crystal in mind when I said the neocons really don’t care who wins. First, let’s assume that Crystal has inside information and really knows what Bush will do (though any good critical thinker should raise some questions on this point). Why would someone, a signatore of PNAC, be saying these things? Is it because he’s trying to fill the air waves with some juicy tid-bit (possibly)? Or is it because he really wants John McCain to win and is saying this to support his run for POTUS? Do you think Bush is playing prisoner’s dilemma game and if the polls are favorable for Obama - WhamO - obliterate Iran is the command the Commander In Chief orders? Do you think Bush will wait until the election is over and than strike if Obama wins?

There has been a lot of talk about Bush launching an attack against Iran before he leaves. Why is it the POTUS can unilaterally attack a sovereign nation with nothing more than whim?

But I digress. For the life of me I can’t figure out why Billy (I mean William) Crystal would make this comment given what we know about Crystal’s ideology.

But if we play this out…just for kicks…you might want to consider voting for McCain because we may get lucky and Bush’s little gamble won’t pay off!!!

As jersey girl said - vote your conscience. You’ll feel so much better in the morning; or don’t vote at all.

Whatever you do, don’t do it because of something William Crystal says. But it does make you wonder - who is doing the real fearmongering?

Report this

By Michael shaw, June 25, 2008 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well Jersey girl I will vote the way I must. I’m not sure who that vote will go to yet(IE write in-or Obama). But I do know that if Obama loses we get McCain, yet another reward for republicans and frankly whatever I do, it won’t be that in spite of the two recent capitulations. Rove is under indictment. McClelland has damned Bush and Cheney and Russ Feingold will filibuster that FISA bill. And between him, Wexler, Kucinich and Farr(and at least 126 other democratic members of congress) we have a better chance in dealing with Obama than McCain.

As for Obama, some would call him complicit with the neocons and since I don’t know that for sure, I can only say this is a possibility. But it could also be naivety on his part(or mine) or perhaps even a strategy since he is now campaigning in key red states, places where frightened Americans believe illegal spying is necessary to keep them safe. I’ll admit I have no idea as to where Obama’s loyalties truly lay but I know exactly where McCain’s do! We can speculate till the cows come in. But the fact remains, Obama is not a republican and in spite of the odious bluedogs, there is still a significant difference between the two main party’s. I know you don’t agree with that but until I’m completely convinced otherwise(and the only way to do that is to see what happens once he’s in office) I will maintain the same beliefs, misguided though they may be.

I would rather take my chances with four years of Obama than play Russian Roulette with John McCain.

Report this

By moineau, June 25, 2008 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment

jg, max: you won’t get a revolutionary in obama, you won’t even get a progressive, but maybe you’ll get someone who will begin to draw down in iraq. maybe some funding restored to social programs and education. maybe you’ll have a pension when you retire. just some things to think about… ‘cause with mccain, you’ll lose it all.

Report this

By jersey girl, June 25, 2008 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

cyrena: Wow, your arrogance is outta control. You just can’t handle the truth. Facts mean nothing to you. Your personality is very right wingish. The truth is..we’re screwed. Whether by McCain or Obama, we’re still SCREWED. They are both power hungry, say anything to win, beholden to corporate america, political shills.

Neither one will restore the constitution. Neither one is good for america.  SO what the HELL is the difference? 

I have to laugh when people say they will hold Obama accountable when he’s president. Ha! You mean like you held the democratic congress accountable?  Did they give a damn what you wanted? Hell no!  Expect more of the same from President Obama. BTW, has he fillibustered the fisa bill yet? Oh, I didn’t think so.

The power elite don’t care which one wins.  Either one will serve them just fine.

Leefeller:  Maybe we’re “bashing” Obama because we’re sick of his sleazy two faced rhetoric.

