(edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)
What follows is a fair discussion of WHY America is so broken... "The System IS BROKEN" as among ALL of the Presidential candidates ONLY John Edwards expressed this SYSTEMATIC CONCERN Directly. :think::applause: :bounce:
"The System" about which John Edwards spoke... IS The People who Themselves HOLD OFFICE...As well as the Purposefully Loosely Organized Constraints or (lack there of), under which "The Current System" operates.
"The System" will ONLY Change WHEN... THESE PEOPLE ARE... OUSTED From Office by US... The Voters! :think: And... When WE elect NEW people whom we hold accountable to tighten the rules under which the NEW THEY operate... on our behalf...
Can anyone say PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING? :applause: WHEN? NOT WITH THIS CONGRESS... :shrug: :rofl:
Electing ANY of the THREE remaining candidates will ONLY get us ... MORE OF THE SAME... as they are ARE Beholden to the same benefactors.... :think:
Taibbi Gets It Halfway Right
By David Swanson,
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/30906In "Chicken Doves" Matt Taibbi correctly denounces the phony, monied, Democratic-front antiwar movement without acknowledging the real one. United for Peace and Justice, and other organizations serious about peace, struggle against a corrupt Congress, a pseudo peace movement with lots more money than we have, and reporters like Taibbi who pretend that a major movement that is actually working for peace with projects like this one upcoming in March:
http://resistinmarch.org does not exist.
Taibbi correctly condemns the Democrats' past year of not really trying to end the occupation of Iraq. But he fails to acknowledge that they still have almost another whole year left in which they could quite easily act if they wanted to. Millions of us will continue pushing them to cut off the funding, with no help from Taibbi and other journalists who buy into the pretense that it is already 2009.
Taibbi does not spell it out, but here is why the Democrats' claim of powerlessness is false:
It is a lie that Congress must pass a bill to end the occupation of Iraq. The occupation can be ended with an announcement by Congressional leaders that there will be no more funding. Any proposal to fund it can be blocked by 41 senators. Bush has plenty of money for withdrawal and could be given more for that exclusive purpose. When your television tells you the Democrats need 60 or 67 senators to end the occupation, your television is lying to you.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could if they wanted announce today that the House and Senate will no longer bring to a vote any bills to fund anything other than withdrawal. They have many colleagues already on board with that position, not to mention two thirds of the country. It would take 218 signatures on a discharge petition to force a bill to the floor of the House without Pelosi's approval. It is unlikely enough Democrats would oppose their party to fund Bush's war in that way. In the Senate, Reid alone could refuse to bring a bill to the floor, or another senator could put a secret hold on a bill. And, while not all bills can be filibustered (appropriations bills can be, budget reconciliation bills cannot), you can hardly claim you need 60 votes to get past a filibuster without admitting that with only 41 you could launch your own filibuster and that with 51 you could defeat any bill. Once you understand the goal as blocking bills rather than passing them, the number of allies you need shrinks dramatically.
Here's a transcript of Reid admitting he could block the funding but won't.
http://www.democrats.com/harry-reid-admits-he-could-block-iraq-funds-but-he-wont***
The Chicken Doves: Elected to end the war, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on Iraq
By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_dovesQuietly, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been inspiring Democrats everywhere with their rolling bitchfest, congressional superduo Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have completed one of the most awesome political collapses since Neville Chamberlain. At long last, the Democratic leaders of Congress have publicly surrendered on the Iraq War, just one year after being swept into power with a firm mandate to end it.
Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party's energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn't fit Iraq into his busy schedule. "We have the presidential election," Reid said recently. "Our time is really squeezed."
There was much public shedding of tears among the Democratic leadership, as Reid, Pelosi and other congressional heavyweights expressed deep sadness that their valiant charge up the hill of change had been thwarted by circumstances beyond their control — that, as much as they would love to continue trying to end the catastrophic Iraq deal, they would now have to wait until, oh, 2009 to try again. "We'll have a new president," said Pelosi. "And I do think at that time we'll take a fresh look at it."
Pelosi seemed especially broken up about having to surrender on Iraq, sounding like an NFL coach in a postgame presser, trying with a straight face to explain why he punted on first-and-goal. "We just didn't have any plays we liked down there," said the coach of the 0-15 Dems. "Sometimes you just have to play the field-position game...."
.:think:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
