Democratic Victory in 2008 [entries|friends|calendar] Democratic Victory in 2008 [ Community | Information ] [ Calendar | Past Entries ] [ Memories | Remember ] [ DNC Blog | Blog ] [ Join Now | Join Community ] [ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ] [ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

:-) [22 Apr 2008|12:07pm] peim1985 I have taken here. Comment

A rare voice of Realism on Iraq [17 Apr 2008|09:48am] liberalgoliath I just read an article by Harold Meyerson (of Washington Post) on the realities we face in Iraq and how useless our policies there are, take a gander at a few extracts: In the war's first phase, we engaged Saddam Hussein's government and, after it fell, pro-Hussein and other Sunni forces that waged a guerrilla war against us. In its second phase, we fought a group that hadn't even existed when the invasion began, al-Qaeda in Iraq. By our own military's admission, al-Qaeda in Iraq was never responsible for more than a small fraction of the violence there, but it was the group most implacably hostile to our soldiers and to much of the civilian population. In this, we were greatly aided by the Sunni forces that had been our main adversaries in the war's first phase but which had come to loathe al-Qaeda. As the Sunni resistance took up arms against al-Qaeda, we reclassified the Sunnis as friends and armed them, though they remained opposed to the Shiite-dominated national government we claim as our primary ally. Now, according to the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker before Congress last week, our main adversaries in Iraq are the Shiite forces being aided by Iran, the Shiite power next door. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been largely confined to the area around Mosul, and most of the attacks on U.S. forces and on the authority of the Iraqi government, they said, come from Iranian-backed Shiite militias, many aligned with Moqtada al-Sadr, who has spent the past several months in Iran. Then again, Iran also backs the Shiite-controlled government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- which is why it was Iran that negotiated the cease-fire between Maliki's forces and Shiite militias after Maliki's offensive against the militias in Basra ground to a halt. The political underpinning for Maliki's government comes chiefly from anti-Sadr Shiite factions, most notably the Hakim family and its Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which was headquartered in Iran during much of Hussein's reign and, indeed, was actually founded by Iran's governing clerics. That's one reason Maliki's government accorded a rapturous public reception to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he visited Baghdad last month, while President Bush still slips in and out of Baghdad like a thief in the night. The pro-Iranian tilt of the current government, and almost certainly of any Shiite-dominated government, is the reason none of the Middle East's Sunni nations -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt or any of the rest -- has diplomatic relations with Baghdad. and here's more: Our war in Iraq, then, is different from all our previous wars because we are occupying a nation at war with itself, where groups take up arms against us because we defend a government to which they're not reconciled, a government that may itself pose a strategic threat to our interests. In such a nation, we accumulate enemies simply through our ongoing presence. If our chief concern is, as we now assert, the spread of Iranian influence, what we need is a Sunni-led government, which could not attain or hold power in majority-Shiite Iraq save by force. That is, we need another Saddam Hussein, only this time, one less antagonistic to the United States. But this would be a resolution we could not support, because it would make a mockery of our entire misadventure in Iraq. And this is the war that John McCain wants to wage until victory is ours. What no one -- including McCain, Petraeus, Crocker and Bush -- can do is articulate just what such a victory would look like. Excellent piece. It also jells with the voices of the realistic objectors of the Bush II/McCain's policies in Iraq. Just ask the GOP supporters, who do we face in iraq? We will receive a cacophony of answers, which will clearly suggest that they either haven't been informed or do not care to be informed. Some still believe that we are revenging 9/11 attacks or punishing their perpetrators. Some believe we're still fighting al-Qaeda. These people are usually ignorant (purposefully or not) of what really is going on. And this ignorance is exactly the athmosphere, the necessary environment, for the Bush/McCain's policies to be carried out. Fortunately, with people like harold meyerson, actively speaking out and attempting to educate Americans, we may have a chance to impressing upon the voters the importance of breaking with the bloody and dangerous policies of the current administration on iraq and highlight the fact that the war they're fighting is benefitting them and not the rest of us. Comment

A rare lightning of reason hits Pat Buchanan [08 Apr 2008|09:52am] liberalgoliath I very rarely find myself concurring with Pat Buchanan on anything. This incident, however, is that rarified occasion Onward the Revolution! by Patrick Buchanan Having cheerfully confessed he knows little about economics, John McCain is advancing himself as a foreign-policy president, a "realistic idealist," he told the World Affairs Council of Los Angeles. But judging from the content of his speech, McCain is no more a realist than he is a reflective man. Speaking of our five-year war in Iraq, McCain declares, "It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possible genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible and premature withdrawal." Fair point. There is surely a great risk in a too-rapid withdrawal. But if a U.S. withdrawal, after 4,000 dead and 33,000 wounded, and a trillion dollars sunk, runs the risk of a genocidal calamity, what does that tell us about the wisdom of those who marched us into this war? What threat did Saddam ever pose comparable to the cataclysm McCain says we face if we pull out? Who, Senator, put American on the horns of so horrible a dilemma? "Whether they were in Iraq before is immaterial," McCain warns, "al-Qaida is there now." And that is surely true. But if al-Qaida was not in Iraq before we invaded, why did we invade? And if al-Qaida is there now, what was the magnet that drew them in, if not the U.S. occupation McCain himself championed? Like Condi Rice, who regularly disparages the policies of every president from FDR to Bill Clinton, McCain enjoys parading the higher morality of his devotion to democracy-uber-alles. "For decades in the Middle East we had a strategy of relying upon autocrats to provide order and stability. We relied on the Shah, the autocratic rulers of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi royal family. ... We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these outdated autocrats is the safest bet." Speaking of self-delusion, does McCain believe the "democrats" lately elected in Pakistan will be tougher on al-Qaida and the Taliban than Pervez Musharraf, who has twice escaped assassination for having sided with us? Does McCain think this new crowd in Islamabad will be more pro-American than the general, when the people who voted them in are among the most anti-American in the Islamic world? From Richard Nixon to George Bush I, we expelled Moscow from Egypt, won the Cold War, brought peace between Egypt and Israel, and created a worldwide alliance, including Hafez al-Assad of Syria, that drove Saddam's army out of Kuwait. What has the Bush-McCain democracy crusade produced, save electoral victories for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Hamas? And if we dump the sultan of Oman, President Mubarak, and the king of Saudi Arabia, who does McCain think will replace them? If undermining Arab autocrats is good for America, why is that also the goal of Osama bin Laden? McCain proposes a "League of Democracies" to unite a hundred nations for peace and freedom. "Revanchist Russia," however, is to be black-balled from McCain's league and thrown out of the G-8. What would this accomplish other than undoing the work of Reagan in bringing Moscow in from the cold, driving Russia into the arms of China, restarting the Cold War and recreating the Beijing-Moscow axis it was Nixon's great achievement to break up? What McCain is proposing is a re-division of the world into the forces of light and the forces of darkness. Moral clarity at last! Has he forgotten the fate of that earlier rabbit warren of the righteous, the League of Nations? Does our "realistic idealist" think a NATO of 25 nations that has mustered a piddling 16,000 soldiers, most of them noncombatants, to stand beside us in Afghanistan is going to confront a nuclear-armed Russia? "Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests," said Lord Palmerston. What is critical, especially in wartime, is not whether a regime is autocratic or democratic, but whether it is hostile or friendly. Gen. Washington, at war with democratic Great Britain, is said to have danced a jig when he heard we had Louis XVI as an ally. During our Civil War, Britain built blockade-runners for the Confederacy, while the czar docked his ships in Union harbors. Russia "was our friend/When the world was our foe," wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes. When Nixon launched his airlift to save Israel in the Yom Kippur War, autocratic Portugal let us use the Azores. Democratic France denied Reagan over-flight permission in the 1986 raid on Libya. Two brave U.S. pilots died as a result. When McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton, British and French ships were unloading goods in Haiphong, while Ferdinand Marcos and the South Korean generals sent troops to stand with us and fight beside us. To root one's attitude toward nations based upon their internal politics rather than their foreign policies is ideology. And policies rooted in ideologies, from Trotskyism to democratism, end up on the Great Barrier Reef of reality. Comment

[06 Apr 2008|04:25pm] the_real_eris SHIT IS UP biggest in history Comment

Who is to Blame for 'W'? [04 Apr 2008|11:57am] isle_o_bubba I have a friend who doesn't vote on the principle that none of the candidates actually fit his view AND the entire process is corrupt.   I can't really argue with him so I support him.  It isn't support I'm thrilled to give, but I do honestly support his decision. I do also firmly believe voting for Nader (or any other independent) during this race is a very critical vote and very risky.  Mostly because it is rarely a republican that threatens to vote independent and more often then not a democrat.  For me, as a democrat that poses a problem. As for Nader instead of whichever Democrat gets it... well, I do believe that every vote is a force with an equal and opposite reaction.  If the vote for Nader is because you disagree with the republican candidate's platform AND you disagree with the democrat candidate's platform  but you actually AGREE with Nader's... then he should get your vote.  But if the vote for Nader is because you think the dems and reps are out to 'fix' the game or 'screw' the voter... then voting for Nader doesn't really help your cause.   It is a matter of making a statement.  It is clear I'd prefer if you voted democrat.  I don't blame anyone that didn't vote for W in 00 or 04 for him getting elected... sort of. I blame us - as citizens of the u.s. that voted - for not getting out there and being willing to talk to people, to challenge their views or further advance our education on the candidates, the platforms and the world around us.  I blame the democrat leaders for being 'pansies' and not standing up to be heard.  I blame the democrats in general for developing a GIANT group of people with MILLIONS of various opinions to create a force large enough to defeat a Republican --- yet when it comes time to win, the dems are too cowardly to speak up for the liberals and instead campaign in ways not to 'turn off' the republican.  The democratic party is a bunch of crap.  It encourages passive behavior and passes blame with excuses after excuses. I however am a democrat.  So, since I blame myself for W - not because I didn't vote for Gore or Kerry - but because I didn't speak up.  I didn't push the issues.  I didn't ask my friends to pay attention.  I didn't get involved.  I didn't try to understand why people liked W when I could so clearly see him as a sneaky bad man.   I aided in W winning just as much as the person who voted Nader did.  I aided in W winning just as much as Gore did (he might as well have slept for the entire campaign for as hard as he fought). This year it's different.  This year I say - you can't blame the independents if a republican wins.  You can't say the 'republicans' have to live with themselves if they start a war they don't like.  You can't say, not my fault, if you did nothing to stop it.  EVERYONE has to live with the consequences.  This year is different.   Over the last few years I've realized we are simply - republicans, democrats and independents - what we are, and what we should be is Americans.  We should be a team -  all of us fighting a good fight.  We may have different opinions about how to do it, and that's fine.  But if the republican's are the only ones pretending to play nice while ALSO speaking up for their beliefs and (in my mind) manipulating and brainwashing the American People... then it's our own damn fault for not speaking up back and questioning their rhetoric and their motives. (sorry, apparently I had a rant)    1 Comment  Comment

McCain is nothing more than Bush III on Social Security [04 Apr 2008|09:05am] liberalgoliath [ mood | angry ] He's 'McSame' on Social Security, Too By Joe Conason The most puzzling aspect of John McCain's political persona is his habitual attraction to George W. Bush's bad ideas. Their shared enthusiasm for invading Iraq and then escalating the war is why "McSame" will soon become the new shorthand for the Arizona Republican, replacing "maverick" -- but that isn't the only reason. He doesn't just endorse the disastrous foreign policy initiatives; he loves the failed domestic policy schemes, too. Specifically, McCain is a longtime supporter of President Bush's Social Security privatization initiative, last seen descending into oblivion only months after its introduction in 2005. He played a cameo role in the promotion of that notion (which never became an actual plan or bill in Congress) when the White House trotted him in for one of the President's staged public "conversations" on the subject. Back then his pleas for everyone to sit down and negotiate the surrender of Social Security to Wall Street were universally ignored, yet that scarcely seems to have discouraged him. Actually, McCain supported Social Security privatization before it was uncool, when he first ran for president eight years ago. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that a proposal to divert a portion of payroll taxes to finance private accounts, like the Bush scheme, was "a centerpiece of a McCain presidential bid in 2000." Both he and Bush have wanted to dismantle Social Security for many years, in fact, and he has indicated that will be an important goal for a McCain presidency. Sensibly enough, however, his advisers are trying to mute such themes in his campaign, knowing that privatization is extremely unpopular. They may have noticed that $50 million worth of advertising and promotion didn't work three years ago. They may also have noticed that their candidate is poorly equipped to discuss the issue. As he once confessed, "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." So, on the McCain campaign website, the section concerning Social Security merely suggests he would "supplement" the existing system with personal investment accounts -- a suggestion that is entirely different from the more radical kind of privatization he has supported in the past. But when the Wall Street Journal inquired about the discrepancy between his website and his previous statements, the candidate declared that his own position has never changed. "I'm totally in favor of personal savings accounts," he said. "As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it -- along the lines that President Bush proposed." (The other "parts" would include sharp benefit cuts, if the senator's past votes and statements provide any guide to future policy.) "I'll correct any policy paper that I've put out that might intimate that personal savings accounts are not a very important factor," he vowed. Perhaps the old "straight talker" was simply saying what he thought would please powerful readers of the Journal, a newspaper whose editorial page avidly supports privatized accounts. But privatization is still not emphasized on the McCain website, to say the least. He doesn't utter a word about private accounts in a video on the site titled "Social Security." Instead, he pledges in that video to seek the same kind of solution achieved by President Ronald Reagan and the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill more than two decades ago. Following the advice of a commission headed by Alan Greenspan, who has since come and gone as Federal Reserve chairman, the president and the Democratic Congressional leadership agreed to bolster the system with new revenues and minor benefit changes. Although Reagan and Greenspan both had long disparaged Social Security, they didn't broach the topic of privatization. Invoking the once-magical names of Reagan and Greenspan may work well on YouTube, particularly among the more gullible segments of the voting public. Between his remarks to the Journal and his video statement, it isn't easy to determine whether McCain means to preserve, reform or destroy Social Security, but the safest assumption is that he will pursue the same objectives President Bush was forced to abandon. As one of the wealthiest men in the Senate -- thanks to the highly profitable liquor company bequeathed to him and his wife years ago -- McCain faces no economic difficulty. He never has to worry about how he will afford retirement or the value of his assets, which is why risky schemes like privatization look so brilliant to him. But in the coming campaign, he may find that working families have no desire to turn Social Security over to the same companies now seeking bailouts from the federal government -- or to the politicians who would enact that investment bankers' daydream. Basically, McCain's Social Security policy is no different from Dubya's. And at the corner of it - his desire to get the bankers rich. Our hopes do not enter the picture. Comment

A new poll --- an old question [02 Apr 2008|10:06am] isle_o_bubba *I'm posting this in a couple live journal communities so I apologize if you see it more than once* Every week there is at least one article --- Obama beats Clinton in new poll... Clinton trails Obama against McCain in new poll... Clinton beats Obama in new poll on economy....Obama beats Clinton in new poll on war... blah blah blah Here's this week's announcement http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23918341/ This one was interesting to me because it addresses Ohio and Florida as two key states in the General election. In the end I think Michigan will be the key state this time around, but I don't disagree that these two states are critical for a democratic win in November. So I ask... What do you think of this article? does it change your mind about which candidate you support? why or why not? Personally, it made me think. It doesn't change my mind about who I support but it did make me look a little closer as to why I support them. ****and for those of you getting ready to caucus again on April 5th... remember, you are not locked into the candidate you are a delegate for... it is your job to vote on the principles of the people who elected you to be their delegate...changing your mind does not abandon them IF you change because of what they told you was important and you believe a different candidate fits those priorities more accurately. **** Comment

A Sober Plea for ending the war in Iraq [29 Mar 2008|12:20am] virgingloves A Sober Plea for Ending the War in Iraq Iraq is providing some painful realities which are about to kick us in the conscience. Where are you on the war? Read the story and post a comment. Thanks, Alex Hutchinson Comment

Hillary Has Edge Over Obama Among Democrats [28 Mar 2008|02:06pm] dissent_is_cool Latest News March 28th If You Read One Thing Today: Paul Krugman writes in today’s New York Times, “…[T]he substance of [Hillary’s] policy proposals on mortgages, like that of her health care plan, suggests a strong progressive sensibility.…[and] continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive. Read more. ( Read more ) Comment

Life's little Ironies: the McCain Edition [26 Mar 2008|08:02pm] liberalgoliath [ mood | amused ] It was rather ironic that it McCain's live "Iraq Victory" speech in Los Angeles was interrupted by the MSNBC's live alert of increased violence in Iraq: It's downright hilarious if you think about it. It forces us to talk about different factions of Iraqis and not just the ephemeral "islamofascists" or "extremists" that McCain likes to talk about. It forces us to understand that the boogeyman, the strawman, that the Republicans headed by this sinile man have been scaring us with, the al Qaeda are only 1% or 2% of all insurgents and that all these insurgent movements are different with different aims, with differing ideologies and political loyalties. Even the very shallow analysis will turn up a few facts that Repuglicans would not want us to know: the reason Surge had seemed to be succeeding is not the miraculous formula that General Petraeus suddenly discovered. It was a combination of the Mahdi Army militias' ceasefire, the Sunni "Awakening Council" being on our payroll (your and my taxes, btw), and the virtual success of the ethnical cleansing that every Iraqi ethnic group had been engaged in. And as soon as Mahdi Army has decided to break the ceasefire as they have seemingly done today, the improvement turned out to be as fragile as an Easter Egg under the feet of a GOP elephant. Another irony, is that White House and Senator McCain are both supporting the Iraqi Badr Brigades and Dawa party, the two Shiite forces that are aligned with Iran, while attacking the Mahdi Army led by the firebrand cleric As-Sadr, who are fierce Iraqi nationalists and suspicious of Iran. Guess what, despite of all our anti-Iranian vitriol, we have the same goals as Iranians do in Iraq! How can we blame Iran for trying to undermine the Dawa government when it is one of the two most pro-Iranian forces in Iraqi politics???!!! Comment

Hillary Tackles the Housing Crisis [25 Mar 2008|12:26pm] dissent_is_cool Latest News Previewing Today: Today, Hillary hosts a “Solutions for the American Economy” town hall in Greensburg, PA addressing how families can save and invest for a secure retirement. Recapping Yesterday: Hillary unveiled her comprehensive plan to halt the housing crisis. “The solution I’ve proposed is a sensible way for everyone – lenders, investors, mortgage companies and borrowers – to share responsibility, keep families in their homes, and stabilize our communities and our economy. ” Read More. Uniontown, PA: Hillary addressed an “enthusiastic crowd” of over 4,000 “with several hundred people who couldn't fit…gathered in another room,” in Fayette County, PA. Joined by Gov. Ed Rendell and Rep. John Murtha, Hillary said, “I pledge I will work my heart out for you… [c]ome join this team and be a part of making history together. " Read More. On The Trail: At a women’s organizing event in Blue Bell, PA, “[n]early a thousand people filled the room, and more were directed to an overflow space,”as Hillary declared equal pay as “not a 'woman's issue’…[t]his is anissue of equality and justice. This is a family issue. " Read More. The Hillary I Know: PA Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll blogs about why Hillary is her choice to be the next president: “The real Women’s History month may not be in March, but in November. ” Read More. On Tap: On Wednesday, Hillary will be joined by her daughter Chelsea in hosting a “March to Victory” low-dollar rally in Washington, DC. RSVP here. In Case You Missed It: Sen. Obama’s “three-year record in the Senate, …offers little evidence that he can do what he's promising. ” Read More. Fact Check: Sen. Obama Accepted Over $1 Million From Subprime Lending Industry. Read More. Click to donate to the Hillary Campaign Subscribe to our Blog Click to Subscribe to Updates Via Email Donate $5 To The Hillary Campaign Last month Obama raised over 50 million compared to Hillary's 35 million. Let's help Hillary break the $50 million mark this month. Please donate what ever you can and email the link to your friends & family. You can Donate Here http://www. hillaryclinton. com/contribute/557C Click To Contribute Comment

It's Raining McCain! [24 Mar 2008|03:10pm] dissent_is_cool ( See more!!! ) Comment

Hillary's still got it! [02 Mar 2008|10:50pm] dissent_is_cool She's still in the game... ( See more ) Comment

Ah, Letterman... you silly man. [01 Mar 2008|04:58pm] dissent_is_cool Apparently, it's my birthday. ( See more ) Comment

Barack Hussein Obama Wins in South Carolina [27 Jan 2008|12:51am] dissent_is_cool Barack Obama wins the South Carolina Primary According to the polls, Barack Obama gained roughly 55% of the vote, with John Edwards and Hillary Clinton splitting the remaining half with 18% and 27% respectively. Since African Americans are half of the registered voters in South Carolina, it was a crucial state for Barack to win in order to demonstrate that Iowa was not just a fluke. Today, 80% of those African American voters voted for Barack, with the remaining 20% voting overwhelmingly for Clinton over Edwards. He also picked up a quarter of the white vote, while Clinton and Edwards split the remaining two-thirds. Clinton picked up a disappointing 40% of women, while Barack and Edwards split the remaining 60%. Interestingly enough, six in ten voters were persuaded by Bill Clinton's campaigning in the last couple of weeks. Over half of those white voters who decided within the last three days voted for Edwards, with the rest going to Obama and Clinton about evenly. ( Read more ) Comment

:-( [24 Jan 2008|11:52am] peim1985 ( disgustingly! ) Comment

An Analysis of the past 7 years: Gore was right... Once again... [03 Jan 2008|01:17am] liberalgoliath [ mood | hopeful ] Don't Dismiss Populist Rhetoric By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON -- "Powerful forces and powerful interests stand in your way," the candidate said, "and the odds seem stacked against you -- even as you do what's right for you and your family." He would fight these powers, and take on in particular "big tobacco, big oil, the big polluters, the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs." Sometimes, the candidate declared, "you have to be willing to stand up and say no -- so families can have a better life." John Edwards, 2008? No. Al Gore, 2000. The campaign trail is ablaze now with fiery populism, with just about every Democrat -- and Edwards in particular -- railing against the forces they say have eroded the economic well-being of the middle class, diminished Americans' access to health care and threatened the roofs over their heads as the subprime mortgage crisis is transformed into a foreclosure calamity and credit crunch. Even Republican Mike Huckabee, breaking from his party's orthodoxy that there's nothing really wrong with the economy, has been chanting the populist mantra, to the chagrin of the party's pro-business wing. Has something changed since Gore delivered his populist manifesto during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles -- and was ridiculed by much of the political class and the media as a phony making a fraudulent argument? Well, yes. Much of what Gore warned would happen if George W. Bush won the presidency has come to pass. The Republican president did try to privatize Social Security and carve out private accounts from the government-guaranteed benefit. "Social Security minus," Gore called it then. The Republican president and a Republican Congress did, indeed, pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit that "tells seniors to beg the HMOs and insurance companies for prescription drug coverage," just as Gore predicted in his speech. "Big tobacco" turned out to be one of the biggest winners of the past legislative session, even with Democrats in control of Congress. The White House and a core group of House Republicans refused to go along with hiking tobacco taxes to pay for an expansion of health insurance for needy children. That was even after Democrats stripped out a proposal to pay for the kids' insurance by reducing billions in subsidies the Republican Congress had lavished on the managed-care industry. As for "big oil," who needs more than a visit to the gas station? With the price of oil reaching $100 a barrel, and industry profits already having set records in 2006, does anyone wonder what kind of year "big oil" will turn out to have enjoyed when it posts profits for 2007? Gore could not have foretold the stagnation in wages that has been the dominant, if little discussed, economic trend of the past seven years. With the focus on HMO outrages during the 1990s, the former vice president can be forgiven for not having predicted a worse development: the number of Americans without any health insurance has grown by 8.6 million since 2000. Middle-class concern about the economy has deepened since then, as jobs and pensions have become less secure. The anchor of middle-class life -- homeownership -- now seems threatened. Unease that was buried beneath the rubble from the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and obscured by the bloodshed in Iraq has become a full-blown fear of falling backward. Still, the anointed commentariat is likely to dismiss the populism that rises up from the campaign trail as lacking substance, political staying power, or both. Among those who sneered at Gore were Peggy Noonan, William Safire, George Will, Michael Barone and various other pundits who, while sometimes giving the vice president points for delivery, declared his us-against-them speech to be a surefire turnoff. After the campaign, Gore's running mate, Joe Lieberman, said populism was "ineffective" and that Americans reject "us-versus-them" rhetoric. But the populist Gore, whose support surged after the convention, managed to win the popular vote. Lieberman now supports Republican John McCain for president. There's no mystery about what will happen in 2008, once the nominees are known. Some sort of economic populism will remain central to the Democrats' message -- otherwise they'd be guilty of political malpractice. Republicans will decry this as "class warfare" and hew closely to the Bush economic prescriptions of tax cuts for the well-off and willful blindness to other economic pressures burdening families. So we are doomed to go back to the future, facing much the same choice we did in 2000. Once again, I am amazed by the man's ability to correctly forecast this far into the future. Al Gore knew then what would happen should the country select Dubya in 2000. We did not believe him then and we rue our choice now (not me, I made a right choice in 2000). We still need Gore's vision today and I hope we've learned our lessons. Comment

Choose Your Candidate [18 Dec 2007|11:22am] blinkyblues Choose Your Candidate 2 Comments  Comment

Eating Our Own With Our Tail Between Our Legs [13 Dec 2007|10:09am] melissataurus CQ and a number of other sources are announcing that Democrats plan to capitulate to Bush's demands on 11 of the 12 remaining appropriations bills. The spending bills, combined, are $22 billion over Bush's FY2008 budget request. An initial offer to "split the difference" - so, $11 billion over his budget - was rejected via Jim Nussle, White House Budget Director.  It appears that the House will draft an omnibus spending bill that will fall within Bush's budget request. And no, they're not taking Rep. David Obey's (D-WI) suggestion to strip out all the earmarks to meet that goal. The House bill will contain $30-some-odd billion for the war in Afghanistan. When the omnibus reaches the Senate, another $70 billion will be added for the war in Iraq. That $70 billion by the way, comes free and clear of any sort of timetables, benchmarks, standards, or accountability. Why is this bad? The big reasons: 1) The federal government is currently running on a continuing resolution. In 2006, Congress failed to pass the FY2007 spending bills so they punted and funded all government programs at FY2006 levels. This caused hiring freezes, delays and reductions in outlays to states for defense-related planning (e.g., BRAC in Maryland), and lower outlays for federal-state share plans like the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and more. It also meant that, essentially, most agencies took a hit since inflation rose and funding did not.   2) No strings attached to yet more war funding. According to the CBO, we've spent $640,000,000,000 on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we reduce troops to 30,000 by 2010, we're looking at an additional $570,000,000,000. If not, we're looking at another $1,055,000,000,000 dollars by 2017. Neither of these figures include the cost of the administration’s initiative to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps, which CBO estimates will cost $162,000,000,000 over the 2008–2017 period. I am appalled that the Democrats are going to eat their own - namely the 73 members of the Out of Iraq Caucus. I anticipate being further appalled when some of the 73 go back on their word and vote for this monstrosity. I am appalled that the Democrats are going to allow domestic programs to continue to bear the brunt of an ill-conceived war, one in which our administration destroyed evidence of torture that was under FOIA request by the ACLU in the Southern District of New York. I am appalled that the Democrats are probably going to roll back good, progressive policy in the omnibus, like weaking or repealing the Mexico City Policy, to get the thing signed into law so they can go home to their districts by Christmas. I am embarrassed for the party. I am embarrassed to call myself a Democrat. (x-posted to my personal journal). Comment

Republican Primaries 2008, aka Rent-a-Scandal [10 Dec 2007|11:32am] liberalgoliath [ mood | devious ] While the Democratic primaries are filled with competitive infighting, while the Dem candidates are trying to position themselves as the nation's best choice, the GOP primaries have become a sad spectacle of recurring scandals. As soon as one competitor gets any traction, his dirt comes out of the closet and leaves the voters ever more perturbed at the "quality" of their choices. Press has made a killing on Giuliani's scandals (and, I am sure, we've not heard the last of them), the marriages, the supposedly liberal stances on gay rights, gun control and abortions, Bernie Kerik, the police protection for Rudy's then-mistress, etc. Romney has been guilty of making a laughing stock of himself. He flip-flops on the issues conservatives care about the most, shoots virmin, is a mormon, and then, to top it all, in a weak attempt at a JFK Religion Speech (which he vehemently opposed as being considered that), he suggests that freedom can not be without religion. Take that separation-of-church-and-state! The new kid on the block is Huckabee. And, now, skeletons are falling out of his closet. Forget for a second that he is a fiscal liberal and a staunch social conserv-a-tron. His problems may be just beginning. For starters, when asked about NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) on Iraq, his answer can basically be summed up as "What NIE?". Then it turns out, his pardon (while an acting Governor of Arklansas) of one DuMond, a rapist, led to this guy killing two women. Boy, that's a zinger. And, on top of that, his first victim was a distant cousin of William Jefferson Clinton (and - in the great state of Arkansas - who isn't?). So, obviously, who should Huckabee blame BUT Clinton? And now, it turns out that as late as 1992, Huckabee, then running for US Senate, was asked in a questionnaire what he would to combat AIDS and he suggested quarantining the AIDS carrier. Huckabee's anti-gay rights views are well known. He believed that gays are the reason we have AIDS. And that was after the Magic Johnson revelation! Huckabee tries to defend himself by stating that not much was known of AIDS 14 years ago. Bull Squirt! He's about 10 years too late for that statement. Tainted!!!! And who isn't in that Republican primary? The fundies seem to have found their boy - Huckabee. Just wait while the GOP moderates get a whiff of this conservative poster boy. And if Huckabee falls, who would take his place? Alan Keyes? Did you know he was running? Me neaither! 1 Comment  Comment

navigation [ viewing | most recent entries ] [ go | earlier ]