Report this

By moineau, June 25, 2008 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment

max, i cannot not for vote for obama, if only to keep mccain from gouging what’s left of this economy. if only on this one issue, the economy—and it’s huge—i must vote to put money back into america’s education, health care, jobs, resurrect social security, raise the bloody cap.

but there’s more: in spite of his “lofty” rhetoric, i don’t think obama will go to war with iran, but i fear mccain on that front. (cristal said on fox, i think, that if bush thinks mccain will win, he’ll let mccain take care of iran, and if he think obama will win, he’ll do it himself… we’ll see.)  and what about mccain “surging” in iraq if he feels threatened? obama will at least begin the draw down, perhaps even end it.

and judges? no, i want obama putting forward judges to the courts. the justice department became sick under bush and mccain will just continue the disease, including some radical immigration judges without immigration experience. and roe vs wade, no way i’m turning my back on that. and domestic partnerships recognized by the feds.

i think the right wing is wrong about mccain: i think he’s a neocon psychopath with ptsd rage, and it’s up to me to stop him.

xoxox ~laura

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 25, 2008 at 5:23 pm Link to this comment

“Obama endorsed (against the Dem. Candidate for CT Senate) and was mentored (it’s not a formal title for pairng up newbies with veterans)by Joseph I. Lieberman.”

If indeed Obama was mentored by Lieberman, he had some great training in smoke and mirrors.  Showing someone the ropes is not the same as mentoring, is it possible you are using the term out of context? 

With such glee you trash Obama, why is that? We are doomed to whatever the elite have in store for us, so pissing in the wind must be something you enjoy or is their some hidden agenda? 

Voting on the 30 percent thing as you call it really does not make sense.  If some one says something is way out of line and does it is insane to vote for it, does it not make sense to vote aginst it,  cannot one vote under protest? 

Or how about Hillary, I voted for it but hoped it would not pass, that is a great one.

Report this

By Max Shields, June 25, 2008 at 5:05 pm Link to this comment


I would ask you to think about making voting at all YOUR choice.

Also, “Obama voted against capping credit card interest at 30%, claiming he did so because the ceiling was too high; yet, he did not put forward any alternative.”

I believe this is the one even H. Clinton voted against. This has major impact on the poor.

Maybe instead of saying I’m going to vote for the lessor evil, think: should I be complicit in voting for a guy who I know has little to nothing in common with my values when it comes to priorities? Or do I either vote for a Nader or no one at all?

This mind-set of vote for a Dem or a Repub has become unacceptable. The Dems power and their corporate media are not progressive. They pushing the hell out of Obama. Same folks who helped GWB launch the invasion of Iraq. Even the neocons are going light or simply making patty-cake motions because they know in the END - McCain or Obama - They and American Corporate Empire Wins.

You and me and the rest of the world - lose.

Report this

By Max Shields, June 25, 2008 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment


Obama endorsed (against the Dem. Candidate for CT Senate) and was mentored (it’s not a formal title for pairng up newbies with veterans)by Joseph I. Lieberman.

I don’t even know why you insist on your own facts regardless of what was never refuted until election time.

Before the campaign started there was little controversy about this Obama/Lieberman thing. Now it’s a lie? How convenient.

Look the wrap sheet on Obama is growing longer and longer and you just can’t stand it. Calling me a lier doesn’t exactly make your candidate shine any brighter.

Report this

By moineau, June 25, 2008 at 4:41 pm Link to this comment

“Add that to the fact that they are rarely even aware of the history of any of these bills/legislation, or the reason they exist to begin with.”

i would venture a guess that most of the people posting on this commentary regularly are aware of the history of FISA. yours is an arrogant assumption.

Report this

By cyrena, June 25, 2008 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment

Ernest writes:

•  If you carefully read the content of both Obama’s statement, and that of Feingold, it should allay your fear that a President Obama would seek to actually use the FISA capitulation bill as a means for spying on innocent Americans—which is precisely what Bush intends to do.

And, I say this is the missed point throughout this and most of the other threads on this site. At least half of these posters do NOT *carefully read* the content of ANY of these statements, by ANY of these politicians. Add that to the fact that they are rarely even aware of the history of any of these bills/legislation, or the reason they exist to begin with. Add that to the emotionalism and lack of objectivity, and they can make an interpretation of anything, be anything they want it to be.

