Kate Michelman for Senate?

posted by John Nichols on 03/04/2006 @ 09:53am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (213)

Subscribe Now

After Robert Casey, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to challenge vulnerable Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, joined Santorum in backing the Supreme Court nomination of conservative judicial activist Samuel Alito, Kate Michelman was not happy.

After saying she was "sorely disappointed by the lack of commitment to women and fundamental rights by the United State Senate," the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America ripped into Casey and local and national party leaders who back the socially-conservative Pennsylvania Democrat who is an ardent critic of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that guaranteed women the right to choose.

"As a Pennsylvanian, I am particularly appalled that local and national Democrats would hand our Senate nomination to someone who openly supports giving Roe an Alito-induced death," said Michelman. "Those whose political successes have depended on the ballots and contributions of pro-choice voters but now facilitate the career of someone who would repeal those rights deserve special enmity."

How angry was Michelman?

The veteran activist who has lived for almost three decades in Pennsylvania might just jump into the Senate race herself.

"After Casey announced his support for Alito, I got calls from around the country," says Michelman in a Legal Times article on the fallout from the Alito fight. She tells Legal Times that she has been urged by Democratic donors and feminist groups to run this fall as a pro-choice independent challenger to anti-choice Republican Santorum and anti-choice Democrat Casey.

If she does, it will be a blow not just to Casey but to liberal college professor Chuck Pennacchio, who has had worked hard -- in the face of opposition from most prominent Democrats in Pennsylvania and Washington -- to mount a Democratic primary challenge to Casey.

The filing deadline to enter the May 16 Democratic primary passes on Tuesday. But the filing deadline to run as a third party or independent candidate remains open until August 1. Theoretically, Michelman could wait until Democrats make their choice and then run if Casey is nominated. In reality, however, the prospect of a Michelman run will divert energy -- and potentially resources -- from Pennacchio's already uphill campaign.

Says Pennacchio, "A third party pro-choice candidacy would also divide Pennsylvania Democrats. Since 2000, Al Gore, Ed Rendell, John Kerry, and Arlen Specter have proven that Pennsylvania is a pro-choice state. The best way to defeat Rick Santorum in 2006 is for Democrats to nominate a pro-choice candidate who can and will unite Pennsylvania?s pro-choice majority and make a third party pro-choice candidacy unnecessary. My campaign has established county organizations around the state, and is already uniting Pennsylvanians by fighting for what they want: choice, universal health care, an end to the Iraq War, and other widely held majoritarian views."

But, with expectations high that Casey will be the nominee, the argument for getting started now on an independent candidacy cannot be disregarded altogether. Nor can the prospect that, with sufficient funding and the right breaks, Michelman could be a serious contender.

The classic case of a three-way race for a Senate seat was seen in 1970 in New York State. Both the Republican incumbent, Charles Goodell, and the Democratic challenger, Richard Ottinger, were strong critics of the Vietnam War who embraced generally liberal positions on domestic matters. William F. Buckley's brother, Jim, running on the Conservative Party line, backed the war and steered to the right on social issues. Buckley, whose campaign drew substantial financial support from conservatives around the country and support from many renegade Republicans at the state and national levels, did not win a majority of the vote. But with the major party candidates dividing up the liberal base -- Goodell got 24 percent of the vote, Ottinger 37 percent and Buckley 39 percent -- the outsider who wasn't supposed to stand a chance won the seat.

Comments (213)

Who's dumber here?

Kate Michaelman for OBVIOUSLY making a "Nader-2000" on Bob Casey Jr.

or Mr Nichols for promoting it?

I'm pro-choice and no fan of Santorum, and a non-Pennsylvanian and so have only a small pup in this fight....but COME ON, GUYS. Are you crazy? Who's Kate going to bleed votes from ...Santorum? "She'll bring in new voters or voters that don't like either guy!"

Yep...heard THAT one in 2000 from Ralph!

Posted by Mask at 03/03/2006 @ 10:18pm
Go Kate Go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your dead on the money Mask, but don't discourage them.

Posted by Len Mosse at 03/03/2006 @ 11:10pm
Posted by MASK 03/03/2006 @ 10:18pm

when your right, your right...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/03/2006 @ 11:13pm
I agree 100% w/ Mask. You don't need a degree in political science to figure out that a 3 way vote would be disastrous. Nichols last paragraph is you need to know. Splitting dem votes is just a bad idea. Think of Gore as president in a Nadercandidacy-less GW-less world starting in 2000, I would argue much more auspicious and worlds different. Lesser of two evils beats the hell out of more time with Rick. Pragmatism rules!

Posted by someguy35 at 03/03/2006 @ 11:19pm
Pragmatism rules!

Posted by SOMEGUY35 03/03/2006 @ 11:19pm

we must ever aspire to attain perfection realizing full well it is unattainable. besides - there is a dark horse primary challenger, here... whats his problem?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/03/2006 @ 11:28pm
Your dead on the money Mask, but don't discourage them.

Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/03/2006 @ 11:10pm

when your right, your right...

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/03/2006 @ 11:13pm

YOU'RE!!!

Posted by Zeddmen at 03/03/2006 @ 11:40pm
YOU'RE!!!

Posted by ZEDDMEN 03/03/2006 @ 11:40pm

huh?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/03/2006 @ 11:44pm
huh?

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/03/2006 @ 11:44pm

you no worry .... china give you good deal

on disproportionate foam apostrophe

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/03/2006 @ 11:59pm
So Kate Michelman is acting independently, with substance and conviction...how we hate those qualities in our politicians! You're all right, she won't likely win. But she could accomplish a couple of important things. 1) She could show the Democratic Party that, in the spirit of Tim Kaine, it's okay to BE Pro-Life, but you must respect the principal of choice to satisfy the Democratic, largely Pro-Choice base. 2) It will be a good experiment in just how much we all crave independent "un-partisanship" in this time of unprecedented divide. It's not 2000 anymore; she'll do better than we might think.

Posted by mod1 at 03/04/2006 @ 07:49am
So Kate Michelman is acting independently, with substance and conviction...how we hate those qualities in our politicians! You're all right, she won't likely win. But she could accomplish a couple of important things. 1) She could show the Democratic Party that, in the spirit of Tim Kaine, it's okay to BE Pro-Life, but you must respect the principal of choice to satisfy the Democratic, largely Pro-Choice base. 2) It will be a good experiment in just how much we all crave independent "un-partisanship" in this time of unprecedented divide. It's not 2000 anymore; she'll do better than we might think.

Posted by mod1 at 03/04/2006 @ 07:50am
Posted by MOD1 03/04/2006 @ 07:50am | ignore this person

MOD is show how the "purist progressive" is nearly indistinquishable from....

the conservative who wants the Dems to self-destruct!

Posted by Mask at 03/04/2006 @ 08:00am
MASK...In Michelman's neighboring New Jersey, Moderate Pro-choice Democrats AND Pro-Choice Republicans supported Christine Todd Whitman (back when the GOP's appeal was "We're a Big Tent"). You don't think there is a significant number of Moderate Pro-Choice Republicans (women in particular) ready to stop drinking the neocon Kool Aid and support a Pro-Choice candidate? A large number of Virginia voters in 05 rejected the "culture of life" rhetoric in favor of a "pro-choice by action" Democratic Governor in a Red state. Not purist progressives...moderate swing voters! (And as I'm sure you know, sometimes the third independent candidate actually helps the Democrats.)

P.S. I already conceded she's not likely to win! She just may be able to do more than some think. And if conservatives want to sit back and watch a party self-destruct, they ought to make sure they're not looking in a mirror.

Posted by mod1 at 03/04/2006 @ 10:03am
As a Pennsylvania voter disgusted and embaraased with Santorum's alledged representation of my views, I was initially very enthusiastic at the prospect of the Dems running someone with good name recognition and a genuine chance to push Radical Rick back to his old job of lobbying for some wrestling foundation. But the more I found out about Casey, the more I started developing that 'uh oh' sort of feeling. Yes I knew Casey was pro-life, but rationalized that one by saying that this was a minority view that would be diluted from practical relevance by more enlightened opinion. The Alito thing I had a harder time with. Here we have a straight-backed, tight-assed ultra conservative reactionary capable of visiting mayhem on a whole spectrum of issues from executive power to the environment to church-state separation. All of a sudden I found myself sitting on the fence, transported back to 2004 when I held my nose and voted for Kerry out of guilt for supporting Nader in 2000. And then old Bob-O, a guy with pretty much the affect of a corpse, says he's for victory in Iraq. Done. Done. And done. Either offer me a candidate with views approximating mine or I vote for someone else or no one else at all. Supporting the DLC's, head-up-their-ass candidates only empowers them give us more of the same. I'm not going to do it anymore.

Posted by IgnatiousT at 03/04/2006 @ 11:06am
ok - so why are dems not flocking to this pennachio fellow? whats wrong with him? some kind of a-charismatic hunchbacked misanthropic troglodyte who couldnt get laid in a third world country with a pocket full of traveller's checks? does he have offensive body odor? is he some kind of mentally deficient wacko? whats wrong with nominating him?

and michelson - why is she not running for the dem nomination? maybe i'm missing something, but oh this stupidity. lets remind ourselves of how this works...in the primary, all those who might want to get the nomination of their party throw their hats in, then campaign to the voters, then the voters choose which one they wish to have represent them in the november elections... IF ms. michelson is a dem, and IF she dont want no antiabortion guy repping the dems THEN she does her best to win in the primary. IF the dem voters want a pro choice candidate THEN they choose one of the TWO possible OTHER contenders than the antiabortion candidate...

WOW - HOW DOES THAT WORK AGAIN, IBBLE? I DIDNT GET THAT. TOO FREAKIN COMPLICATED....

make it so even hillbillies understand...ha ha ha

michelson and pinnochio run in primary - maybe get nomination - no need to dilute non pub vote with 3rd party hillbilly - need abacus?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 11:25am
oh - and if ms michelson is worried about an anti choice dem candidate, why is she not stumig for the troglodyte? or why is the troglodyte not stepping aside to let her run in promary - 2 pro choice contenders could dilute the pro choice vote and allow casey to get the nomination...guess i need abacus too...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 11:45am
and fingers capable of typing what brain tell them to...and a frekin spell checker...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 11:47am
The leftwing extremists of American politics spends so much time in visceral hatred of republicans, christians, conservatives, and anyone pro-life

Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/04/2006 @ 12:10am

oh yeah, fundyvangelists NEVER show such sentiment in regard to those THEY hate. since god hates THOSE people too, its ok, right? 86 the hypocrisy and i almost agree with u...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 12:19pm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060320/alterman

read this article - its only a couple of clicks away, and i think it bears consideration here...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 12:44pm
Dear old Rio Bravo, who on the one hand condemns the murders of children, but who supports policies under which all too many children lack adequate food, shelter, and education. That's just here at home, not to mention the children he supports the idea of bombing into pulp overseas. And you righties want to know why we don't take any of your pro-life blather seriously. But the bottom line is that some of us have worked with hundreds of children whose futures you merrily consign to the excess bin every day of every week of every year. Oh, you're pro-life, of course, just so long as life remains the vail of tears and pain your sillyass philosophy maintains builds character. You all had better hope there's no truth at all in that bible you're always thumping, because if there is, you'll be burning right alongside all those "child murderers" you so righteously condemn.

Posted by Legba at 03/04/2006 @ 1:12pm
1) On the one hand, I am of the belief that the focus on social issues in general (including abortion) has generally hurt the Democrats; the right has been able to use it to paint them as cultural radicals, etc, while simultaneously destroying what is much more important, the economic liberalism that once made our country great. So progressives should not focus on social issues, including abortion.

2) On other other hand, polls show that a clear majority of Americans are pro-choice, in that, at very least, they do not favor the abolition of abortion rights.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 1:27pm
i am from the state of pennsylvania. I am also pro-choice. I can think of nothing more important to this state, or the nation (as far as the 2006 election is concerned) than to remove rightwing lackeys of this administration like Rick Santorum. Truth be told, abortion will remain an issue for the judiciary, NOT the US Senate (even if the Supreme Court were to overrule Roe v. Wade. abortion laws would revert to state legislatures and governors, NOT US Senators! And how likely is the next nominee to be confirmed by a single vote, and how likely to be confirmed by Casey rather than Santorum?). In the meantime, what harm is done if americans who have honest disagreements over the morality of abortion come to realize that their concerns can be heard within the Democratic party, along with all the other moral concerns that the so called religious right ignores (poverty, war, etc...)? What harm is done if a few million catholics who consider it important to vote with their Pope, against unlawful wars, against the death penalty, now feel that they can once again belong to the democratic party? There is much more at stake here than the symbolic issue of abortion (again, one controlled by the courts)! We are facing a loss of our democracy, and a win by Santorum will not help the pro-choice cause, but lead us ever so closer to rule by the fundamentalist mindset that will not only disallow abortions, but remove many other of women's (and men's) civil liberties. Please Kate, think globally and act locally!

Posted by aht772e at 03/04/2006 @ 2:02pm
Please, one of you "Run, Kate" folks explain to me why it is that the country is better off with six more years of Santorum than six years of Bob Casey. Unless you can do that or make a convincing case that she can win, the candidacy would be all about pique.

Posted by ozkup at 03/04/2006 @ 2:11pm
Who's dumber here?

Kate Michaelman for OBVIOUSLY making a "Nader-2000" on Bob Casey Jr.

or Mr Nichols for promoting it?

I'm pro-choice and no fan of Santorum, and a non-Pennsylvanian and so have only a small pup in this fight....but COME ON, GUYS. Are you crazy? Who's Kate going to bleed votes from ...Santorum? "She'll bring in new voters or voters that don't like either guy!"

Yep...heard THAT one in 2000 from Ralph!

Posted by MASK 03/03/2006 @ 10:18pm

Please, one of you "Run, Kate" folks explain to me why it is that the country is better off with six more years of Santorum than six years of Bob Casey. Unless you can do that or make a convincing case that she can win, the candidacy would be all about pique.

Posted by OZKUP 03/04/2006 @ 2:11pm

While position purity is desirable, hell...needed, I think Mr. Casey deserve our support. He is one more step to impeachment proceedings.

Mask, OZKUP...well said!

Posted by lefthookjab at 03/04/2006 @ 2:26pm
Rio Bravo, I thank you for your unbridled confirmation of my long held opinions of bush enablers who like to call themselves conservative!

The rightwing extremists of American politics spends so much time in visceral hatred of democrats, atheists, liberals, and anyone anti-forced-childbirth and it has really succeeded in its agenda to take over the Republican party, but all to NO avail!

Thanks to the alienation most Americans feel, there is no future for the party than to be an "also ran" in any state or the nation!

This is the only explanation I can see as to why you would support forced-childbirth candidates! I really can wholeheartedly support such efforts! It should be done from now on in all races in every state in 2006 and nationally in 2008!

It is time that those of bush-enabling conservative political aspirations show themselves in their honest "full light of day" glory for all to see and let the judgment of the voters rule the day! Go for it man! I'm pulling for you! Tell the American people that if you impregnate a woman while raping her, that woman should be forced to carry your child to term, and any doctor that would help her terminate your child should be imprisoned. Go with it. I am sure it is a quite popular position.

Posted by orwell2005 at 03/04/2006 @ 2:35pm
"Forced-childbirth candidates."

I don't believe I have ever heard the anti-abortion crowd characterized as such before.

I like it.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 2:47pm
A little clarification here: What I should have said was abortion rights position purity,(PRO-CHOICE/PRO-PRIVACY)would be desirable.

I think we need to continue to try to reach out to those in the Democratic Party who feels the way Casey does. We simply can't afford to be a one-issue party. We blast the Repubs for not having the intellectual flexibilty to allow those in that party who feel like we do about this issue to exercise freedom of thought, let's not rush to the bottom with them.

Posted by lefthookjab at 03/04/2006 @ 2:51pm
Governments and their citizens will continue to persecute, imprison, and kill christians just as they always have for 2000 years. And out of ignorance rather than knowledge of the service they have rendered the world the anti-christian retoric will continue! But, it will not stop the love and compassion christians have for the people of the world.

And, that's all Forrest Gump has to say about that!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/04/2006 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person

ah, the ever enlightened voice of rio.

Posted by loveloki at 03/04/2006 @ 2:52pm
LOVELOKI,

Due to my having him on ignore, the only time I ever get to hear what Rio (and others like him) "think" is when you or someone else references a comment of theirs. However, when I read something they said (such as what you posted from Rio above), I often laugh out loud, and then, actually find myself considering taking him (and others of his ilk) off of ignore, mostly just for laughs.

But I don't think I could take it in whole, so keeping him on ignore is probably best.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 2:58pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/04/2006 @ 1:27pm |

i understand and accept that evryone is entitled to their opinion, belief, and the right to express such, no matter how wrong it is. in that your beliefs rest upon a book the validity of which niether u nor anyone else cannot ultimately prove, i will niether comment on it nor offer counterpoints from my own beliefs, based as they are on unprovably correct writings themselves. (ha ha ha)

i hope that pennsylvania dems pull out an abacus, do the math, then decide what is the best strategy for winning based on reality, not angry, wishful thinking.

as to your ideas about hoesty in politics, i agree 100%. in fact, despite all stupid conventional wisdom, the first candidate/politician that starts operating in such a way may suprise everyone with how ready most of us petulant eternal adolescents react to real honesty...

or maybe not...ha ha ha

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 3:17pm
Ibble,

Would our society be better off if politicans actually ran on their real and genuine beliefs, rather than reflecting or considering those of their constituents (in order to get elected and reelected, etc)?

An argument can be made that they should NOT vote their conscience (that instead they should vote how the people want them to, even if the people are wrong).

1) Democracy means (among other things) that the people rule. Therefore, how can politicans justify ignoring the wishes of their constituents? Does what the people want count for something, or not? If the majority of say, Pennsylvanians, want abortion to be illegal, maybe then that's how their political leader should vote?

2) If they vote their conscience every time (in direct and blatant defiance of the masses, at times), then they will soon find themelves out of a job! Then, someone much worse might come to power. Further, how can they get the (good) things they want done DONE if they aren't there in office to do them? (And they can't remian there unless they do what the people want, at least some of the time!)

This is not necessarily my position (that politicians should not heed their own consciences, but should rather just do whatever the opinion polls say); rather, I am merely raising some questions and issues to ponder.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 3:28pm
Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/04/2006 @ 2:58pm

unignore him, deconstruct him, and destroy him...unless you suffer from high blood pressure. careful about ignoring too many, however, or you might find yourself talking to yourself. i have...

the only people i ignore are the rabid cut 'n paste brigade.

RIO that said, as a good (bad) buddhist, and as you fall into the catagory of "all living beings", and that furthermore i believe you to be a very decent if very misguided adherant of wrong beliefs, i love you and would not wish to actually destroy you, just your argument, of course. does not mean i pull any punches, though. your a big boy, arent u?

when i, in a future life, achieve enlightement, i will search out you and love liberty in whatever realm you reside and do my utmost to lead you to the truth and realease you from your suffering. i promise...ha ha ha

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 3:28pm
For example, one could also against the above position. (One could argue that a politican SHOULD vote his conscience, even if he disagrees with the people).

1) Politicians should (at least sometimes) NOT do what the people want, because the people can clearly be wrong. That is why we don't have a direct democracy, but rather an indirect one; the Founding Fathers were right in placing some space between the people and those who make the actual decisions (those we elect, thus giving the power to), for good reason.

2) It would be refreshing, wouldn't it? To have a politician actually voting out of conscience, even if it costs him his political office? Why should they pander to the masses anyway? Half the time they dont know their heads from their asses. So there are good arguments both ways.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 3:33pm
Ibble,

Ok, as an experiment, I am going to take Rio off of ignore. I may even try to engage him, though surely it will be very frustrating and time consuming and probably, pointless. But I'll give it a try.

If I can stand Lvliberty1, maybe I can stand Rio.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 3:41pm
Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/04/2006 @ 3:28pm |

yep - good points, frank - like all absolute statements, mine is riddled with ifs, buts and althoughs...

politician must take into consideration constituent's desires, cannot ALWAYS vote consience (or will soon have no oportunity to vote at all, except for someone else to take job...ha ha ha). but, a politician can, instead of duplicitously changing spots, say to constituents "well, honestly, i think i am making a big mistake in voting this way, but, since so many of you are in favor of me voting this way, and u have elected me, and i have laid out my case to you as best i could, and u still insist, i will do so. in that i am not omniscient, perhaps u r right and i am wrong, after all. we will see, regardless, and i will try not to say i told u so if u r wrong."

instead we get an endless stream of panderers who treat us like silly children.

however, as i have said before...how can we, in a democracy, expect so much more, morally and ethically, from our elected representatives, than we seem to expect from ourselves?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 3:42pm
I agree that politicans should not pander to the masses. Sometimes they should vote what their consciences say, and sometimes they should vote what the masses want (even if the two are in conflict).

The $64,000 question is, when should they do each?

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 3:46pm
As far as engaging Rio: there are SO many things that Rio says that are arguable and worthy of response, where does one begin? Lol.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 3:49pm
Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/04/2006 @ 3:41pm

u have my prayers and support....

like what i say to those who's rage at those truly shiftless bums who take advantage of social welfare programs which help so many more...

if u attempt to help others, expect your helping hand to be bitten... it is the nature of the world, and to ignore all those who accept help with gratitude because of those who do not, is the epitome of childishly selfish vanity.

to tell the truth to those who are ignorant and be ridiculed is also to be expected...

but keep the cut n' paste brigade on ignore if u like - that shit's just plain fucking rude...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 3:55pm
A one-issue candidate has an uphill battle no mater where she or he runs. There were more reasons than the abortion issue for opposing Alito. Can anyone say "unitary executive," or elimination of checks and balances in our system of governing?

Although a one-issue candidate has an uphill battle to win election, sometimes one issue can bring down a candidate for re-election. I will not be voting for Maria Cantwell for the Senate because of her vote last week on the Patriot Act.

Politics is about passion. I acknowledge elections are usually won by candidates taking direction from poikilotherms like Karl Rove. My optimism right now is the hope that whatever caused otherwise good people to elect neocon enablers to congress during the last election, passionate voters can change in this coming election.

Posted by seattlescribe at 03/04/2006 @ 4:03pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/04/2006 @ 3:42pm

qualifying addendum

sometimes politicians, must also say to constituents, "sorry, i understand your objections to me voting in this way, but i must do so anyway. i understand and respect your decision to vote me out of office for doing this if you decide."

COURAGE - not not being afraid - being afraid and doing what one must regardless...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 4:06pm
Governments and their citizens will continue to persecute, imprison, and kill christians just as they always have for 2000 years. And out of ignorance rather than knowledge of the service they have rendered the world the anti-christian retoric will continue! But, it will not stop the love and compassion christians have for the people of the world.

And, that's all Forrest Gump has to say about that!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/04/2006 @ 2:31pm

OK. We all have different points of view. But, if you don't stop with the silly-ass "persecuted christians" bullshit, no one's gonna take you seriously. (Fer chrissake, x-tians run the world.)

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/04/2006 @ 4:07pm
Posted by MALCONTENT3 03/04/2006 @ 4:07pm

yeah - the martyr bullshit. try to coercively proselytize your religion, scream bloody martyrdom when opposed...sickeningly hypocritical, but the way many of them work. understand this and continue to oppose...

that said, those denominations of christians who arrogantly claim to be the only christians should not be confused with the majority who do not...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 4:14pm
Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/04/2006 @ 3:33pm

Is that not the 'rights' reaction to clinton. That this is a representative democracy and the leaders decide. So we must pick a leader with 'character'?

For the same reason liberals are for federal powers (racism, sexism, and latent homosexual self haters), we don't want direct democracy.

What we need are low pay (tied to min. wage?), for politicians and rules against private sector employment, in fields you governed over. (Going from industry to govt. seems, not so bad, as you might better understand the industry you regulate. But, govt. to industry seems to breed lots of horrible legislation.)

With low pay and little possibility for building a cash cow, you can later milk, there would be a new class of politicians, who might actually do, at least, what they think is right. I find it hard to believe our current crop can even delude themselves into thinking they act in the publics best interest.

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/04/2006 @ 4:22pm
Posted by MALCONTENT3 03/04/2006 @ 4:22pm

i cant think of how, without violating their rights, we could stop politicians from making money after office.

i have always said, however, that we should not shirk from paying our politicians damn well while in office, and requiring them to sever outside, possibly compromising, economic ties again, while IN OFFICE. i find it hypocritical and unrealistic to expect our politicians to be utterly selfless mendicants while serving us, again, since so few of "us" would be willing to do the same...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 4:27pm
that said, those denominations of christians who arrogantly claim to be the only christians should not be confused with the majority who do not...

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/04/2006 @ 4:14pm

I'm sure all on this blog think of me as the religion hater.

Do keep in mind it is mostly context. I am not religious, but I am tolerant of others views, in day to day life.

It is only when I try to discuss politics/policy and people want to bring that which they have no evidence and most disagree on, into legislating our secular democracy, that I get so intolorant.

I enjoy a good philisophical discussion...in context. But, it is a waste of time here. We are discussing our nations future, not our individual hang-ups.

But, I appreciate your attempts to moderate extremists like me. ;)

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/04/2006 @ 4:28pm
i find it hypocritical and unrealistic to expect our politicians to be utterly selfless mendicants while serving us, again, since so few of "us" would be willing to do the same...

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/04/2006 @ 4:27pm

That's one (valid) way to look at it.

Another is that we have nothing remotely resembling 'public servants'. I am sure that those who would, would be few and far between. But, many seem willing to belly up to the govt. trough now. It seems to be a revolving door into industry managment. Make the rules easy and then go play by the rules you just made for yourself.

Truly selfless people, would tend towards excess. (Like Nader for instance. Nice sincere guy...wholly misinformed about many things he proposes to regulate.)

I'd rather have overprotective, over reactionary, for the public types, than our current crop of crony criminals.

Nothing is perfect, but it'd be better than what we have now.

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/04/2006 @ 4:35pm
eric - great conversation - i must now amuse self with friend by playing madden football for 3 hours.....see u later...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 4:39pm
Also, elitist/nanny types, who know what's best are annoying, but infinately prefferable to pseudo-cowboy morons, whose only saving grace is they are to stupid to be that evil, it must be his handlers who are. The elitists ego would lead him not to run again, if his leadership was unappreciated by his constituents. And with low pay, the 'power' aspect would be lessened

When did folks decide that stupid is good and smart is boring, hence bad.

In my view, anti-intellectualism springs from organized religion and is another one of my hang-ups with that point of view.

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/04/2006 @ 4:42pm
Eric the late Pope (John Paul II) was against the war, and used his moral position as a Christian leader to speak out against it.

One example of religion being used for good.

(See? Religion can be a force for good as well as bad.)

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 4:45pm
"by playing madden football"

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/04/2006 @ 4:39pm

Is that what you call it? I always called it "maddening football"

...maybe i go play granturismo4....Have fun.

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/04/2006 @ 4:46pm
(See? Religion can be a force for good as well as bad.)

Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/04/2006 @ 4:45pm

True. (Hell, even rio gave a good example, before he meandered off on that persecution tangent.)

It ain't all bad. And it ain't all good.

But, it doesn't belong in public policy.

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/04/2006 @ 4:48pm
qualifying addendum sometimes politicians, must also say to constituents, "sorry, i understand your objections to me voting in this way, but i must do so anyway. i understand and respect your decision to vote me out of office for doing this if you decide." COURAGE - not not being afraid - being afraid and doing what one must regardless... Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/04/2006 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person

Ibb,

I don't disagree with your point. However, I make an exception when the politician indicates she will vote one way and then votes the opposite.

Posted by seattlescribe at 03/04/2006 @ 4:56pm
ZERO,

There is something to be said for actually WINNING elections though, isn't there?

I'm tired of losing!

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 4:58pm
But, it [religion] doesn't belong in public policy.

Posted by MALCONTENT3 03/04/2006 @ 4:48pm | ignore this person

Eric,

Yes and no. Yes, I generally agree, in the sense that there should obviously be no official state religion, etc.

But if you mean by that that individual politicians should not at ALL be guided by their private religious beliefs or principles in making public policy (I'm not sure if that's what you mean or not), then I must disagree. Firstly, because people have a right to their religious beliefs. Secondly (and more importantly and to the point), as religious beliefs -- by their very nature -- touch on and are concerned with important questions of morality and justice, you simply CANNOT divorce them from momentous public issues.

To ask people to give up their religion when making public policy is as much a pie in the sky idea as utopian socialism. (If that is in fact what you are suggesting; I'm not sure you are, and do not wish to mischaracterize your position.)

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 5:10pm
The fact is, that millions of people vote and decide issues of morality and justice based on (their interpretation of) religious holy books, dictums, dogmas, etc.

So what progressives need to do is, convince those religious types that social and economic justice (the progressive agenda) IS in fact very compatible and consistent with their religious beliefs.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 5:13pm
And anyone who has taken the time to actually read the Bible can see that the idea of social and economic justice is VERY compatible with the words of, for example, Christ.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 5:15pm
Don't let the right-wing hijack religion to their (evil) ends!

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 5:16pm
Chuck Pennacchio's campaign is actually gaining lots of the steam. The problem is that the corporate-owned mainstream media often ignores him and acts like Casey has already won and with the notable exception of Zogby, pollsters have refused to run him against Santorum thus far. Because Pennacchio will not accept special interest PAC money he doesn't have as much money as Casey. But I truly believe that Pennacchio is now our only hope for defeating Santorum in November. If Pennacchio wins the primary, then Michelman won't run. Pennacchio is a great progressive candidate and charismatic speaker. Please go to his website www.chuck2006.com and find out how you can help.

Posted by daveinphilly at 03/04/2006 @ 5:40pm
I think people already know that, Frank Thomas. The problem is that the vast majority of people who insist on the presence of religion in governance is that they think it's what God expects of them. It's a cop-out. It's a refusal to do something for people and the world because people and the world are worthy of themselves. If we take the Christian scriptures for what they are, God thought people and the world were worthy, that's why God sacrificed the Christ. Why should we have to persuade people on behalf of their religion? The Christians say the Love of God is unconditional, let them understand their own words and live in this world and understand it. It is contingent upon religion, which claims to be for the uplift of humanity, to better understand its subject on its own terms, heedful of the imperfection of the creation and ourselves, and curious of how to build away from our imperfections, regardless of the time and cost, and not through the eyes of judgement, which are reserved to God. As it is now, all too many of those who legislate what they think of as the Word play out an apocolypse fantasy, in which they are sure they will be redeemed. But maybe they're not right. They can't know, not really, not if what their scriptures say is correct. No one can even see the face of God and live, according to their scriptures. So how can they legislate based upon what they preceive to be in the heart of God?

No, it is contingent upon religion to live in this world, meet people where people are at, and uplift people, if uplift is the game. So far, the church has failed marvelously. Why should political struggle adjust to the needs of the church thinkers, which almost everywhere anymore would rather be an investment counselor then a teacher of the beauty or love of the Creator? Voodoo teaches us that in the love of humanity, in the service of humanity, we serve God. Voodoo teaches us that in neglecting the earth, in allowing the powerful to destroy the poor, or even using religions like Beautiful Voodoo, the Faith in the Good God, to cause the poor to suffer or stumble, we hate God, we spit upon the teachings of the Christ.

Do right by humanity, and we will be doing right by the Christ, who was also called the SON OF MAN. Let the organized religions, the organized religious learn about this world on its own terms, rather than those of a God whose words they barely observe in their richest essence. That will place us closer to God. Simply teaching according to what organized religions and their political acolytes will hear is not going to create a system of ethics in this world. We have to love the world on its own terms first, as an extension and reflection of the Creator.

Posted by Legba at 03/04/2006 @ 6:09pm
Why should we have to persuade people on behalf of their religion?

We have to try to persuade those who have perverted the message of religion; that message being that people matter, that we should love one another, and not hate them, etc. Religion can be a tremendous force for good as well as bad. There is a lot of good in it; we need to enlighten those that are using it for evil, of this fact.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 6:31pm
"There is a lot of good in it; we need to enlighten those that are using it for evil, of this fact." -- Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/04/2006 @ 6:31pm

True ... in theory. There are always those who will subvert any source of power for their own selfish purposes. Also, the concept of faith allows ready sale of specially spiked kool-aid.

No matter how much good is in [Christian] religion, it's always a train wreck waiting to happen. Why have religious wars been so bloody? Each side, as a matter of faith, believes that God is on their side. Some religious leader has sold them the kool-aid that dying for God is good.

I'm not a history reader, but don't recall any Buddhist wars. There've been plenty of Christian, Muslem and Judaic wars. Anyone here know anything about this?

I suspect that Jesus would be appalled to see people being tortured and killed in his name (don't know, but suspect). Maybe Mohammed would feel the same way. Some religions just seem to build to violence.

I say take the power away from the religious leaders. Get rid of faith in religion. Make people think for themselves instead of having the "answers" delivered to them based on someone's interpretation of some religious tract.

Were I to start a religion, it would have a creed something like, "Think for yourself, do for others." Ah well, I can dream of a different world even if I can't have it.

Posted by adr at 03/04/2006 @ 7:05pm
Each side, as a matter of faith, believes that God is on their side. Some religious leader has sold them the kool-aid that dying for God is good.

Perhaps you speak too broadly. There are many many reasonable Christians (I know some of them personally) who believe that, for example, you do NOT have to BE a Christian, to go to heaven. I know some Muslims who say the same thing.

In each religion, there are those intolerant slobs who say and believe those things of course. The moderates have to condemn them. (This is particularly true in the Muslim world; that is, hopefully, the moderates will condemn the extremists.)

1) I guess I am sticking with my original points, that religion can be (and often is) a force for good.

2) Since it exists (for better or worse) let us progressives try to use it for such.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 7:28pm
Silly Michaelman. Where have you been for the past year, as Pennacchio reached out to NARAL and other pro-choice organizations, sounding the alarm?

Posted by clenchner at 03/04/2006 @ 7:55pm
Posted by SEATTLESCRIBE 03/04/2006 @ 4:56pm |

yeah - i dont think adults expect their politicians to be perfect, but it so often comes down to such meely mouthed verbal squirming with so many politicians, mired in money polluted swamp.

thats why i say pay the crap out of our politicians legally, and publically fund a large chunk of their campaigns. i have no problem with a politician wanting to be well recompensed for their service, and perhaps doing so honestly, transparantly, and willingly might be better than the current shady crony system. hell, my tax money goes their way eventually anyway when the corrupt fucks like the current administration of ceo's "fund" their intersted corporations by starting wars and sliding juicy, bloated contract their way without bidding...

cut ties to outside interests, forbid finacial/employment contracts made by politicians for after their term of office, and pay them well up front...

something close to what should happen

wes clark is on stephanopul...however u spell his name...tomorrow. i'm hoping he runs for pres

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 9:26pm
course if someone thinks michelman can win with 34% of the vote - maybe she should run as independent...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 9:31pm
Ibble,

I also like General Clarke. Maybe we should have went with him instead of Kerry?

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/04/2006 @ 10:04pm
I wonder if Mr Nichols (or ZERO) would bet me $1000....

on whether if Michelman runs as an independent, that Santorum WALKS into re-election easily (5% or better)?

And then explains why "purity" is better than winning?

Posted by Mask at 03/04/2006 @ 11:09pm
Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/04/2006 @ 10:04pm

yeah - u see his address at the last dem convention? seldom has a politician been able to talk so patriotically and intelliently. usually when they put that big giant obnoxious flag behind a politician and do a big stage show of nationalistic blabbulating it turns my stomach - but wes did it beutifully....seems like a decent and intelligent man

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 11:21pm
Posted by MASK 03/04/2006 @ 11:09pm

wonder what polls have been done? i have no idea how much pennsylvanians love or hate santorum, but i would suspect he could get at least 40%...prob more, but til someone starts quizzin folks, who knows for sure. til ten, the 3rd party candidate idea sounds like suicide to me...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 11:30pm
and again, whats wrong with pinnachio - other than his name (jeez, can u imagine it if he got involved in some lying scandel....)?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 11:31pm
FYI, for those of you not that familiar with Casey, he is conservative on just about every issue, not just reproductive choice... Casey supports the Iraq war, he opposes universal healthcare, he supports death penalty with the same fervor that Dubbya does, he opposes any gun control legislation, he supports Alito, he opposes gay couple adoption rights, and he supported the Terry Schiavo bill..

We at the Pennacchio campaign compiled some links to articles that reveal Casey's conservative positions... Casey is a pay per view, stealth candidate who hides his positions from voters. He's only done 5 public events; everything else has been a fundraiser...

See:

http://www.chuck2006.com/caseyfacts.asp

Posted by daveinphilly at 03/04/2006 @ 11:52pm
Posted by DAVEINPHILLY 03/04/2006 @ 11:52pm

why is michelman not stumping for your man? casey sounds like a pub.

get him...lol

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 11:56pm
IBBLEBLIBBLE,

To answer your question as to why Pennacchio isn't the frontrunner... It is because the national Democratic party is pushing the Casey candidacy so hard that they have put pressure on pollsters not to poll Pennacchio and on major PA newspapers not to run stories on him... Pennacchio is extremely popular among the super voter crowds who actually have heard of him. It's just that the damn mainstream media won't cover him because Casey has a famous name. Its sick. Just like former Steeler player Lynn Swann scared all of his Republican primary challengers for the Gubernatorial nomination. The guy with the famous name gets all the media coverage.

Posted by daveinphilly at 03/04/2006 @ 11:57pm
Pennacchio - sorry

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/04/2006 @ 11:58pm
I don't know why Michelman isn't backing Pennacchio. I guess she doesn't think it would help... Or perhaps she is conservative on other issues and actually wants Santorum to win. By her own admission she said that her candidacy may lead to Santorum's re-election in November.

The only high profile pro-choice activist to endorse Pennacchio is Kathy Miller, President of PA's now.

And John Conyers is the only person currently holding federal office to endorse Chuck so far. I'm hoping Russ Feingold will come through as well...

Posted by daveinphilly at 03/05/2006 @ 12:01am
well, now she's getting some coverage...maybe u could try to get her to stump 4 pennachio...then run 3rd if she wants if casey wins. yeah - i'm kinda piqued that nicholson said so little about pennachio - he seems to be exactly what the nation looks for in candidates

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 12:03am
when IS the primary, anyway? i understand where u r coming from, may be working for a similar candidate soon...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 12:05am
Our primary is on May 16th... And the good news is Casey has agreed to debate Chuck after he collects the 2,000 signatures needed to get on the ballot (Chuck already has over 2 thousand, it just isn't official until next week). Casey will probably try to delay the debate as long as possible but he is on record as saying he will debate at least once...

Nichols actually wrote a longer article about Pennacchio here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060227/nichols

Posted by daveinphilly at 03/05/2006 @ 12:13am
Posted by DAVEINPHILLY 03/05/2006 @ 12:13am

ah - sorry nichols...

well, if i were in penn, i'd prob be helping u - good luck - fight the good fight...time to sleep the good sleep for me now...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 12:24am
Posted by AHT772E 03/04/2006 @ 2:02pm

work 4 pennachio

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 12:32am
COURAGE - not not being afraid - being afraid and doing what one must regardless... Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/04/2006 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person

In my state, I think this was more applicable to Patty Murray than Maria Cantwell wrt the Patriot Act vote last week (89 (Cantwell) – 10 (Murray)). I would be happy with someone like that Pinocchio fellow in PA running against Cantwell out here. It does my civil liberties no good to elect Democrats who support the neocon agenda. Load the Senate with Caseys and Cantwells and the Democrat branch of the Neocon-Republican party reigns supreme. At this point in time, I'd like to find a Ripon Society Republican!

Posted by seattlescribe at 03/05/2006 @ 02:49am
Half a loaf is better than none. If the Democratic strategy puts aside its main goal of taking back the Congress in order to mount a campaign based on an ideal liberal platform, this goal will never be achieved. On the other hand, just how ideal is the liberal agenda? Since the Democratic platform is right of the Green Party, which more closely represents the full-blown liberal-socialism of the European social democracies, just how ideal is it anyway? A little Clintonesque bait and switch would go a lot further to achieve the takeover goal than wasting effort on taking down DINOs.

Posted by shergald at 03/05/2006 @ 07:45am
GOP Worried?

About losing an election?

What election is that?

Didn't you get the memo?

Haven't you been listening?

There is going to be Bird Flu (or at least the Wag The Dog Version thereof).

Stay in your homes and listen to Dear Leader for further instructions.

Then there is going to be a dirty bomb attack.

Then they are going to impose Martial Law.

Then they are going to activate the Camps which Haliburton is building throughout the United States right now.

Elections?

How quaint.

Just as quaint as the Geneva Conventions.

KBR Awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M. (HAL) (By Katherine Hunt)

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- KBR, the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co, (HAL), said Tuesday it has been awarded a contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security to supports its Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency. The maximum total value of the contract is $385 million and consists of a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. KBR held the previous ICE contract from 2000 through 2005. The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, KBR said. The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster, the company said.

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=eed74d9d44 c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/halliburton_dention_camps_for_politi cal_subversives.htm

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Concentration_Camps/index.html

General Ralph Eberhart, who was in charge of air defense on 9-11, was the first commander of "Northern Command," the domestic unified military command established in October 2002. If the domestic use of the U.S. military escalates into full-scale martial law, the Northern Command would essentially manage it. If 9/11 had been an "intelligence failure," it is likely that General Eberhart would have been court-martialed instead of promoted.

http://www.oilempire.us/redalert.html

"Recent pronouncements from the Bush Administration and national security initiatives put in place in the Reagan era could see internment camps and martial law in the United States." -- The Sydney Morning Herald, July 27, 2002

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/06/02/far06003.html

Ron Suskind quoting a Bush aide in an interview: ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'

http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=276398&sid=422e73980b137 17c5d6bb53b791a4de0

http://p211.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=8174.t opic

"Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

Michael Rivera

Posted by plunger at 03/05/2006 @ 08:50am
Ron Suskind quoting a Bush aide in an interview: ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality

PLUNGER

ah...nihilism...might makes right...

if our "empire" was run by MORAL/ETHICAL ubermensch, what a wonderful world it would be...but our "empire" is run by the gluttonous, rage filled, greedy, proud, vain, blundering wicked i hesitate to apply the term "ubermensch" to describe, known as "neocons" - a euphemism for "neofascists"

obverse democratic fascists

obverse - in classic germano-italo-spanish early twentieth century style fascism, the fascists gained power directly, first. some business interests supported them from the beginning, but by and large the fascists took power, then imposed their control upon each of their countries' business sector, co-opting and incorporating them as arms of government firmly under control of their respective polities...here in the usa, outside business/corporate forces (not all, but more and more as their power has grown) have created a privately owned propaganda machine and used it to lobotomize the people until we beg for fascism without even realizing it...they finance pliable candidates of both parties, and direct the destructive power of their lie machine to destroy all foes who oppose them with honesty and decency

democratic - this seemingly oxymoronic, when juxtaposed with the term, fascism, makes perfect sense in the usa. as a nation steeped in democratic tradition, incapable of seeing itself as anything else, the fascist must maintain the appearance of democracy - it is one of the defining characteristics of our nation, a bedrock of american nationalism...to destroy all form of democratic tradition would be disastrous. the key word here is FORM....a FORM, a dry, increasingly meaningless hollow effigy of democracy must be maintained by the fascists to provide an inane rallying cry for parents to send their children off to die in wars worldwide which benefit the fascist moneied cabals that are the ONLY PEOPLE BENEFITTING FROM THESE MILITARY ADVENTURES. fascism relies on arrogant militarism, which is inimical to democracy - so the democratic fascists, beginning over 30 years ago, started first creating an alternative, ideological based media to spread their message, and the fake scholarly establishment (conservative think tank network) to legitimize their ideology where it conflicted with reality, especially reality discovered by legitimate scholarly institutions. then, taking advantage of the uncertainty amongst the already dangerously pop culturally lobotomized citizenry, the fascists dismantled legislation that had once assured dispersed ownership of media, thereby allowing a few corporations and individuals to BUY UP ALL THE MEDIA. now - nothing unflattering to the fascists ever gets presented to the public, and those fringe media entities which do attempt to report the truth are marginalized, ridiculed and labelled politically insane...

fascism - ultra nationalist, militaristic, seeing self as having right and duty through one's nation's might, to enforce the will of the nation through force, glory in military conquest, assuming the will of the people to be embodied in its leaders (regardless of public opinion) and PRIDE PRIDE PRIDE PRIDE. in our nation, however, a slick madison avenue orwellian doublespeak, supported by a privately owned propaganda machine known as the msm, dumbing down, scaring the heck out of, trivializing, repeating fascist lies to the confused mass of potential soldiers and bled white taxpayers, editing any information not flattering to the groups supporting the fascists ideal and power base, convinces schmuk nation that the hollow grandiose democratic institutions wrapped about the true power are in fact the real source of power, just as they always were. scream "feedom" and "democracy" and all the old rallying cries and quaint pollynaish ideals...while disguising the true nature of the elite fascists who manipulate the voter base by all the ways listed above.

obverse democratic fascism....a new american century....neoconservatism....amoral ayn rand economic nihilists, supported by electoral shock troops of antiintellectual cromwellian fundyvangelist medievalists, masses of confused, trivialized, fearful, basically decent folk incapable of seeing their beloved country as infested with powerful, slick, selfishly evil fascists, and ignorant, cynical, apolitical, demoralized, intellectually marginalized, trivialized opposition...a recipe for moral, economic, political, and ultimately, when the population behemoths of asia and latin america finally emerge from their cocoons of poverty (as they are), military DISASTER. because the obverse democratic fascists, for all their cleverness, are blinded by their own lies and obvlivious to the civilizational crash they are engineering, and toward which they are conducting us.

OBVERSE DEMOCRATIC FASCISM

i pledge allegiance to the corporate overlords who own my government (and my ass) and comfort myself with the fact that we can kick ass, like my favorite sports franchise, and pledge my life to further enrich the real enemies of freedom, MY ECONOMIC OVERLORDS...to send my children to die for their economic interest, and to never think anything unpleasant about them, or at leaswt to say such, for fear of being labeled treasonous...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 10:29am
LEGBA

"but who supports policies under which all too many children lack adequate food, shelter, and education. That's just here at home,"

You obviously do not know what REAL poverty is, American kids are not lacking any of what say they are, as a whole, what alternate reality to you live? What is being poor in america? not having cable TV?

Posted by CPT at 03/05/2006 @ 10:32am
IBBEBL

"if our "empire" was run by MORAL/ETHICAL ubermensch, what a wonderful world it would be.."

If our foreign policy were run in a strictly MORAL/ETHICAL way, we would cease to exist as a NATION, why because OTHER nations do NOT run their policy by the SAME standerd of ethics. Why do liberals appear not to get that, i often wonder.

Posted by CPT at 03/05/2006 @ 10:36am
empire?????!?!?? bah humbug, what an insult to histories TRUE empires to call America and her possessions an empire

Posted by CPT at 03/05/2006 @ 10:37am
CPT

Ha! Don't know about you, but I just got appointed Grand Moff of the Onereon Systems Sector AND Procounsel for Judea...Oh, and I just established the Foundation on Terminus!

Posted by Mask at 03/05/2006 @ 10:46am
Posted by CPT 03/05/2006 @ 10:36am

with all due respect captain this is an evil enabling lie - when we sink to the level of evil enemies, what are we fighting for anymore? just a bigger slice of the pie? when we destroy our good name by engaging in despicable actions, the slumbering giant of the developping world will give us no quarter when they find themselves capable of challenging us - which is ever closer. if we had employed our full force to destroy the taliban in afghanistan without the lie based distraction of iraq, who knows?

denigrating decency as weakness is always the excuse of evil doers...it is a lie...

even the most decent, moral nation, will stumble and fall from time to time - even the most decent, moral entity must from time to time exert deadly force to protect itself and its citizenry, and heaven bless those such as yourself who are charged with such ugly but needed work...and sometimes evil must be opposed with deadly, overwhelming force

but the self destructive lie is that we must sink to the moral level of our least moral enemies....

and captain...300,000,000 - 300,000,000 americans in a world of what? 8 billion? we cannot, ultimately defend ourselves through arrogant military might alone - we must win the war of world opinion, and if we sink to the moral level of our enemies, well, we may defeat them, but someone else will end up leading the world...because we may be blinded by our propagandists, but almost no one else is....

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 10:49am
Posted by MASK 03/05/2006 @ 10:46am

laugh and quip and fiddle from the peanut gallery all you want..if it makes you feel better, good for you...ha ha ha

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 10:51am
to refuse to even consider the possibility that such a thing as i believe is happening is anything more than alarmist paranoia is to enable such a thing to actually come to pass. to accept a definition of "mainsteam" by those who have the most to gain by acceptance of what they define as "mainstream" is to surrender independent, critical thought in favor of safe, comforting, conformity, is to invite and revel in exploitation by freedom's and truth's real enemies. to mock decency is to enable wickedness. to obfuscate truth is to enpower mendacity. to hoard secrets is to invite conspiratorial paranoia, and when such conspiratirial theorizing reaches the point of ludicrous sounding paranoid ranting, then those who hoard such secrets are able to do anything they desire, including precisely those things alluded to by the fringe of paranoid conspiracy theorists.

when freedom to critically speculate the true nature of our degenerated system is assured only by the marginalizing of such speculation as insane, we have reached a very dangerous critical mass of bullshit in which the nightmare scenarios envisioned by science fiction authors such as phillip k. dick and others are hidden by the belief that such scenarios are the realm of science fiction...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 12:12pm
ibble, thank you. i really appreciate your stream-of-consciousness rants of late. i wish everyone would wake up and realize what's really going on here.

Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2006 @ 12:18pm
Posted by SHERGALD 03/05/2006 @ 07:45am | ignore this person

liberal-socialism

SHERGALD,

You have done what the right-wing does: you have conflated radical leftism with liberalism. Socialism and liberalism are NOT the same thing; they are two VERY distinct things. I am a liberal; I am NOT a socialist. I believe in capitalism. (A very different type than Ronald Reagan or George Bush believes in, but a form of capitalism none the less.)

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/05/2006 @ 12:20pm
That is, yes, liberalism is the ideal.

Not "socialism."

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/05/2006 @ 12:20pm
and cpt, i think legba does know what real poverty is in america, as do i. it means being homeless and hungry for a lot of kids. it means being cold in the winter because you don't have a coat. i volunteer with these people and i think legba does too. did u have a great grandfather who walked around during the depression and told the starving kids they were whiners too?

Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2006 @ 12:22pm
frank thomas, thank you for constantly defining for everyone the difference between socialism and liberalism. this is important.

Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2006 @ 12:24pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 03/05/2006 @ 12:18am

but of course, loveloki, i am nothing more than a stream-of-conciousness-blabbulating, out-of-the-ever-so-precious mainstream, lunatic. as long as i remain so i am safe. as long as good ole common sense conventional wisdom robots poo poo anything unflattering about the system they percieve to benefit themselves and laugh at the babbling fringe village idiot, i am secure to spew forth my insanity unmolested by those who are indeed (with the force of enacted legislation) watching and listening...

until our watchers realize that these whispered "delusions" are in fact being credited, i make no claim to courage, in that i am in no danger. the true test will be when a critical mass is reached in which so many schmuks have felt the undeniable sting of of their semi hidden overlords that they become so disconnected from the bullshit spewing truth twisting machine that they are forced to look inward from the outside and see the whole delusional farce for what it really is. when, unable to afford the mind numbing trivia circus, when unable to deny the vast chasm between the haves and have nots, engineered by soulless segments of the haves as well as our own childish silliness, then will the greatest struggle in our nation's history truly begin...no it has already begun. but as of now, our cynical overlords are so puffed up with pride in their own cleverness and disdainful of the sweaty, adolescent masses they exploit, that they do not see this revolution brewing. having placed into law, however, the apparatus to secretly "dissapear" those labeled enemies of the state, both domestic and foriegn, in the form of the sickenenly hypocritically named "USA PATRIOT ACT", the true test of courage, of being afraid and fighting back anyway, approaches.

i pray that this disgusting monstrosity is indeed slain through peaceful action and electoral decision, but we must all be prepared for the possibility that it will not...and that the realization of such a nightmarish possibility is eminent, work all the harder to defeat the enemies of decency through peaceful means before it is too late...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 12:51pm
LOVELOKI,

Here is how I see the differences between socialism, liberalism, and right-wing libertarianism:

Radical Leftism: Everything from strongly disliking Capitalism, to hoping to destroy it. Outright Socialists want to completely abolish Capitalism, and replace it with Socialism. Other radicals want to significantly or fundamentally corral Capitalism-some more than others-some perhaps to the point that it really is barely Capitalism anymore-you might call it "semi-Socialism" (perhaps something like what they have in Sweden: "social democracy"). There are many gradations of thought on the subject. Whether outright Socialists or merely radical Capitalist reformers, Radical Leftists believe that government should completely control and plan the economy, from top to bottom. Some (the more radical among them, such as Marxists and Marxist-Leninists) want an entirely classless society and the abolition of private property. Leftists of all stripes are obsessed with economics-they think economics are virtually the sole cause and explanation for all human history, and all social problems. Some radical leftists believe in using violence to change or even overthrow the existing social and economic and political order. If you had to sum up their attitude towards Capitalism (and Liberals), it might be something like: stop trying to reform something (Capitalism) that is inherently and completely rotten in nature and in outcome. Rather, do away with it all together (or virtually).

Liberalism: They believe in Capitalism, though a very different type from that which Conservatives (especially Libertarian Radical Free-Market Conservatives) believe in. They think Capitalism works best when it is constrained, regulated, managed, monitored, channeled, guided, interfered with, by a strong and powerful Federal government. One that adjusts market outcomes in order to achieve more equal or equitable outcomes. One that promotes maximum employment, production, and purchasing power. One that reduces the most extreme disparities that fuel class conflict. One that manages economic growth so that all citizens will benefit and can have greater assurance in their material standard of living. In short, Liberals want a government and economy that moderates the excesses of capitalist development. Thus, they believe in strong and vigorous unions for working-class people. They believe in a fair tax system, manifested in progressive taxation, and the closing of tax loopholes. Liberals want an economy that benefits as many as possible, not just a few. They want to shape the market to produce just results, to achieve prosperity for all. You could call it "Capitalism with a human face." Liberals, unlike Radical Leftists, are not obsessed with economics-they recognize it's importance, but they also know there are other factors to consider in what makes societies tick, in what made human history what it was and is, and in examining political issues generally.

Rightism (specifically and especially the "Libertarian Conservative" type): They believe in totally unfettered Capitalism. (Very few literally, though many come very close.) Have little to no government interference or regulation or management of the market economy. Have little or no taxes (or if you must, regressive taxation is better-tax the poor at higher rates, proportionally). The market has some magic all its own-if Liberals and government and others would simply step out of the way, then it would bloom tremendously. (The fact that it likely results in the rich getting richer and richer, while the poor get poorer and poorer, doesn't really bother them much, if at all.) They think gross economic inequality under their type of capitalism is both fair and just-because they believe in the American myth that says we all have an equal chance and the same opportunities. Therefore, whatever one has, wherever one is economically, is what and where one deserves to have, and be. They are the diametric opposite of Radical Leftists-Leftists think Capitalism is to blame for all social and economic problems-they believe Capitalism is the problem. Rightists believe that (greater) Capitalism is the solution! They want a small Federal government, a small federal government role in the economy, a scaling back of environmental regulation, which they see as stifling free enterprise, etc. Reduce taxes, especially for the wealthy, "get government off their backs" (as Ronald Reagan used to say), and Capitalism will bloom and many will benefit (and those who don't will deserve their fate.)

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/05/2006 @ 12:53pm
Needless to say, I am a liberal (if that isn't obvious).

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/05/2006 @ 12:57pm
captain, mask, rio!

hurry - poo poo my delusional stream of conciousness rants with comventional wisdom, party approved talking points and aspersions to my sanity! someone is listening! quickly!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 1:05pm
socialism has ever been the best friend of self serving corporatists - gives them a dirty name to fling at populist progressives...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 1:08pm
ibble, i'm sure the nsa is watching this site closely. armed rebellion seems to be a subtly recurring theme here.

i'm aware this possibility you bring up today could be realized. i've had dreams about it.

most of them are good dreams though because i'm driving a fast, indestructable, unpenetrable car with these big automatic assault weapons (which i've never seen so i think i made them up) mounted to the sides and the front. and i have a nice home in a cave by hotsprings.

what would an armed rebellion consist of though, burning all the wal-marts and exxons? hey ibble, did u see the south park about walmart?

Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2006 @ 1:20pm
Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/05/2006 @ 12:57am

start calling yourself "progressive". "liberal" has been irretrievably poisoned by the noise machine. even i have come to identify the term not with the accurate and noble definition you have given above, and not with the distorted semi-mindless synonym for "bad-stupid-wrong-thing-i-cannot-actually-define", mindlessly parroted by semi-mindless right wing juju zombies as well as the pop culturally lobotomized average joe/jane, but as a disparaging definition of those pathetic farcical opposition types who the obverse democratic fascists maintain to keep up the appearance of democracy, whom they allow to occupy the positions of power from time to time, only to ultimately destroy and marginalize, enabling a restoration of themselves by hook or crook.

how does one win a game whose rules are made up, as the game is being played, by those one opposes in said game? dont play it...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 1:23pm
frank thomas, like i said earlier, thankfully you are here to clarify different things. u r very good at that.

it seems to me that our economy and government is moving steadily toward the radical right way of things. but they have to pay us something so we can still shop to keep the beast alive. i bet they'd love to just get rid of the middle class. everyone could work at walmart and shop at walmart. it gives new meaning to "i owe my soul to the company store."

your ideas of liberalism could really help our country globally right now. we could be a model for labor laws and fair pay. and we could form new social programs, taking the good from older fdr type programs. we could be competitive globally by educating all of the people who live here.

Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2006 @ 1:26pm
ironically, the right is the one turning us into communists. they r selling us to china. someone should make posters, t-shirts, bumper stickers of all the radical republicans, so 99% of them, each of them in a communist china uniform, like in the ha ha ha america movie where bush is wearing it, with 2 big words, vote red!

Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2006 @ 1:31pm
loki

google ELF - the environmental defense league...one of the most sought after domestic terorist groups most have never heard of...they are responsible for buzillions of $$$ of property damage, including wilderness developments, parking lots full of suv's, etc...and to my knowledge, not a single lost life...though its been a while since i have followed their activities...ever hear them mentioned on the nightly news? i haven't...maybe they dont really exist...

ever since before emancipation, african americans were, as we all know, the victims of the most humiliatingly fear ridden, violent oppression this side of the nazi concentration camps. generation after generation of their sensible, conservative, cautious leadership (as well as well intentioned "mainstream" white allies) counselled quiet, peaceful, hard working, turn-the-other-cheek patience...but intil such advice was combined with a will to desperate, vengeful, violent, rage, little of substance was accomplished. it is such a shame that evil elitists ultimately respect nothing else, and denigrate decency and peaceful resistance, and percieve the same as weakness to be exploited. in this way, evil is imputed unto the oppressed, who are left with no choice but violence, or the threat of the same, in order to garner the respect of those who respect nothing else.

this, of course is the epitome of childish depravity, for what parent has not been faced with the ugly realization that from time to time, they must put on a mask of wrath and scare the hell out of their children when rational discourse and lovingkindkness have failed? as i have yet to meet an adult who is not a grown up child, including myself, i have come to the conclusion that those amongst us, who often occupy te highest levels of wealth and power, may very well be the most frightenigly childish of all, incapable of responding to anything but fear and threats, imposing fear and reticence, uncertainty and self grasping ignorance upon those they fear the most.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 1:43pm
oops - ELF - environmental liberation front - ha ha ha

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 1:55pm
oops - ELF - environmental liberation front - ha ha ha

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 1:55pm
wow - that was strange - was denied access to thenation.com briefly. maybe the watchers are at work...lol...freak out the schmuk a little, so his paranoid babblings get even more paranoid, then watch the fun? nah - probably just internet brain fart...ha ha ha

almost certainly....

maybe i better shut up...ha ha ha

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 1:59pm
second correction - earth liberation front

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 2:11pm
I have enjoyed evryone's postings except from CPT(typical CPT as usual). My vocabulary has definitely benefited form the postings. I have question though. Considering the current administration's kindness/decency = weakness, cruelty = strength philosophy, is that mentality why Jimmy Carter is, for the most part, ridiculed alot? Aside from endorsing the ports deal, I've seen nothing but a kind, gentle man. Speaking of the ports deal, did anyone hear about the company that wants to operate the ports donated(yeah right) 1 million dollars to Bush's presidential library fund.

Posted by k330k at 03/05/2006 @ 2:26pm
Posted by K330K 03/05/2006 @ 2:26pm

jimmy carter - the lambasted martyred saint king who told unpleasant truths

if u tell the truth, have one foot in the stirrup - old turkish proverb...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 2:41pm
ibble, i was denied access to the nation right after i posted my last post until now. wierd huh?

Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2006 @ 2:43pm
i>is that mentality why Jimmy Carter is, for the most part, ridiculed alot?

I dispute the validity of this statement. Do SOME ridicule Jimmy Carter? Yes. And of course the right does. Do a majority of Americans generally hold Jimmy Carter in ridicule, thinking of him as some sort of crackpot or something? Some sort of pathetic loser? No! Opinion polls consistently rank Carter as one of the very most admired people in America. That has been true for years.

His evolution from being considered a failed President, to being an admired, successful "elder statesman" (and decent human being) was sealed years ago. Most view him as an honest, admirable man of integrity, whose counsel on matters of national importance should be heeded.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/05/2006 @ 3:08pm
Screwed up on the italicizing process, sorry

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/05/2006 @ 3:09pm
Okay,CPT, we can go there. First, I don't have to show you no stinking badges. And the poverty you think I don't know anything about was what my life was when I was a young man, from the very bottom- total destitution and a life on the street, to a working poverty that I was eventually able to break out of due to a certain facility with words and music that helped me get some arts residencies and opened doors for a life in professional education, which has served me very well. I'm not going to dignify your stupid insistence on the absence of poverty in this country, or even waste breath arguing the obvious with you, but will just say that clearly it is you who knows nothing about poverty if you can make the claims you make about it, or the levels of ignorance and desperation it instills in its victims. I won't say anything more about poverty, but I will comment on the essentially sharkish nature of your profession- military recruitment- which is one which draws the working poor into wars which train the working poor of this country to kill the desperate of other countries. Your work is a total deception that deepens the war on the working poor. I do not idealize poverty, I know how it limits possibilities and helps one hustler after another take their pound of flesh out of people whose options are reduced only by a system which enforces an idea of scarcity which doesn't hold water. I am hostile towards you because that is what you do. I see no reason to be civil, because you uphold barbarism as a form of government. You work for the official warlords, but there is no difference between what you advocate, and the ethics of the Corleone family. Your warlords have official sanction and the blessings of the so-called church, but that does not make them less criminal or hypocritical. Now, there are a good many people here who will view what I've said here as vicious, and let them. This is between you and I. If we were in a room together, I would say these same things to you. You are an enemy of the working poor, you are a class enemy, and your work is one which gets in the way of self-discovery and genuine internal discipline. I do not respect what you do. I will not pretend otherwise in the name of a civility which does not exist between us.

Posted by Legba at 03/05/2006 @ 3:48pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 03/05/2006 @ 2:43pm

they must be on to us now....

so time to talk about trivial crap

i think i may have a hernia - that sucks

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 3:50pm
In short, I have dealt with you and addressed you as I would any wanna be "g" who seeks to hustle my students back out onto the streets. I have no doubt that one day, either the "gangstas" i've alienated while teaching in the inner city will one day blow me out of my shoes, or that I'll end up in some national security camp for speaking against people like you and your agenda. But I say let the chips fall where they may. We are, as you say, at war. I argue for deep democracy, you argue for ersatz democracy. Let us see which will prevail. I may not live to see it, but I know you and your kind are going down.

Posted by Legba at 03/05/2006 @ 3:54pm
seriously, though, LOKI, i'm sure they have constant monitoring search engine like programs which flag certain words, initials, combinations of phrases, for further investigation. that organization i mentioned is almost certainly one they look at...google it (at your own risk) and see what its about. amazing how its #1 domestic terrorist organization, yet u never hear about it. maybe they are afraid it might attain some kind of "jesse james" type fame/notoriety...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 4:14pm
of course we could try an experiment and type in all sorts of flag raising words, phrases and combinations of letters etc ad nauseum and see if we get another shutdown/blockage...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 4:19pm
ok - here goes - ELF ELF ELF ELF earth liberation front, jihad jihad jihad - revolution revolution - world caliphate world caliphate - anarchists cookbook...make bombs...kill president...death to USA...death to george bush islamic jihad kill bomb capitalist pigs al queda hamas IED IED death to america allah al akbar...taliban...hamas....earth liberation front...ELF

reminds me of that umberto eco book, focault's pendulum, where they start cooking up a conspiracy theory and find out its real. i now await the black helicopters and darkened suvs...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 4:42pm
ok - waiting for search engines to flag...give em a few minutes to process...couple more minutes....aw hell - u think its CPT? not some search engine?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 4:46pm
well, looks like all's safe. must have been internet brain fart after all...or CPT's the mole...ha ha ha

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 4:47pm
If Michelman pulls a Nader and helps to re-elect Santorum, I will NEVER give another dime to the pro-choice movement which I have generously supported for many years. While the right to choose is an important issue, it is NOT the only issue that matters!

Posted by mblumberg at 03/05/2006 @ 5:33pm
ibble, you really r nuts! :)

Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2006 @ 5:34pm
Posted by LEGBA 03/05/2006 @ 3:54pm

I like the inference, that recruiters are just state sanctioned 'gangstas'.

This is not a war between nations. It is a civil war. We are just outsourcing the casualties.

-------------------------------------------

"or CPT's the mole"

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/05/2006 @ 4:47pm

The mole? Or a mole?

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/05/2006 @ 5:39pm
You're very right MBLUMBERG,

The right to choose isn't the only issue that matters. Some other issues that matter are ending the Iraq war, expanding stem cell research, universal healthcare, a living wage, gun safety, and opposing far right anti-labor judges like Samuel Alito. Unfortunately Bob Casey Jr. is on the wrong side of all those important issues. He agrees with Santorum on all of these and more :

http://www.chuck2006.com/caseyfacts.asp

This is why it is so crucial for Democrats to support Chuck Pennacchio in the primary because he can beat Santorum. If he wins PA's primary, then Michelman won't run. I have also heard the Green candidate said he woud also drop out if Pennacchio is the candidate. There won't be any "Naders" to spoil the election if we have a progressive Dem running!

Posted by daveinphilly at 03/05/2006 @ 5:40pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 03/05/2006 @ 5:34pm

absolutely out of my mind wacko - hear that, homeland security, nsa? just another crackpot here...nothing to worry about...really rather pathetic...

i notice nobody responded at all for a while, though...ha ha ha

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 5:43pm
Posted by MALCONTENT3 03/05/2006 @ 5:39pm

CPT's thoughts....

"wow - this guys talkin some crazy talk...must report to superiors...might be dangerous...flag him..."

nah - the mole's more likely mask...libertarian my ass...

its not u, frank, is it???? say it aint so...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 5:49pm
Posted by MBLUMBERG 03/05/2006 @ 5:33pm

I understand your frustration, but is Michelman the pro-choice spokesman? Or a woman with her own agenda, which just happens to include being pro-choice?

For the record, I like her agenda (what I have learned of it, anyway.) I don't think the 'playing politics' thing has been working for us progressives.

Alot of people asked,"What are you saving it for?", when nobody filibustered Alito. What are progressives waiting for? How far right, can the whole deal shift before the "liberal" democrats are finally abondoned?

It will take a few election cycles, to get the mainstream to consider a new party. And it will take awhile for the mask-types to actually vote for someone who represents them, instead of someone who's marginally less scary.

When do we start voting for real representatives? And if we on the far left don't, when will left leaning moderates ever think it won't be a wasted vote?

What are we saving it for?

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/05/2006 @ 5:51pm
Posted by MALCONTENT3 03/05/2006 @ 5:51pm

in all fairness, we have to wait til the midterm elections before we can expect anything resembling action on part of congress iin terms of what we really want - bush and cheney impeached...then on trial...(i would say "heads on poles" but that might get me flagged...)

til then continue the screeching for action, continue the irritating chiding of our leaders, bug and bother until they get the idea that this is what they have to do...there are a lot of non fundyvangelist, non neocon, pubs who are almost ready to jump...but there must be some success in these upcoming elections

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 6:02pm
you have a great point daveinphilly about all the little splinter groups giving pennacchio their backing. if many diverse groups, with their different perspectives, find a candidate appealing, they must be a good candidate.

Posted by loveloki at 03/05/2006 @ 6:04pm
Again, I don't think third party politics is an either/or proposition. People who want to see a third party emerge should work inside the mainstream parties if they know they have nominated a candidate that's worth a vote. But by the same token, third party advocates should be building, discussion groups, action groups that host community forums, present pressure on the "real" parties, and make enough serious contacts on the inside to split off energies and bring people in who help a third party effort gain critical mass. One does not preclude the other. But putting all eggs in the election basket is as bankrupt as voting for sectarian splinters that can't win. It's two steps forward, one step back.

Posted by Legba at 03/05/2006 @ 6:21pm
our system is not well suited for 3rd parties...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/05/2006 @ 8:45pm
I think third parties are a dead end. The only hope is reviving the Democratic Party, getting it in touch with its liberal FDR roots. And if that fails to win at the ballot box, then so be it.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/05/2006 @ 8:59pm
2 points

1. Before you guys keep the Jimmy Carter love-fest going....Remember, two weeks ago now, he came out in SUPPORT of the Dubai Ports deal.

2. As for Michelman, 3rd parties, etc....She takes votes away from Bob Casey, Jr.....period. Maybe not fatally so, after all, John Anderson was a blip that didn't hurt Reagan OR Carter. But for someone who bemoaned the "Nader Effect" in 2000, I am amazed that Mr Nichols doesn't SERIOUSLY consider the "down-side"!

Posted by Mask at 03/05/2006 @ 10:41pm
How DARE Kate Michelman even consider running against our wonderful precious democrat party! Is that even legal?!? Who cares about choice? THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS WINNING! WE MUST OUTLAW ALL THIRD PARTIES NOW!!! TRIANGULATE! TRIANGULATE!

Posted by AlanSmithee at 03/05/2006 @ 10:55pm
http://www.catalystmagazine.net/issues/story.cfm?story=475

The Cult of Leo Strauss: Leo Strauss Could his broken heart have been the seed the grew into the war against Iraq? By Kitty Clark

The celebrated philosopher-king of the neoconservatives forging America's radical new foreign policy was a controversial philosophy professor at the University of Chicago. Leo Strauss, who died in 1973, was little known outside of academic and think-tank circles until this year, but the influence of his ideas has long been felt.

"Why are so many Straussians in the Reagan Administration?" asked Newsweek in a 1987 article titled "The Cult of Leo Strauss." "Some of their critics suggest that the brotherhood is committed to no less than halting the drift of modern democracy." The Straussians, observed historian Gordon S. Wood in the New York Review of Books the following year, are the biggest phenomenon in 20th-century academia.

Strauss' ideas emerge from his life experience. Strauss fled Nazi Germany for the safety of America in 1937, and blamed not fascism but the Weimar Republic's liberal democratic ideals for permitting the rise of Nazism. A classicist, he taught the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Nietzsche and Hobbes, instructing his students to look for secret "codes" in the texts. Truth, he believed, was the preserve of an elite few who might have to tell "noble lies" - an idea he lifted from Plato - to the uncomprehending masses. Are political entities, asked the charismatic Strauss, "not compelled to use force and fraud... if they are to prosper?"

"'Weapons of mass destruction' would be a noble lie," says Shadia Drury, a scholar who has written two books on Strauss, "because you're convinced this [war on Iraq] is the right thing to do and you are the wise few, the elite, who are leading the stupid masses, and the stupid masses aren't going to agree to sacrifice their lives for nothing - for the glory of the nation - unless their own survival is at stake." So you tell them their own survival is at stake.

Strauss believed that democracy, however flawed, was best defended by an ignorant public pumped up on nationalism and religion. Only a militantly nationalist state could deter human aggression, and since most people were naturally self-absorbed and hedonistic, Strauss believed that the only way to transform them was to make them love their nation enough to die for it. Such nationalism requires an external threat - and if one cannot be found, it must be manufactured.

While not bound by religion himself, Strauss rather cynically promoted religion as a tool to maintain an acquiescent population. Authority and discipline are key values for Straussians, and the masses need religion to keep them in line. "Marx called religion the opium of the people," says Drury. "Strauss thought the people needed their opium."

Neoconservatism has more complex roots than just the ideas of Leo Strauss, but it's hard to ignore the uncanny similarities between Straussian thought and the decisions emanating from the Bush administration, where many of the neoconservatives in charge of foreign policy were taught by Strauss or his students. Many of the major players occupying the White House are descendants of the Jewish-American New York intellectuals who veered from the radical left (anti-Stalinist Trotskyism of the 1920s and '30s) to the radical right (hence the "neo"). In between, they were allies of McCarthy in the fight against communism, and later joined the Reagan administration. They have nothing but contempt for the free-thinking idealism of the 1960s, with its emphasis on social equality (Strauss argued that the strong are fit to rule; the weak to be ruled), opposition to war (force is important and necessary), and feminism (Plato's "philosopher-kings" are, by definition, men). But it wasn't until the presidency of George W. Bush that they ascended to the pinnacle of power, bringing their ideas with them.

"In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town [of Washington, DC]: the belief in war against Iraq," wrote Ari Shavit in Ha'aretz, Israel's leading daily newspaper, in April 2003. "That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals... people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history."

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to Ari Shavit: "This is a war of an elite." Laughing: "I could give you the names of 25 people - all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office - who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened."

Posted by plunger at 03/06/2006 @ 05:30am
http://proliberty.com/observer/20000906.htm

From the September 2000 Idaho Observer:

RAND analyst admits Defense Secretary fits profile of domestic terrorist?

"Astute observation" begs question: "Who are the real terrorists?"

The Department of Defense's definition of terrorism is:

"The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or try to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological."

"All acts of terrorism are politically motivated,"

"Why would Cohen, who has access to all chemical/biological weapons intelligence data, including that disseminated by RAND, scare the public with the imminence of a chemical/biological threat? Is he not mirroring the intent of 'terrorists' to leave a specific impression on a gullible public," asked Don Harkins of The Idaho Observer.

Chalk gave a thoughtful and lengthy answer to Harkins' question. Chalk explained that Cohen's public announcement was undoubtedly prompted by lobbyists who used the Clinton cabinet member as political leverage to fund their anti-terrorism programs and research.

"Earlier today Dr. Hoffman stated that 'all terrorist acts are politically motivated.' What you just described to me is that Cohen's threat of imminent chemical or biological attack was politically motivated. How, then, is Defense Secretary Cohen's behavior different from what you guys have described as that of a domestic terrorist?" Harkins asked.

With a smile that seemed to say, "touchet," Chalk said, "Your observation is very astute."

Posted by plunger at 03/06/2006 @ 05:31am
HUDSON INSTITUTE:

Meyrav Wurmser, an opponent of the Oslo peace accords and a central neoconservative figure, is a senior fellow at the right-wing Hudson Institute and a columnist for the Conrad Black-owned Jerusalem Post.

In 1996 she helped write a report for Israel's Likud party that urged Israel to break off then-ongoing peace initiatives. The report, which was titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" and was published by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (an Israeli- and DC-based think tank) advised then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "to work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back" regional threats, help overthrow Saddam Hussein, and strike "Syrian military targets in Lebanon" and possibly in Syria proper. Coauthors of the report included Richard Perle, David Wurmser, and Douglas Feith. (6)

She also cofounded with Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in the Israeli military intelligence, the Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI). According to Jim Lobe, MEMRI specializes in translating and distributing "particularly virulent anti-U.S. and anti-Israel articles appearing in the Arab press to key U.S. media and policymakers." (8)

According to her Hudson Institute bio, Wurmser "helped to educate policymakers about the Palestinian Authority two-track approach to ‘negotiating peace' with Israel: calling for peace in the English press and with western policymakers while inciting hatred and violence through official Arab language media."

Although it describes itself as "non-partisan," MEMRI–which has offices in London, Washington, Jerusalem, and Berlin–has frequently been accused of being nothing more than a propaganda outfit of Israeli intelligence. According the Guardian, which dug up deleted pages from MEMRI's web site through the internet archive, "Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three–including [Yigal] Carmon–are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence. Among the other three, one served in the Israeli army's Northern Command Ordnance Corps, one has an academic background, and the sixth is a former stand-up comedian." (10)

The Guardian's Brian Whitaker also reported: "Although Memri claims that it does provide translations from Hebrew media, I can't recall receiving any. Evidence from Memri's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status. Besides supporting liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market, the institute also emphasises ‘the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel'. That is what its website used to say, but the words about Zionism have now been deleted. The original page, however, can still be found in internet archives." (10)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1394

Posted by plunger at 03/06/2006 @ 05:33am
http://theunjustmedia.com/Jewish%20Zionists/Israel's%20Sacred%20Terroris m.htm

http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/zionist_plan_for_the_m iddle_east.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHI20050 920&articleId=982

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=242

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring2.html

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/315296.shtml

http://www.counterpunch.com/rajiva02252006.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1476913/posts

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/184FCB4A-39BD-4A0A-B38B-81FCFBD95 1BE.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/260206mosquebombing.ht m

http://www.middleeast.org/read.cgi?category=Magazine&num=1342&standalone =0&month=2&year=2006&function=text

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/32647

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/8.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html

And then...a few weeks later...

http://www.anthraxattacks.net/the-anthrax-mystery-solved.htm http://www.public-action.com/911/sams.html

http://www.sundayherald.com/37707

http://web.archive.org/web/20011108025936/http:/www.bergen.com/news/2bom bvan200109125.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20021003225412/http:/abcnews.go.com/sections/ 2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html

http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15114089&BRD=1672&PAG=46 1&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

Now can you help me out with a plausible explanation for this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

And this official DEA report:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/deareportisraelispying.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/Artstudents.htm

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/dancing-israelis-on-911.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/enron/2002-06-17-chertoff.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/enron/2002-06-17-andersen.htm

http://www.madcowprod.com/01122004.html

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66175

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/332303.shtml

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/308911.shtml

Posted by plunger at 03/06/2006 @ 05:37am
Posted by ALANSMITHEE 03/05/2006 @ 10:55pm | ignore this person

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/06/2006 @ 12:30am | ignore this person

ALAN and ZERO,

Doesn't it worry you a BIT, that a rabid "pro-lifer" like LVLIB WANTS Michelman to run too?

Posted by Mask at 03/06/2006 @ 07:39am
MASK

Don't you ever get tired of getting a steaming pile of democrat turds dumped on you every two years? Have you begun to like it?

Posted by AlanSmithee at 03/06/2006 @ 08:05am
Posted by ALANSMITHEE 03/06/2006 @ 08:05am

mask is a scat freak

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 08:11am
Actually, I'm not a Democrat...or a liberal...so no, ALAN.

I LIKED Clinton, Clintonism, and wish it would return in 2008. My whole point in all of this was the IDIOCY of a Michelman run, especially after the blatent example of what it could do....i.e. Ralph Nader in 2000.

Posted by Mask at 03/06/2006 @ 08:45am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/06/2006 @ 08:11am | ignore this person

Ok, IBBLE....care to tell me what EXACTLY I've done to deserve a personal attack?

Posted by Mask at 03/06/2006 @ 08:46am
Posted by MASK 03/06/2006 @ 08:46am |

your the mole! (all in good humor, my friend)

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 09:00am
Posted by MASK 03/06/2006 @ 08:46am |

steaming pile of democratic turds...fly encrusted republican festering excrement? a matter of taste?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 09:03am
Posted by MASK 03/06/2006 @ 08:46am

no personal attack intended - jeez - i feel bad now...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 09:33am
Okay, okay....."The Mole"?

Wasn't that the first super-villian the Fantastic Four fought?

Too geeky?

Posted by Mask at 03/06/2006 @ 09:57am
To any of the pro-Michelman posters:

Besides her stance on abortion (which I support), what OTHER positions does she take that warrant our vote? Without Googling, can anyone name a few? Re: "What's Wrong With Kansas?" the Left is perplexed that Republican voters vote on singular social issues like abortion/gay marriage, at the expense of others.

How is this any different?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/06/2006 @ 10:00am
Too geeky?

Posted by MASK 03/06/2006 @ 09:57am

not at all - just different geek genre than me...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 10:01am
what is your genre, ibble?

Posted by loveloki at 03/06/2006 @ 11:54am
Double Standards on Foreign Owners: Amdocs vs. DP World by Lila Rajiva www.dissidentvoice.org March 1, 2006

In December 2001, Fox TV broadcast a four-part investigation on Israeli espionage by Carl Cameron, which the Israeli embassy in Washington, JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), and AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee) immediately denied and attacked. (1)

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar06/Rajiva01.htm

JINSA rewards American Militarism:

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/136 6/documentid/3340/history/3,2359,2166,1366,3340

http://nowarforisrael.com/

http://www.mediamonitors.net/johnhenshaw1.html

Posted by plunger at 03/06/2006 @ 12:11pm
Why can't the Democrats avoid this problem altogether by bailing the sinking Casey ship and helping Pennacchio win the primary in May?

The Zogby poll shows that Pennacchio has a better chance of beating Santorum than Casey does once people learn about what a Santorum-clone Casey is. It's not just the choice issue - there are a lot of issues with Casey that progressives and "true" Democrats won't agree with - support of the Patriot Act, the war was a good thing, stay the course, and on and on and on...

We, the voters, don't have to go along with the PA Democratic party leadership & DNC's dismal decision to make Casey our candidate in the first place. Go out and vote for Pennacchio in the primary, and Michelman won't feel the need to enter the race.

Posted by blueknoblibby at 03/06/2006 @ 12:45pm
Posted by BLUEKNOBLIBBY 03/06/2006 @ 12:45am | ignore this person

I think because they're too fully committed to Junior Casey at this point....to dump him would risk alienating HIS supporters, and possibly raise questions like "What was WRONG with Bob Jr. that he got dumped for this guy?"

Of course, they could pull a "Paul Hackett" and cut Casey's donor base and run Pennacchio.

I guess you'd have to ask the person in charge of the DNC.....not Dean....referring to Reid and Schumer!

Posted by Mask at 03/06/2006 @ 1:02pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 03/06/2006 @ 11:54am

a diligent search will reveal

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 2:01pm
ZERO:

Try 30+ years. It's closer to the truth.

Posted by jorcheim at 03/06/2006 @ 3:08pm
Posted by ZERO 03/06/2006 @ 2:44pm | ignore this person

Curious, ZERO...how many of the electorate do YOU feel falls between yourself (a "pure progressive") and the first Republican to the Left?

IOW, what percentage makes up "true progressives", "Republican-lites" and Republicans?

Posted by Mask at 03/06/2006 @ 3:20pm
Zero:

I agree with your critique of Casey (and I would vote for Pennacchio if I were in PA). Nonetheless, Michelman should have thrown her hat in the ring during the primary, or should now use her energy in support of Pennacchio. The democratic VOTERS in PA will speak during the primaries. If they support an admittedly anti-choice Casey in the face of a pro-choice primary candidate, what does that tell you about what Dem voters in PA want, or where they rank the abortion issue? What does a third-party run accomplish? Just another Republican win with a warning for all democratic voters to "think like me on all issues, or else." Sorry, but I cannot agree that it is somehow all the fault of the Wahington power brokers in the DLC - pulling the strings. You make it seem as if any voters for Casey are brainwashed. They are given a choice in the primaries. Michelman should have taken part if she is such a great candidate.

I understand your feelings on national Dems, but if shaping the Dems through force is your goal, just look at what voting Nader in 2000 gave us in 2004 - John Kerry. Do you think this strategy is really playing out? How about trying to change the Democratic Party positively from the inside rather than through negative losses on the outside? I live in Mass, and we have a good example of this in the governor's race. Deval Patrick is a pretty liberal candidate by any measure, and has come out of nowhere to be in a very tight primary campaign against A.G. Tom Reilly (definitely, the "establishment" candidate, and much more "moderate").

Posted by Hman23 at 03/06/2006 @ 3:22pm
Zero:

Out of curiosity, who did you vote for in the 2004 Democratic Presidential primary?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/06/2006 @ 3:32pm
MASK:

That question, regarding how many people fall between the "progressive" end of the spectrum and the "first" Republican to the left ignores a number of realities about people.

First, politics is less a one dimensional spectrum than a multi-dimensional space. Only our voting laws dictate such a spectrum that you reference. Most people with whom I have spoken (providing they are intelligent self-analytical), regardless of political hue, have views on various issues which jump all around your so-called political spectrum. Hence pro-choice Republicans and anti-abortion Democrats, etc. etc. Our winner-take-all system of elections is a highly anti-democratic style of representation. As any student of political science will tell you, the rules of the game dictate how and by whom that game is played. Hence, while we have 2 generally viable/electable parties, we have a multitude of political positions, most of which are never truly represented.

I take umbrage with your question, as it needlessly simplifies this issue.

Posted by jorcheim at 03/06/2006 @ 3:37pm
PS:

I do live in PA, and I won't be voting for Casey, even though I happen to know the man.

Posted by jorcheim at 03/06/2006 @ 3:38pm
In contrast to Zero's call to change the Dems from the top-down, I would suggest anyone wanting to "retake" the Democratic Party to take an alternative route, from the bottom-up:

1. Work for more progressive candidates at lower levels of local and state government.

2. Take a more active role in statewide Democratic primaries. Volunteer for progressive candidates during the primary season. Get the message you want out there among Democratic voters. Make them understand the choices within.

3. Obviously, vote in the primaries.

4. If "your" candidate does not win the nomination, do not act like a petulant child and sink the Democratic nominee during the general election in some vain attempt to "teach Democrats a lesson" - unless you want a Republican in office for the next term. Don't take your ball and go home. Ask yourself what went wrong, why didn't Democratic voters nominate my candidate, and work from there.

Sorry, Zero, I often agree with the positions you take on particular policies, but I could not disagree more with your 2:44 post. You say "vote third party, whenever the democrats fail to offer a candidate who represents you." The VOTERS select the candidate in the primaries - not some national democratic entity. So your anger is really with those "stupid" primary voters, isn't it? Who put John Kerry up in 2004? Democratic voters in the primaries. Who will put Casey up if he wins? Democratic voters.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/06/2006 @ 4:02pm
HMAN23:

I prefer to vote for the person who is going to represent my interests. If there is no one who will do that sufficiently, I don't vote. If the Democrats want my vote, they have to earn it, not count on it like they do with the union votes.

Posted by jorcheim at 03/06/2006 @ 4:10pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 03/06/2006 @ 3:37pm | ignore this person

Sorry, no umbrage intended....I'm a classic example of that myself....voted Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Kerry and all over the place on House and Senate.

But ZERO seems to feel that he represents "something" "the majority of Democrats", I don't know what....and I'm curious as to where he catagorizes the REST.

This "re-take the Democratic Party" thing seems to be based on the idea that "progressives" are the MAJORITY and that a MINORITY of "Republican-lites" has control over the Party and need to be ousted or atleast marginalized.

Is it POSSIBLE that the "real progressives" are simply a minority within the Democratic Party and the "DINOs" are the majority....and if not, what percentage does each make up?

Posted by Mask at 03/06/2006 @ 4:14pm
Jorcheim:

You live in PA. Does Pennacchio represent your interests? If so and you vote that way in primaries, but more people vote for Casey, how is that the fault of the "democrats" rather than the voters who made their choice?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/06/2006 @ 4:15pm
MASK:

To reference post from other blogs on this site, the Democratic party doesn't represent the majority of those who are actually registered Democrats. Again, it pays lip service. And sure, many people may think that it does, in fact represent them. But make no mistake. The party represents those who provide the money to get its candidates elected. Period.

Posted by jorcheim at 03/06/2006 @ 4:16pm
HMAN23:

I never assigned fault. I simply stated my plans. To answer your question, yes, Pennacchio more closely represents my views than Casey. But he still falls short on a number of issues. I haven't decided if I will vote for him in the primaries yet. I am still waiting to hear him flesh out a few more of his positions before I take the plunge. But I refuse to vote "party line" like a sheep (re: Republicans) just so I can have a shot at being on the winning team.

Posted by jorcheim at 03/06/2006 @ 4:19pm
Jorcheim:

Not suggesting you vote for the Democratic front runner or the choice of Democratic insiders, just trying to get from people how the Democratic party itself is to blame here. You vote for your candidate and I respect that (I also respect voting none of the above, if you feel that way). But, if a progressive candidate IS in the primary field, gets your vote, but does not win the nomination, the Democratic Party somehow is deserves a spanking (like Zero suggests)?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/06/2006 @ 4:41pm
Posted by MASK 03/06/2006 @ 4:14pm

down here in hillbilly heights, a strange dem/green/LIBERTARIAN alliance is beginning to stir and arise, swampthinglike, from the miasma of the non pub juggernaut opposition. furthermore, mccain pubs are getting arrogantly pushed around and bullied by the obverse democratic fascists, and getting as tired of it as senator spectre and mccain...i tell you all, a few well placed kicks at the foundation could soon bring the whole shoddy rotten structure crashing down.

i remember 2000, when bush operatives whispered rumors that the mccain's adopted daughter (of pakistani descent) was the illicit love child of mccain and a black woman, u know, all strom thurmond-like...how has mccain been able to stomach the fleas he's been scratching since bedding with these wolves? he has been biding his time...

we are approaching here, heavan willing, a massive "have you no decency" moment...the good news is that the incredible arrogance of the ODF's is blinding them, not only to the growing popular electoral revolution, but to the sound of daggers being sharpened within their own party. this is the flip side of my earlier alarmist rants...

even some modest success (and we might be suprised at how immodest it will be) this november may result in impeachment being only the beginning for the incompetant dilletante and his wickedly cunning handlers...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 5:01pm
HMAN23:

No, not at all. The Democratic party deserves no punishment if it is up front with its voters about what their true interests and platform are.

My issue is, it is not. The party is simply relying upon its generally (but certainly not universal) progressive history to win elections. Essentially, the Democratic party is trying to have it both ways. And this is why they keep losing elections. As I have said in previous posts, the issue here is not how bad the Democratic party has become at representing the populist issues of our day. The issue is how badly the system itself fails to provide a forum and representation for a wide variety of views, instead of the generally pro-business views with which we are inundated constantly.

Posted by jorcheim at 03/06/2006 @ 5:04pm
if pennachio loses to casey, perhaps zero and others have a point about voting 3rd party...i mean, if casey and santorum are no different, except in official party, whats the point voting casey? a strong progressive 3rd candidate might just be able to garner the plurality needed...34% if all's even.

which of course, brings us to a far greater, more all encompassing topic - the need to change our system so as to allow the real possibility of third, even fourth party candidates to be elected. the green party has some excellent ideas that get poo-pooed by all the conventional wisdom retarded geniuses, such as ranked votes, at large representative election, and immediate run off elections to assure majority vote winning candidates...our constitution is not so inviolable as to be unamendable (for something other than stupidities like anti-gayness or flag burning - thanks hillary rotten for showing what an idiotic panderer u really are on that last issue).

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 5:12pm
IBBLEBIBBLE:

Exceptional points. I agree 100%.

Posted by jorcheim at 03/06/2006 @ 5:14pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 03/06/2006 @ 5:14pm

the question is...just how deeply do the obverse democratic fascists (a catch all umbrella for both amoral ayn rand economic nihilists and cromwellian medievalist fundyvangelists) have their insidious roots planted? their control of the media is the most dangerous aspect of their machine, but i suspect that those good old fashioned country clubber pubs who have been tacitly kissing their asses in fair weather, may be ready to jump ship (or more accurately, bloodily mutiny) and lord help the arrogant bastards then...eventually we must also re-enact the kind of media reforms and regulations dismantled in the late 80's/early 90's that have allowed the morphing of a once fairly accurate, independent, and dispersed news providing media, into a privately owned propaganda and pop culturally lobotomizing machine too - but lets keep that one quiet for now and hope some of the almost reasonable media giants do indeed mutiny...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 5:28pm
IBBLEBIBBLE:

Again, you are right on the money.

As an aside, regarding your reference to Ayn Rand, were you aware that our now Fed Chairman Emeritus was a very close confidant of Ms. Rand?

Posted by jorcheim at 03/06/2006 @ 5:31pm
I don't know for sure and from what I read about him, I am not pro-Casey, but I have a hard time believing that there is NO difference between Santorum and Casey. So, if it is ok in the primaries to vote for someone who is closer to your views (even if not 100% in line), what is the problem with doing that in the general election, rather than risk someone even farther from your views from winning?

I was not a huge fan of Al Gore in 2000, but can anyone on the Left honestly say that we would not have been better with him, than with GW? Was the direction our county took worth it to people who thought Gore was not the perfect candidate for them?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/06/2006 @ 5:33pm
HMAN23:

I can see your point, and sometimes I wish I could act accordingly. However, voting for Democrats, especially the "New Democrats" of which Clinton, Gore, and Kerry were the archtypes, simply encourages them. Perhaps we needed this period under Dubya to mess up everything in this country, undo decades of progress in so many areas, to reawaken the progressives in this country who have been rest on their laurels for so long. I personally strongly considered voting for Bush in the last election, for that precise reason. I personally don't think things are bad enough in this country yet for people to realize just how wrong the neo-cons and Republicans and the neo-Dems are for this country. There is a reason the US became a beacon for hope for so many around the world. And it's not because of our recent penchant for fascism.

Posted by jorcheim at 03/06/2006 @ 5:37pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 03/06/2006 @ 5:31pm

oh yeah - i have heard that - no big suprise...smoke and mirrors...smoke and mirrors...

how much longer can the economy operate on smoke and mirrors economics, regardless of how adept the illusionist is? this is what scares me the most, ultimately, this 1929esque investment driven gigantic self delusionary confidence game...when all manufacturing base is cheaplaborized and shipped overseas, how will we make our tanks, helicopters, and computers? what exatly are we making, and if, as some smoke and mirrorites suggest, we are being bouyed by all the foriegn investment and the need for foriegn sales to savenothing american consumers, what happens when once economic backwater nations are wealthy enough to buy their own products, and the average american consumer is so economically marginalized as to be unable to afford the gigatons of plastic crap sold at big boxmart? how attractive an investment will imperial mammonland be for these foriegners who supposedly need us soooo much then?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 5:44pm
So yes, try to change the rules so third and fourth party candidates actually have a shot in the general election. Try to convince voters to nominate more liberal candidates during the primaries. Try to elect more liberal politicians to local and state politics as well. But, if you do not get your perfect liberal nominee don't sit it out or protest vote giving Republicans a win. In general, does anyone who wants to change the system think it will be any easier with Republicans in control of the rules?

JORCHEIM:

I feel your frustration, trust me. I guess some of us just disagree on tactics. Maybe I am being a bit naive, but my opinion is to try and change the Democratic party from the inside, rather than inflicting the "pain" of electoral losses from the outside (picking your battles, so to speak). Simply put, I think the latter strategy actually moves the Democratic Party to the right, rather than the left. And I would rather not have to hope that things get so bad first.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/06/2006 @ 5:48pm
However, voting for Democrats, especially the "New Democrats" of which Clinton, Gore, and Kerry were the archetypes, simply encourages them.

Kerry was not, and is not, a "new Democrat." He is somewhat of a genuine, old-fashioned FDR liberal that the Democratic Party needs. Further he (an outright Liberal) cane relatively close to beating Bush!

Yes Clinton and Gore and Lieberman are "New Democrats," but NOT John Kerry. He is a real deal liberal! (And I love him for it!)

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/06/2006 @ 5:53pm
u know, i remember some pundits, years ago, comparing the moribund soviet union to pre ww1 austria hungary, a sprawling amalgamation of diverse nationalities unified under a bassackwards economic system. perhaps we are comparable to the spanish empire, who mined their vast conquests for precious minerals, failed to develop an economic system that would produce wealth withot such resources, and squandered all of said wealth purchasing weapons and manufactured goods from the very economically advanced nations that eventually completely eclipsed and marginalized them...like us, they were a nation of arrogant, intransigent, kings and queens. with less than half the population of france, spain had 4 or 5 times the number of nobility as france (the very surname "hidalgo" meant a "minor noble") and eventualy spain, as well as all of her possessions were flooded with titled mendicants, too proud too sully their own hands with grubby labor, contributing nothing to productive economy, obsessed with form over substance. i the modrn usa, we have no noble titles, thereby encouraging FAR MORE self styled kings and queens...thus the need for low paid hard working grunt immigrants as well as high paid, hard working technically trained intellects, since science and engineering has become way to time consuming and hard for our little princes and princesses...and look how we squander our "silver", our industrial/manufacturing base, outsourcing it to wiser, harder working nations such as china...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 5:59pm
FRANK THOMAS:

I think Kerry WAS that sort of FDR Democrat. I don't believe he is now. He's too much of a beltway insider for that. As much as I wish it weren't the case.

Posted by jorcheim at 03/06/2006 @ 6:08pm
Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/06/2006 @ 5:53pm |

no - he's a "progressive" frank - liberal = stupid-bad-thing-i-cant-otherwise-define....

i hate 2 say it, but THEY have succeeded in irrevocably destroying that L word...

i agree, though, kerry was not so far away from victory as to discount the old traditions of fdr...

wes clark for pres, 08 (at least for now)

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 6:09pm
actually, you know, the dems could do far stupider than to begin a resurrection of the fdr mystique...there MUST be some (or many) hollywood lib...uh i mean progressive, like george clooney, out there who could be quietly pursuaded to help out, to churn out true yet deifiying material on the man, who i consider the greates american president ever - and dare the odf's to try to sully that sanctified paragon who makes them look so petty and grubby....

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 6:17pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/06/2006 @ 6:17pm | ignore this person

I like it. Let's see, who could play FDR in a movie? How about Anthony Hopkins?

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/06/2006 @ 8:12pm
who could play FDR in a movie? How about Anthony Hopkins?

Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/06/2006 @ 8:12pm

nixon? lol great actor

hmmmm...richard gear...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 8:36pm
Posted by ZERO 03/06/2006 @ 8:53pm

ok ok already - lay off poor frank - he was kind of happy there...lol...just joshing, frank...

jeez, arent they ALL "new democrats" though? i mean, in an effort to distance themselves from the party of rooseveldt (which appeals strongly to most of schmuk nation, by the way) havent they all called themselves something other than what they are? hell - zel foaming at the mouth fascist miller called himself a democrat. does he still?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 9:13pm
"Third Way" instead of left-right debate.

i'll have 2 check that out, but not such a bad tactic...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 9:21pm
kerry is about as "new democrat" as it gets Posted by ZERO 03/06/2006 @ 8:47pm | ignore this person

You are mad.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/06/2006 @ 9:24pm
Kerry was given the VERY highest rating by the ADL, remember? (The liberal group.) Remember, how much was made of that during the campaign? (He was called "ultra-liberal" and so on?)

Well, thats because he WAS (and is) a liberal!

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/06/2006 @ 9:28pm
Well, thats because he WAS (and is) a liberal!

Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/06/2006 @ 9:28pm

ok frank, liberal is ok for here, i guess, but try to get used to "progressive". i hate doublespeak, but this is the nature of the beast...lol

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 9:33pm
If John Kerry isn't a liberal, the I'll eat my hat.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/06/2006 @ 9:33pm
If John Kerry isn't a liberal, then I am going to have to start over, from scratch. I will have to concede that I just don't know a fucking thing about American politics, about American, about anything at all political.

Perhaps all those years in college studying political science were just a total waste of time? Because I (evidently) don't even know what the hell a liberal is!

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/06/2006 @ 9:36pm
Ibble,

I like the word "liberal" for two basic reasons:

1) We need to try and rescue it from the near-fatal beating it has taken from the right; we need to remind the American people that it is a GOOD word, which stand for GOOD things that have benfitted all Americans tremendously.

2) Because it is what I am! I am an FDR liberal; it's what I am, it says what I represent and stand for and believe in and hold dear.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/06/2006 @ 9:40pm
And I left out reason number 3) because it has the connotation of being slightly to the right of "progressive." "Progressive" implies a bit to somewhat further to the left of center than a mere "liberal." To me, "liberal" means basically the left half of center, whereas, "progressive" means (or rather, includes) radical leftists and socialists and so on, which I am definitely NOT. Theerefore, liberal (as distinct from progressive) more accurately describes what I AM.

Those are the 3 reasons I prefer to refer to myself as a "liberal" as opposed to a "progressive."

Not that I am NOT a progressive, but that liberal is more specific.

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/06/2006 @ 9:43pm
I am a Pennsylvanian, and I am familiar with Ms. Michelman. I cannot imagine supporting her candidacy. As some of you have written, this would have the effect of Nader in the 2000 presidential campaign -- sucking crucial votes away from the Dem who is the only one who could win the election from the Republican.

I'm reading Crashing the Gate by Jerome Armstrong and Markos (Kos) Zuniga which I hope many Progressives will study. As they point out, when Langevin ran for Senate from Connecticut, Kate Michelman and NARAL (and NOW) withdrew support because he doesn't support abortion rights. BUT he was very strong -- nearly 100% -- in his ratings for other big Dem issues.

As Armstrong and Kos underscore, it would be far better to build towards a Dem majority again even with a few anti-choice people. That is greatly preferable to keeping Republicans in the majority and voting against reproductive rights. A few pro-lifers is better than R-incumbents continuing to vote the Bush agenda. With a Dem majority, the anti-abortion issue is less likely to come to a vote.

Posted by bonitap at 03/06/2006 @ 9:47pm
Of course, being a liberal in here, in the Nation blogs, makes me a rare bird. There are the variety of socialists, radical leftists, moderate leftists, left-liberal hybrids, etc, and then, the right-wing people (various degrees thereof).

I may be the only authentic, outright liberal, in the true old fashioned sense of the word, who comes here. And -- believe me, as I learned in college -- it's not easy being a liberal; you get it from both sides. In fact, some radical leftists seem to hate liberals MORE than rightists do! (I have theories as to why, but I won't go into them here.)

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/06/2006 @ 9:57pm
FRANK

Given THESE guys.....ready to concede my earlier point???

Posted by Mask at 03/06/2006 @ 10:06pm
Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/06/2006 @ 9:57pm

Just to clarify, because you implied in an earlier post. I also consider myself a liberal. I used to think of myself as a libertarian, til the fundyvangelistic crowd tainted the word.

I actually used to worry about 'big government'. But of late have come to realise that 'big government' is here to stay. So I have a choice of big benevolent government, or big government for the elite.

Oddly, I think I am like the folks who say, getting rid of bushco and enforcing the constitution are first. Then we go after corporate governance. (We already have 'regulated capitalism'. Just the big corps. are making the 'regulations'.)

I just don't think 'conventional political wisdom' (i.e. work within the existing system for change), has worked, any time in recent history.

The whole dem/rep system, is broken. Who says we should only have two parties anyway? I believe more Americans would get representation, if we didn't have to choose between two, barely distinguishable, out of touch corporate shills.

We may get some progress that way, but we've too far to go to fuck around. Vote for a real leader. Vote your conscience. Be an American (In the classic, individualistic way we love to pretend we are, because it's the 'in thing' to believe.)

Not 'love it or leave it', but 'live it or leave it'.

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 03/06/2006 @ 10:49pm
FRANK

gee, i don't know man...i understand where u are coming from, but i don't think anything short of another great depression and complete and utter discrediting of the neocon propaganda monstrosity is ever going to rescue the term "liberal", at least in my part of the country...

for me the term "progressive" is actually more accurate, implying that the policies of our opponants are "regressive", and in fact the modern american definition of liberal, as opposed to the classical definition of the term (which more accurately describes libertarian/republican modes of thought) implies progressivism, or a commitment to positive change, as opposed to the opposite...

we progressives/liberals/democratic socialists/whatever we wish to callourselves or each other MUST realize the semantic, sophistic traps our enemies have laid out for us and respond skillfully...

perhaps your right - stick to your guns - i admire that, though we have tried this before and been made the fool of oh so often...

furthermore, i see in the term "progressive", the possibility of attracting/allyig with moderate, common sense republicans - we both revere FDR, but in terms of policy, eisenhower was about identical, in terms of policy, to FDR...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 10:53pm
Ibble.

I understand you too. You make some good arguments fur using the word "progressive." There are pros and cons.

But what really got me was your last section about Eisenhower and Roosevelt! How do you think/say they were similar? They faced totally different worlds. FDR fought fascism, and Eisenhower fought the Cold War. Too very different realities. (It seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges.)

Ok, now I get you; you think Ike -- unlike Bush, but like FDR -- was a moderate, pragmatic, work with allies, foreign policy President. You are probably right on that one. But then again, compared to Bush, EVERY President was like FDR and Ike that way. (I used to think Ronald Reagan was a gung-ho miltarist, but compared to Bush, even he is Mahatma Gandhi.) So, if you mean that Ike and FDR were similar because they were moderate and reasonable people compared to Bush-that might not be the greatest achievement in the world.

Malcontent,

I believe in big government. Unabashedly. "Big Government" gave us Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the Centers for Disease Control, the Interstate Highway Program, the (somewhat to largely successful) "war on poverty," and on and on and on....I don't "worry" about big govt at all; it isnt the enemy. The enemy is excessive concentrated wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. The enemy is championing values of greed and materialism above basic human needs. The enemy is people working like dogs at crap wages. The enemy is people working very hard and (unlike they used to, when the "American Dream" actually meant something) not getting ahead anymore. The enemy is corporations stealing the funds of old ladies. The enemy is the national shame that we are the only industrialized western nation without national health. The enemy is theocrats who want to subvert out Constitution. The enemy is war mongers who think war is the "solution" to every problem and don't give a tinkers damn about international laws or the opinion of humanity.

Now, here's the interesting thing: "big government" is THE SOLUTION (or one of the KEY solutions) to virtually ALL those problems! Liberals believe in Big Government. (I know I do!) Government can be a tremendous force for good. 20th Century liberalism proved that.

In short, I truly believe in big government; it's not out of some fatalism, but to me, that is actually the IDEAL. Use govt as a force for good, to SERVE the common good. It works!

Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/06/2006 @ 11:30pm
Frank,

"In short, I truly believe in big government;..It works! "

Where does it work efficiently? Eventually it will get to big and consume more and more cash from those who pay the bills that those who are taxed will quit..and it will crash. The "ineffientcancy" of scale will kill it off.

Posted by john maasch at 03/06/2006 @ 11:50pm
Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/06/2006 @ 11:30pm

well, it WAS ike who warned us 1st about the "military industrial complex...and he opposed the anglo-french-israeli attack on egypt in 56 to sieze the suez canal from nasser, who nationalized it...and if u look at the structure of the US gov under him, not much different from FDR...basically he caried on the policies of FDR in a much kinder era...

big government? as long as its not run by evil neofascists it does not really bother me much, but i'm a pragmatist...perhaps in times of real crisis it is best (and many who detest it now will change their minds very soon i fear), in good times, sure, lighten up, loosen up and see what happens...just maintain something of a secure regulatory function...in good times i see government as a paid for insurance policy...too much laissez faire economics, i fear, leads to severe bust cycles that, as in the depression, could rip the country apart...

business whines and bitches (small to medium business with good reason, MAASCH) about government interference, but the greed which powers economic growth also leads to economic bust when left completely unchecked. in this way, a strong government that knows when to take its hands off business when it needs a break, but which steps in and regulates when business needs a brake, is despite businesses whining and carping, ultimately its best friend...

the anarchist bullshit disguised as ideology spewed forth by the republican party throughought the 90's, when out of power and hypocritically forgotten now that the control EVERYTHING, is just manipulative bullshit...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/07/2006 @ 12:17am
well - past my bedtime - nite all - look forward to continueing this discussion tomorrow - sory MASK, if i gave u the impression earlier of anythig but respect...sometimes i dont know how vicious i sound when i'm bullshitting, as frank can attest - lol

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/07/2006 @ 12:24am
To add a little color to the interesting discussion about liberalism going on here, I dug up an article from the Seattle P-I from last August that illuminated where bastions of liberal politics currently exist in the US. The source cited is the Bay Area Center for Voting Research.

Most liberal: Detroit; Gary, Ind.; Berkeley, Calif.; Washington, D.C.; Oakland, Calif. (Seattle was 16th)

Most conservative: Provo, Utah; Lubbock, Texas, Abilene, Texas, Hialeah, Fla., Plano, Texas.

Seattle is more liberal than 21st-ranked New York, 24th-ranked Boston and 34th-ranked Madison, Wis., all supposed bastions of rampant liberalism.

The researchers ranked 237 American cities with populations of more than 100,000.

At the other end of the spectrum, heavily Mormon, lily-white Provo, Utah, was America's most conservative city - that is, it's 237th most liberal on a list of 237.

Posted by seattlescribe at 03/07/2006 @ 12:46am
WELCOME TO OPPOSITE WORLD...

Michael Chertoff Insane:

WASHINGTON -- Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff yesterday said the proposed takeover of terminal operations at five U.S. ports by a Dubai company would give U.S. law enforcement a better handle on security at U.S. terminal operations.

But the unprecedented access that the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies would have to monitor the United Arab Emirates shipping company's personnel and business records would "evaporate" if Congress stopped the deal from proceeding, he warned.

Mr. Chertoff has said on many occasions that he didn't consider Dubai Ports World's proposed $6.8 billion buyout of London's Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. a security threat to the U.S. However, his statements to a group of Wall Street Journal reporters marked the first time that he has said that Homeland Security had something to lose if the deal fell through.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114169156641590913-DH_N_GDk3qf89D kYVR6NfqRLnB4_20070306.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Posted by plunger at 03/07/2006 @ 07:08am
And we're actually expected to believe that President Bush knew nothing about this until AFTER it was approved???

BWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/...nager/ports.htm

The sources said investigators have already determined that DP World would take orders from the Dubai government. They said the UAE firm has cooperated with Dubai's boycott of Israel, which is a violation of U.S. law.

Congress plans to examine several aspects of the proposed deal. One was whether DP World or its sponsors in the Dubai emirate were linked to al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. Another was the source of the financing for the $6.8 billion DP World takeover of P&O.

Investigators also intend to examine the role of David Sanborn, who was appointed administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Mr. Sanborn, termed a leading campaigner for President Bush, was a former senior DP World executive appointed to his government position on Jan. 17, the same day the CFIUS approved the takeover of U.S. ports by the Dubai firm.

"Sanborn does leg work for [White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl] Rove," a congressional source said. "We believe he was the key to the unqualified White House backing for the takeover deal."

SANBORN DOES LEG WORK FOR ROVE.

WHAT DID ROVE KNOW, AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

ROVE DOES LEG WORK FOR BUSH.

BUSH LIED.

Posted by plunger at 03/07/2006 @ 07:30am
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/05/appointees_guarding_the_henh ouse.php

Appointees Guarding The Henhouse

Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department headed the panel that approved the Dubai Ports deal, came to the Bush administration from the chairmanship of CSX, a rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World the year after Snow joined the administration. The new head of the Maritime Administration, David Sanborn, worked for both CSX and Dubai Ports.

The incestuousness boggles the mind. In February, 2003, the same month Bush appointed Snow, Snow's company sold its container shipping division, CSX Lines, to the Carlyle Group. CSX Lines does substantial business with the U.S. military; Carlyle's big shareholders include Bush's father and family consigliere James Baker III, former British PM John Major and members of the bin Laden family.

Like Snow, Sanborn was a CSX executive--until he left to take a directorship with Dubai Ports World, where he brokered a deal in which Dubai PW bought CSX's Asian and South American port operations.

It would be helpful to understand what Snow knew about the likelihood that he could be in a decision-making position related to DP and CSX when he agreed to join the administration. One would also wish to learn more about the specifics of the underlying relationship between DP World, CSX, the United Arab Emirates government and the Bush White House and family fortunes.

"IT'S THE PORTS SCANDAL, STUPID!"

Plunger That's what I'm sayin. If one looks at these guys as a mafia and not Emperor Ming and the League of Evil, one can more clearly see the MO. CSX was like a retauraunt that the mob took over. Snow went in as head of a solid company at 1 mil per year. He left at 23 mil per year with shareholders' cut down 60%. Then the company was sold off to the British firm with Dubai Ports World and Sanborn waiting in the wings. Conspiracy enough for all, but pure mafia. No plans for world domination here, just pure greed. "It ain't personal, Sonny...it's just business". senor chichi | 03.07.06 - 8:50 am

Posted by plunger at 03/07/2006 @ 08:48am
Don't make the mistake of assuming that Santorum + Casey are Tweedledee + Tweedledum becase they agree on a single issue. Yes, that issue is abortion rights, arguably the hottest hot-button issue of the day. But, if you look at Bob Casey Jr.'s overall political record- as well as that of his father, former PA Gov. Bob Casey Sr.- you'll see that they are both pro-labor progressives in nearly every way *other* than abortion.

In other words, if you were to compare Santorum to Casey on a whole raft of positions, the only agreement you'd be likely to find between the two of them would be on abortion rights.

Sometimes, I wonder whether a facist could get votes from self-proclaimed liberals simply by professing to be pro-choice.

Single-issue voting is a poor position, almost regardless of the issue.

Posted by azion1995 at 03/07/2006 @ 10:03am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/07/2006 @ 12:24am | ignore this person

No problem, I realize that TEXT doesn't convey emotion sometimes!

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2006 @ 10:27am
Posted by MASK 03/07/2006 @ 10:27am

yeah - i try to avoid using pat tm/chat room style abbreviations here, since i consider the level of discourse to be a BIT above that, but perhaps an occasional "lol" or "imho" is in order so that objects of tongue in cheek barbs not take such as personal attacks...at least imho, lmao!!!! (at least there are no emoticons or pretty colored fonts...lol).

but never take anything i say too personally...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/07/2006 @ 11:30am
AZION1995:

I personally don't see abortion as a single issue position. Abortion is about something a little bigger. The bottom line question is, does the government have the right to legislate what a woman does with her body? I personally believe that voting with that consideration in mind is more than "single-issue" voting.

Posted by jorcheim at 03/07/2006 @ 12:39pm
AZION1995:

Also, that's not true. Casey is conservative on far more than "just" abortion: He agrees with Santorum on most issues; opposing gun safety laws, opposing stem cell research, supporting the war in Iraq and opposing a timeline for troop withdrawal, supporting Alito, supporting the Schiavo bill, opposing universal healthcare, opposing a living wage, opposing gay adoption rights...

That is why it is so crucial for Chuck Pennacchio to win the primary! Casey will lose once voters find out he's Santorum-lite...

http://www.chuck2006.com/caseyfacts.asp

Posted by daveinphilly at 03/07/2006 @ 1:18pm