WHEN are you Americans going to DO SOMETHING about your insane leaders?

[Philosoraptor]

The world is waiting for Americans to act. The world is wondering if we are all on crack, or under some evil wizard's spell, or if we've become zombies with no direction. The world is asking why we don't do something, anything as a nation to stop the maniacs before you know what.

Yes, we had an election upset that indicates hope for change, but it needs to occur at a more than glacial speed. Nations all across the world are more alarmed than we, the citizenry about our state of affairs of state, which have reached crisis level.

The world is asking when, finally when we are going to stop these monsters? At this rate, the answer is probably only after it's way too late.

[autorank]

1. Yep, sad but true.

But you simply have to accept that we have a "gentleman's club" and "the peoples' House" and they have there rules and traditions. After all, it's ALL about them. Those dignified, well heeled public "servants" (i.e., masters) who know better than we.

They were elected specifically to get us the Hell out of Iraq. Heard any serious demands to do that ASAP? They were elected in a storm of anti-Bush sentiment. Heard any impeachment demands?

Nah, you just have to be patient, until we're so screwed that it will take decades to recover.

Be patient, stop pushing so hard. You're going to disturb them. And, after all, it's all about them.

[DemBones DemBones]

7. First Pelosi said impeachment is off the table, then she said

the draft is off the table. The Dems can't get anything done if she keeps putting important issues off the table. I'll be glad when January comes and we see what she does.

She should never have said anything was off the table. She could have said "I don't see impeachment/the draft being issues in the near future," keeping options open.

[xultar]

8. There are millions of idiots out there who would happily vote for Bush today.

You can't blame Pelosi for that. Nor can you blame our Dem leaders.

We gotta figure out how to change the idiots out there. The fact that a Dem candidate isn't getting 100% of the vote is ludicrous.

[atreides1]

16. You can't change them

Those people are zealots they believe that the bible is factual history, they hate gays, they blame illegal immigrants for job losses. You might change the minds of a few, but just like the die hard Nazis that followed Hitler and still refuse to admit that what they did was wrong even today, there
are those here in America that will refuse to admit that mistakes were made and that hundreds of thousands of people died needlessly.

You can't change them, all you can do is render them totally irrelevant.

[Stevepol]

38. Get a fair vote count and Dems will win everywhere.

You will always have idiots. They'll always be a minority but they will always be there. If you don't want idiots, try another planet. The idiots just won't be handed elections by the secret source code software, once we get a democracy again.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. I'll agree with you about impeachment somewhat

But the draft should never be on the table, ever.

[exlrrp]

19. Off the Table now can change to On the Table later

There's more important issues to deal with than impeachment and draft--there's a war gong on that we need to stop and impeaching Bush and the absurd notion of a draft will just have to take a back seat to that. If you end the war you won't NEED a draft, well duh
No impeachment advocate has yet explained how impeachment will be a good thing when there are not enough votes in the Senate for removal, nor will there be. That makes impeachment a complete waste of time, unless you just want a forum to rail at Bush. Bush's impeachment and not-going-to-happen removal only leaves Cheney president anyway--thats a good ending? Why should Pelosi waste her time on that?
Pelosi's priorities are right--stop the war first, then deal with thee rest of the problems.

[walldude]

40. She should have said:

"We are not going to impeach the president. That being said, all options are still on the table".

[Gwerlain]

2. I'm waiting as fast as I can. n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

3. If we do anything to Bush the democrats don't stand a chance in 08!

(impeach)

Who cares what chance the country has of surviving until 08?

Sounds STUPID don't it...well it is stupid!

[rman]

31. Yeah Bush is loved so much,

impeaching him would hurt Dems, as the impeachment of Clinton did hurt Repubs...

[opihimoimoi]

39. Bush is like his Iraqi War: Ya cannot take him out...and ya hate to leave him in...Damn

Come, we go eat Turkey...way better than the crow them Pubs gatta eat....

[Chipper Chat]

4. I have the answer Mr. P

But if I posted it here Agent Mike would be knocking on my door by lunchtime.

[Philosoraptor]

5. All we have to do is invite them out of our white house

WE pay their room and board, WE pay their wages, WE can fire and remove them IF we only would.

without any violence of course, that's THEIR domain.

[Chipper Chat]

6. That's sorta what I had in mind.

Methodology is a little different tho - you get my drift.

[mmonk]

9. Many probably thought they were doing something

when they went to the ballot box and voted for this swing to the democrats. How do you spell it? Ah yes, bipartisanship. That will stop them.

[maine_raptor]

10. The Answer: De-fund the White House

Congress controls the purse stings. Simply vote NOT to fund White House Operations. Zero dollars for the cooks, cleaning crew, staff, Presidential and Vice Presidential salaries, etc.

Let George and Dick do their own cooking, cleaning, and laundry. Force the cabinet members to do the gardening, washing the cars, etc.

That will keep them so busy they won't have time to get into any additional mischief.

[RC]

12. A signing statement will get around that.

The decider is in charge, don't chaknow?

[maine_raptor]

13. A signing statement will do diddly squat

if Congress doesn't authorize the spending. Federal disbursement of funds cannot take place WITHOUT Congressional Authorization. Bush can write all he wants, but unless the Treasury gets the OK (from Congress) to release the money, he ain't gettin' any!

[Random_Australian]

14. ??? What the hell?

The most of the rest of the world does not go into such depth. "under an evil wizard's spell" kinda implies people think you're all basically good at heart and are just temporarily mean.

Whereas most of the world just sees what your government and corporations do (and little more of America), and they've been unpleasant for a long time.

But that point aside the rest of the OP stands soundly.

Me and my pedantry - this might well get me into trouble.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Don't Worry!!! The Brave Congressional Dems Are On Top Of It!

They'll stop at nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - to ensure that America is a land of peace and justice, a good neighbor in the world community.

[Brazenly Liberal]

17. Um, the GOP still controls Congress.

The Dems aren't in office until three weeks into January. Kinda hard to speed up the process of change when you don't have any power yet.

[WI_DEM]

18. Well, I thought we started to do something in the elections of Nov. 7

What do you suggest?

[progressoid]

20. Sorry, we're busy now. 'Dancing With The Stars' is on & the 'cheese poppers' are just about done.

[Gregorian]

21. When we kick the oil habit.

But first they have to realize it. Then do something about it. If you want my suggestion, don't hold your breath waiting.



Edit- I should explain. The corporations are in charge. They run the military. The FBI and CIA are for them. That's the basic idea.

[bagrman]

22. They are our representitives, not our leaders. WE need to

set the goals for them to persue. To many years of apathy, has Americans believing that there is nothing we can do.

Latr

[onenote]

23. I'm confused: are you an American ?

The subject of the post suggests you are not a US citizen (when are "you Americans"), but the body of the message suggests you are ("we had an election").

Just curious.

[crispini]

24. Change ALWAYS occurs at glacial speed.

Not that I don't get your point, but is your government any faster at enacting reforms and passing legislation? :shrug:

[porphyrian]

30. I disagree. This administration reversed many good things in two years.

Perhaps change for the better occurs at glacial speed, especially if it inconveniences the rich and powerful.

[crispini]

33. Well, ok, yeah, I tend to agree with you there.

If you are an a**hole and don't care about studying an issue, taking other's ideas into account, and generally running around like a jackbooted thug and using "hard power," then, yeah, you can get stuff done pretty darn fast.

I guess I am more used to consensus-building and all-volunteer efforts and THAT kind of change certainly does occur pretty slowly.

[porphyrian]

34. Showing respect for and considering all viewpoints takes much longer. - n/t

[PassingFair]

25. Hey! We're TRYING!

England and Australia aren't exactly beacons
of liberality right now, either.

Canada, watch your back with that Harper jerk, too!

It seem like we English speaking peoples have
been co-opted.

Help!

[cain_7777]

26. One Nation Under Educated

Amurcanz are too stupid and apathetic to make democracy work closely to the ideals of our founding fathers.

[Gregorian]

27. I love that.

Hahaha. I'm laughing, and then frowning, alternately. Nice play on words.

You have hit the bulls eye with that statement. And I should know. Here's my life story in a sentence or two. I grew up in San Francisco. Because I wanted to live in peace, without cars, I moved north. I was surprised at how stupid people could be. So I moved north again. I was again even more surprised to see that people could be even stupider. And so here I sit, wondering where to go next. And with a new respect for those who live in San Francisco.


Edit- don't forget FEAR and COMFORT.

[Nikki Stone1]

28. When is Europe going to do something about Burlusconi? Or its neonazis?

Or its prejudice against Muslims?

We all hate Junior's foreign policy, his class warfare, his criminality.

But we aren't alone in having social problems. How about Switzerland stops punishing corporate whistleblowers?

[rman]

29. Berlusconi is no longer president, neonazis are not leaders and the US has 'm to

And i'm not sure there's much more prejudice against Muslims in Eu than in the US.

Nevertheless, it is certainly true that the US's problems are not exclusive to the US, both in foreign and domestic policy.

[Nikki Stone1]

32. Oops. My bad. Should have stuck with my example of Tony Blair

...

[Nikki Stone1]

35. Now in regard to your other statements

The neonazis are active parts of right wing movements in Europe, especially anti-immigrant ones and certain parties with seats in parliaments actually court them.

Europe systemically treats Muslim immigrants in a more prejudiced manner than the US. Whatever individual feelings may be, US law and practices assume that legal immigrants are here to stay, will become citizens and become part of the fabric of American life. The "American dream" as disparaged as it has been in recent years, is actually based on the fact that immigrants can become " American." From what I have read about Europe over the years, Muslim immigrants are kept out of the mainstream, not just by economic factors, but by governmental political/social practices in Europe. Muslims are expected to stay in these enclaves, NOT become Dutch or German or whatever. Part of the reason for those fires across France back in 2005 was that Muslim youth were socially and economically trapped, victims of discrimination (especially by the police) and ultimately not "French" with no possibility of becoming so.

[rman]

43. I think the role of neonazis in Europe

that you describe is much the same in the US. Though perhaps in the US the courting of neonazis by politicians is less overt.

I think what you say about policies in Europe regarding muslim immigrants is mostly correct. Although with the exception of local initiatives the policy of integration is characterized by its absence rather than there being a policy not to integrate immigrants in society. Same effect though.

[pat_k]

36. Hearing aides for DC Dems? On Nov. 7th, the message was loud and clear. . .

. . .but they've apparently gone deaf.

The Election was about One Thing.

That one thing is a Person.

Bush.

He wasn't on the ballot, but had he been, voters would have sent Bush Co. packing with a resounding vote of "No Confidence." At least that's what the real excerpts tell us:

Curtis Gans
Director
http://spa.american.edu/csae">Center for the Study of the American Electorate

On Politically Direct with David Bender
http://podcast.rbn.com/airam/airam/download/archive/2006/11/aapd111006.mp3">November 10th (Interview start time approx 18:30)

Bender: Joining me now is Curtis Gans. He is the Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University and he has just released a new study analyzing the turnout this past Tuesday, and there's some interesting and there are some very, very interesting shifts in the turnout from previous elections. Welcome to Politically Direct . . .

Gans: It's very good to talk to you David.

Bender: Curtis, I'm holding the study in my hand right now, and clearly one of the things that all the exit polls showed was that Iraq played a part and your own work bears that out -- that Iraq helped propel some degree of an increase in turnout in this last election.

Gans: I think that it is not simply Iraq, although Iraq started Bush's downhill. But it is a gestalt around George Bush. it's being a pariah to other countries; it's people dying in what they increasing find is a vain fight; it's massive budgetary imbalances; it's a lack of compassionate conservatism; it's insecurity in jobs; it's the feeling that people have not been leveled with.

Bender: You've been doing this for almost 30 years; studying the American electorate. And there is probably no greater expert than you. It's just a real pleasure to have you on this program. . .

When the electorate rejected Bush and his rubber stamp Congress as intolerably dangerous/incompetent/corrupt/extreme, the LAST thing they were looking for is "bipartisanship" with Bush at the helm.

The message was loud and clear: "We want out of Bush-World!"

Something must be wrong with the hearing of our so-called "leaders." What else could explain their behavior? Their derilection of duty is deplorable, but what's truly jaw dropping is that they are rejecting a monumental opportunity.

The biggest problem the Democratic Party has is the perception that Democrats are weak and unprincipled. It is hard to imagine a more effective way to prove they are the party of strength and principle than to stand and fight for the Constitution.

What better time than now, when the principle of consent and the dictates of our Constitution are so desperately in need of a champion?

The Nov. 7th "wave" demonstrated the power of the public's growing dismay at the arrogant, irresponsible, and autocratic Bush Cheney White House. But the election could only give voters an indirect means of venting their anger, and as such, it did not fully tap into the anger or bring it into focus.

If they have the courage to stand up and make their case for impeachment, Democratic leaders would provide a voice and a focus that could energize voters across the political spectrum.

Their failure to accuse and declare their intent to impeach Bush and Cheney is moral and political insanity.

[JCMach1]

37. What about Blair? He is still in power. What about the renewal of Racial Hatred

all across Europe?

Repressive regimes across the globe?

Corporate Fascism is a monster with many heads.

[radfringe]

41. Variant of Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor: The principle that when faced with multiple but equivalent interpretations of some phenomenon, one should always choose the simplest explanation that correctly fits the data.

as it relates to US politics:

Occam's Razor Variant - The principle that when faced with multiple directions and conflicting policies, US politics will go down all the roads until someone checks a map

[Jose Diablo]

42. We are doing something about these insane leaders

Who was it that stretched so many German necks after WWII? There were no pardons at that time and there will be no pardons this time around either. The Republican party's back is broken, it will take only a little while flush the enabling others across the aisle.

There will be a day of reckoning, count on it.