Meantime, I’m curious myself, about what Max thinks about obtaining single payer health care via an initiative. I see it as doable. We’ve done something similar here in California for prescription drugs.

And Max, can you quit lying about Obama allegedly taking LIEberman as a ‘mentor’? I mean really. You always go so overboard with the smears and hyperpole. The fact of the matter is that this is innuendo by language, and Obama has never taken LIEberman as his ‘mentor’. So, quit lying.

Report this

By jersey girl, June 25, 2008 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment

Michael:  Vote your conscience. Mine won’t let me rest if I vote for my former party that has ignored and betrayed me one too many times. Obama is a part of the machine. If you read that gonzalez or greenwald article I posted then you will know why I can’t vote for the man anymore than I can vote for McCain. 

It’s harder to forgive hypocrisy in your own people than it is of your enemy. When your trust is broken, what’s left?

Report this

By moineau, June 25, 2008 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment

jg, very good summary of obama’s positions on key issues by matt gonzales, nader’s vice presidential running mate. reading this and then summarizing it below, i really was heartsick. please know that many of us here do not have any illusions about barack obama. it’s almost a nightmare scenario, isn’t it?

but no, i still must vote for obama as there are no third-party candidates at this time who i feel could really lead this country out of its deep chasm. Ralph Nader isn’t the answer. AND i’ll do almost anything to block mccain: obama does not = mccain; he might = clinton, which is pretty bad, but he does not quite = bush.

anyway, here are a few of the salient points from the article jersey girl offered to us:

Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to “carry out our counter-terrorism activities there” which is estimated at 60,000 soldiers.

In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits.

Obama voted against capping credit card interest at 30%, claiming he did so because the ceiling was too high; yet, he did not put forward any alternative.

While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts.

In the US Senate, Obama was a sponsor of the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting patients’ economic recovery.

In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the Mining Law of 1872 which gives mining companies unusually generous land and resource rights. Later it was revealed that one of Obama’s key advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies.

In Illinois, Obama authored a bill to report nuclear plant radiation leaks to residents, then capitulated to Republican amendments that weakened the bill considerably. It was later revealed that, since 2003, employees of Exelon which operates a nuclear power plant in Obama’s district, have given him $227,000 since 2003, with two of his all-time biggest donors among them.

Obama is in favor of corn-based ethanol, and voted for $8 billion in corn subsidies in 2006 alone.

In 2006 Obama did not support the single-payer health plan bill by Kucinich and Conyers although 75 other members of Congress did, leaving the health insurance industry still in charge.

Obama says he doesn’t think NAFTA has been good for the U.S., although he said we needed more such agreements in 2004. He cast the deciding vote against an amendment to the 2005 commerce appropriation that would have stopped other countries from weakening U.S. labor laws and worker rights abroad.

In a bunch of final examples, Gonzales cites the AIPAC speech in which Obama did not acknowledge the plight of Palestinians nor stand for peace movements inside Israel; refused to have his picture taken with San Francisco’s gay mayor; supports the death penalty while acknowledging its disproportionate use on black americans; and voted for 700 miles of doubled fencing on the Mexican border. And finally he vigorously fought the idea of impeachment in writing and rejected Feingold’s call for censure.

Not your average progressive but rather the usual suspect…

Report this

By cann4ing, June 25, 2008 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment

Max, You still didn’t answer my question.  What is your take on pushing single-payer via the initiative process?

Report this

By Max Shields, June 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment

Michael Shaw,

I understand the dilemma you present regarding “lessor of evils”.

But the big lie is this demand that we vote for people who we think are really not the right people to take this country where it needs to go.

For me, I think we are in one of the most precarious situations in human history. I think such a situation calls for a clear vision which ends US participation in war and begins to repair the earth. This is a matter of life on the planet.

I’ve mentioned specifics in my area (and I believe you have to).

Voting for someone who is only slightly better than the other and provides no vision, no real challenge which has any glimmer of the best humankind has to offer given the severity of the situation, is a fool’s errand.

It is at this point that I ask: why vote for one of two the duopoly offers up?

Report this

Page 1 of 8 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook