You’re Scaring Me, Obama: Let the Bush Years Die
To be honest, Obama, you lost me when you voted for the PATRIOT Act reauthorization in 2006. You lost me again when you voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) amendment in 2008. And you lost me every single time you voted for yet more war funding.
Don't even get me started on your vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.
I cast a ballot for you in November, but I just can't share in this moment of collective euphoria over your election.
So, if your transition team really wants feedback on "where President-Elect Obama should lead this country," here's a Top Five list:
1. Dump the Bush Doctrine and don’t start more wars
You've made it clear that the US has to "take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights" and you’ve argued for "more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11."
What exactly does that mean?
Take troops out of Iraq and shove them into Afghanistan? Further destabilize Pakistan?
The whole idea of preemptive war (a.k.a. the Bush Doctrine) has no place in a civilized society and must be laid to rest, along with those sacrificed in Bush's military adventurism these past eight years.
Yet your approach to preemptive war, Mr. Obama, is nuanced at best.
During the January 2008 Democratic presidential debate, you said that if the US had "actionable intelligence" and Pakistan didn’t "take on Al Qaida in their territory," then "I would strike." You added, " And that's the flaw of the Bush doctrine. It wasn't that he went after those who attacked America. It was that he went after those who didn't."
No, the flaw of the Bush Doctrine is that it's just plain wrong. We've learned that the hard way.
2. Ditch the warmongers
What's with all of the hawks in your new administration?
You presented yourself as a peace candidate and then chose Joe Biden as your VP. Yes, he brought in the white male vote, but he also backed the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Just last month Biden warned that if you were elected, there would be "an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." He said that you would make some "incredibly tough decisions" that could alienate the Democratic base, because if decisions are "popular, they're probably not sound."
In other words, a popular decision, one that the majority of the people wants, is probably not a good decision. Democracy to Biden…
And then there's Robert Gates, widely rumored to be staying on as your Defense Secretary. Questions about Gates’ role in Iran-Contra, not to mention his skewing of intelligence about Russia, still linger.
But especially disturbing is his recent push for beefing up the US nuclear arsenal: "As long as other nations have or seek nuclear weapons – and can potentially threaten us, our allies and friends – then we must have a deterrent capacity that makes it clear that challenging the United States in the nuclear arena, or with weapons of mass destruction, could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response."
Let's get this straight: if other nations are even imagined to "seek" nuclear weapons, that "could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response" from the US.
Obama, you've often insisted on taking "no options off the table" in dealing with Iran. How does Gates' proposal for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons factor in there?
While we're on the topic of warmongers in your midst… Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff? Yet another hawk, hell-bent on Iran and enamored with nuclear weapons.
And now we've got Clinton as Secretary of State.
Why is it that none of the 23 senators and 133 House Reps who voted against the war in Iraq are even on a short-list for these critical posts?
3. Close Guantanamo – and the whole system of secret prisons
Shutting down Gitmo is said to be a priority for your new administration. Terrific.
But what about Bagram? What about the other CIA "black site" secret prisons set up in Afghanistan, Thailand, Eastern Europe and elsewhere? What about the CIA torture flights? Will those end too?
Closing Gitmo also raises questions over how "high value" defendants will be handled. Your administration is reportedly considering setting up an alternative court system to deal with sensitive cases. But what safeguards will be in place to be sure that this new system won't degenerate into kangaroo courts, like Bush's military commissions?
It's a disturbing signal that you’ve appointed John Brennan, who has supported extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping, to help review intelligence agencies for your administration. As former CIA and State Department analyst Mel Goodman noted, Brennan "sat there at [former CIA Director George] Tenet's knee when they passed judgment on torture and abuse, on extraordinary renditions, on black sites, on secret prisons. He was part of all of that decision making."
And this is who will help lead us out of this mess?
You've criticized the use of torture, yet reportedly will not bring criminal charges against those who authorized or conducted torture during the Bush years. Your administration doesn't see it as politically expedient, and Bush might give "preemptive" pardons anyway.
But can we really end this dark chapter in our nation's history without even an investigation? A Truth Commission, perhaps? Providing blanket immunity to all low-level and senior government officials won’t prevent possible war crimes from happening again. Quite the opposite.
4. Expose Bush & Co., and ditch the national surveillance state
Speaking of war crimes, how about Bush, Cheney and the rest? You'll soon be given access to Bush-era secret orders and opinions authorizing everything from surveillance to detention. You'll no doubt rescind many, to great fanfare, but what about sharing this evidence of Bush-year excesses with the public?
Yes, Bush could file a lawsuit and invoke executive privilege, but it's worth the fight. The only other option is shielding Bush & Co., similar to how you will reportedly shield those government officials involved in torture. But the public deserves to know. And if Bush administration officials violated the law, they should be prosecuted.
Now, back to your vote for both the PATRIOT Act reauthorization in 2006 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendment in 2008. These and other rollbacks in domestic civil liberties under Bush are inexcusable and must be addressed. We'll be waiting for you to do that.
5. Choose Main Street (not Wall Street)
Just this month you promised Americans that they can "turn the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street."
Yet, as Bloomberg notes, "almost half the people" on your Transition Economic Advisory Board "have held fiduciary positions at companies that, to one degree or another, either fried their financial statements, helped send the world into an economic tailspin, or both."
This includes, for example, Anne Mulcahy and Richard Parsons, both of whom were Fannie Mae directors when the company fudged accounting rules. Ditto for another of your team members, William Daley.
Mulcahy and Parsons additionally held executive posts when their companies (Xerox Corp. and Time Warner Inc., respectively) got busted for accounting fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Also on your team is Richard Rubin, who as Bloomberg notes, was "chairman of Citigroup Inc.'s executive committee when the bank pushed bogus analyst research, helped Enron Corp. cook its books, and got caught baking its own. He was a director from 2000 to 2006 at Ford Motor Co., which also committed accounting fouls and now is begging Uncle Sam for Citigroup-style bailout cash."
The list of questionable appointees to your Transitional Economic Advisory Board goes on and on, begging the question: Is this really the best you could come up with? How about Joseph Stiglitz, Sheila Bair, Nouriel Roubini or James K. Galbraith, for starters? Someone who represents labor?
Meanwhile, we're stuck with this nasty bailout bill – which you voted for.
Others, such as Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), realized the bill's problems and voted against it. Feingold said that the Wall Street bailout legislation, "fails to reform the flawed regulatory structure that permitted this crisis to arise in the first place. And it doesn’t do enough to address the root cause of the credit market collapse, namely the housing crisis. Taxpayers deserve a plan that puts their concerns ahead of those who got us into this mess."
Feingold was right.
In short, Mr. President-elect, you promised "Change we can believe in," but across the board it's looking a lot more like "Business as usual."
- Heather Wokusch's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
The man hasn't even taken
The man hasn't even taken office yet, and you and other far-left bloggers are getting your collective knickers in a knot over things that you suppose might happen.
If you are expecting overnight miracles before Obama has had a chance to change the drapes, or find out where the Oval bathrooms are, you are living in far-left la la land. Obama also promised to be the president of ALL Americans. Ring a bell...?
However...
...that shouldn't require his capitulation on such a wide range of important issues. It is our duty to be outraged if the president-elect doesn't deliver upon the pledges he made throughout his campaign. I concede the fact that Obama has NOT ever been expected to be a progressive president, but a mere baby step in the right direction.
Although I know what you meant, a president is not someone who presides over the people in America but rather on our behalf. If he fails to represent our will, best interests and the Constitution; then it is our right to demand an explanation and a change in course.
I'm still waiting for him to take office, as is Heather, we're just remaining cautious about what is to come from what we are seeing unfold at the moment. NOW is certainly not the time to become complacent. We MUST demand the very best from Obama! We claim that this nation rejected conservative ideology on the 4th, but we seem hesitant to question that which was rejected.
We are not delusional about the challenges that remain ahead because that is a give in. Although, is it too much to ask that a president respects the rule of law?
I, as a proud and concerned American, will not falter in my constant scrutiny of Obama's tenure in office. Unlike BOOsh, I will refer to Obama as the President, because he earned it. However, I will NOT blindly support him, and if he fails to adequately address the ideology that got us in this predicament; then in 2012, I will ensure that he will not receive any of the numerous votes I helped him gain earlier this month.
If he fails to rollback the overreaching powers that BOOsh expanded for the office he held (illegally) within his first 100 days, I'll then call for his impeachment, too. You may call this "fringe", "loonie" or whatever, but I don't care. I have two children, and am 23 years old, I care deeply about this country and our constitution. I DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A FAILED STATE OR THAT WHICH COULD BECOME AN OPPRESSIVE AUTHORITARIAN STATE.
A dictator can come in any form, regardless of political stripes. It has troubled me since before the primaries that Obama, like most of the other Democrats vying for the office he will hold in two months, doesn't feel that Bush has committed impeachable offenses. I will NOT tolerate a dictatorship or any further erosion of our constitution through either perpetration or complicity.
To address Jim's inquiry, Obama never ran as a PEACE candidate, that was Kucinich. Obama led the peace activists to believe that he was as close to a peace candidate as they could get. To the contrary, Obama was a pro-war candidate. He condemned the Iraq Invasion as a State Legislator, but voted to finance the occupation spawned thereby as a Senator until he became a candidate for President.
I RELUCTANTLY voted for Obama, primarily because the repug ticket scared me into doing so. What is so radical about standing up for what is right? Why are we who question the democratic leadership's motives in acquiescing to the BOOsh Agenda marginalized and castigated? You fear what's right because it isn't always popular, although what's popular isn't always right.
Obama will be our President, and I will support and help him achieve his goals, so long as he adheres to his oath, remembers the mandate he was sent to office with, and gets this nation back on the right track. Until then, lets continue to keep our eyes open, ears atuned and voices loud...and clear.
"As a Christian, I believe that Separation of Church and State is Vital, not only for the People's Protection from an overzealous Theocratic Regime, but also for the protection of Religion from suppression."
You said a lot dem4christ04,
You said a lot dem4christ04, but explained nothing. You, like other political extremists, expect the entire citizenry of the United States to see things as "clearly" as you:
It seems that I remember you as a PUMA “Democrat” who posted many innuendos and false “facts” about Obama on Democrats.com before the election. How was that helping to gain "numerous votes" for Obama? And, do you somehow control how other people will vote? No one has asked that you “blindly” support anyone, only that you refrain from whining before you are injured.
Do you really believe that eight years of neoconservative mismanagement can be rolled back within the first 100 days of taking office? You will call for Obama’s impeachment if he does not bend to your will within YOUR imposed time-limit? You are pitiably laughable, and apparently STILL a sour grapes PUMA whiner.
Where do you get your information on what Obama, and other Democrats, “feel” about impeachable offenses? Sounds like still more PUMA supposition to me. Articles of Impeachment were never introduced for a vote. On what grounds, or stretch of your imagination, do you base your absurd “dictator” accusations against Obama? Again, your comments are laughable.
I am an American Liberal Democrat -- not a "peace activist," not a "tree-hugger," not a latte-drinking "vegan," and definitely not someone who comes in after-the-fact (like "Independents," Greenies, and Libertarians) to issue highly opinionated, and presumptive demands to a newly elected president who has yet to take office. Who are you to define what "mandate" was given to Obama, or what "our will" actually is, other than to make much needed changes to the blatantly un-Constitutional governance of the outgoing administration? Obama has stated that he will do that.
Most Middle Americans demand nothing more from the President of the United States, than to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitutional laws of this nation -- period. Obama has stated that he will do that.
Our Congressional Representatives and Senators, on the other hand, are the ones whom we expect to represent our individual points-of-view, and then to negotiate a compromise, if necessary, with their peers. Their other main purpose is to oversee the Executive Branch -- something that has been sorely missing from recent Congressional "leaders." These are the goals, and the mainstay, of a representative democracy.
The Dubya administration, along with a passive Congress, accomplished what you are asking Obama to do: total capitulation to an extremist ideology. I don't envision that President Obama will view the Oval Office in the same fashion as Dubya, or attempt to use his influence to impose another extremist agenda in the opposite direction.
Having said that, you and Heather are free to blindly bash all politicians of ANY stripe, until you can get one of your extremist candidates elected. Then it will be our turn to do the bashing.
P.S. I proudly voted for Obama, with absolutely no reservations, or regrets, and will do so again in 2012.
I'm often vegan, a tree hugger, and for peace.
I'll happily advance any of the above, but the devil is in the details!
I don't see the far Left or Right willing to work through those details, and it is those details which drive a more moderate view.
I'll give a specific result of working through the details:
In the details one finds pro vegan, anti vegan, pro vegan, anti vegan, etc. arguments.
This does NOT result in middle of the road mush. It results instead in a clearly thought out position. One that might be called "moderate".
The modern Republican Party would call me extreme for even thinking things through. So be it.
Jim
Jim, I am not anti-vegan,
Jim, I am not anti-vegan, anti-tree hugger, nor anti-peace. It's just that those are not issues which define my Liberal political views. I am neither "with them, nor against them."
I am a Constitutionalist, and "for" all of the things guaranteed by that document. Conversely, the Constitution does not impose any particular personal choice on me, but rather allows me to make choices -- both good for me, and sometimes bad for me -- just like every other American.
I expect a lot more from my elected Congressional Representatives as a group, than I do from any one individual. I also expect my fellow citizens to allow me that freedom of choice, and not attempt to impose their own choices on me. The Constitution, and the laws which have been passed under its guidance, are intended to prevent harm, and NOT to impose belief systems.
LOL! I replied to you but...
...I was speaking to everyone else ;)
------------
With respect to choice, I whole heatedly agree that we should not impose, for example, a diet on folks. I thought it a good running example however of how a scientific question (health) gets pulled into philosophical arguments.
I would also argue that EVEN for folks who maintain a certain philosophical bent, eyes may be opened by looking deeper. Often to a more complex (and hence moderate) view. If your goal is NOT to kill animals THEN you had better look at the entire equation: farming destroys habitat and starves out certain critters.
With the details worked through I'm convinced we can create a more cohesive Nation. The rest of our differences will remain, forever, and are protected by our Constitution.
Jim
"There's a difference
"There's a difference between a philosophy and a bumper sticker."
Charles M. Schulz
US cartoonist (1922 - 2000)
...;-)
Bill...
...has a pet pig.
au contraire, Precious the
au contraire, Precious the pig, has a pet Bill. Just ask her...;-)
OOL!
(Oinking out loud)
By the way...
...I better spell it out because it may not have been transparent:
-Bill noted that he did not identify with A, B, and C.
-Jim noted that he DID identify with A, B, and C (perhaps with caveats) but identify just the same.
My goal in contrasting Bill and Jim was to make it clear to the "Far Left", that two voters, spanning the gamut of personal identification, BOTH disagreed with the presentation being given.
I sincerely hoped this would provide constructive criticism for those who would advance some of the topics being touched on.
Hi Daniel
I still do not understand what a peace candidate is. Folks need to spell that out if they are going to influence others. I'll help however since I'm chatty :)
To me, a peace candidate would be one whose goal is ACTUALIZING the most peaceful world POSSIBLE. Now you tell me if I'm wrong but to me this requires:
------------
On a more general note, I have argued since Obama was elected that HE is the embodiment of much of what we have worked for these past few years.
This remains true even if one regards him as damned shabby. This is a simple political reality that some seem ready to dismiss rather than exploit. For a time (only a time) I recommend we help him achieve the progressive goals that HE decides to put forward.
Soon enough we'll be back to demanding A through Z ;)
Jim
What is a peace candidate?
Could someone please explain that in detail.
Thanks.
Jim
Spit in the eye ... again.
Why should what Obama is doing -- protecting the interests of the economic elite -- surprise anyone???
Obama's breathtakingly cynical lurch to the right immediately after he captured the nomination from Hillary Clinton should have turned off every progressive voter in the United States.
Instead, what happened? We heard the same old "vote for the lesser of the two evils" mantra from the soft-left. ... MoveOn, The Nation magazine, Tom Haydn, The Huffington Post.
You can't have it both ways, people! You voted for your evil and now he's arrived.
... Telegram from ABB ("Anybody But Bush") -- You got screwed again. ...
The author of the above article is spot-on in articulating her fears as to what the Obama Administration not might -- no, no, not *might* become but rather quite clearly *WILL* become. ... Yet, at the same time, she admits that she voted for Obama. ... My dear Ms. Wokusch, what did you expect?
This Election -- with Obama so far ahead in the polls -- this Election would have been an ideal time for voters to have cast "safe votes" for either Nader, McKinney or a candidate to their left.
In 2004, Business Week ran a front-page article on how 75% of all US voters can cast "safe votes," given the limitations of an electoral college voting system.
What if Nader, McKinney and everyone to their left garnered just as little as 6% to 8% of the vote? -- votes they could have gotten from "safe voters," hard-lefters, soft-lefters, dissatisfied independents.
That would have done two things:
1.) It would have signaled to Obama that the left is a political force to be reckoned with.
2.) It would have laid the groundwork for the further strengthening of a viable third party movement in the United States -- third party movements and third party inclusion in debates being commonplace in other advanced industrial countries.
The soft-left, it would appear, is precisely in the position poor Frankie Pentangeli was when he complained to Michael Corlione as regard the Rosado brothers: "They spit in my eye!"
Sadly, the soft-left got spit in their eye .... again!
Incorrect.
---You begin with a holier than thou "Green enlightenment". That does not persuade, especially when Greens do not measure up in their personal lives. You are neither more on fire than us, nor of greater understanding.
---The original poster is incorrect on points, and immoral on others. This is a near 50%-50% Nation and requires governing as such. We are not mini emperors. We don't want Bush, Me, or You. We selected Obama. This does NOT mean one can't initially piss people off in order to help them. (E.G. Liberal Economic Policies will please the vast majority even if they have been brain washed to believe otherwise).
---You are saying that if we knew a priori the spread of this election, we could have a greater influence in driving candidates to the Left by withholding the vote from the only candidates who, in actuality, are going to win. Two problems:
---The Third Party you seek is precisely the Democratic Party grass root Democrats seek, and are ever building/defending against intrusion of money and Right Wing ideology. If I error, then you tell me how (when you go beyond 1% consensus to the 51% consensus needed for ACTUAL change) you are going to guard against the evils you see in this filthy Democratic Consensus?
---Finally, your desire I agree with. You error in your approach. Here is the reality:
-------------------------------------------------
LESSER OF TWO EVILS?
If we are to vote for the lesser evil, should we always cast write in votes for whomever we think is best? Greens would not like that! You are arguing for a vote for YOUR candidate. At best, you are arguing for voting for the lesser of THREE evils.
As to whether, in general, the President elect is evil at all: He is the embodiment of a DEMOCRACY! Of a hundred million person plus compromise! So ya, if she accomplishes SOME Liberal goals while dealing with a 50%-50% populace then it's a bit tiring hearing from the holier than thou crowd about how he is not waving a wand and changing everything the way some would like.
Obama will get some things done. You will not. I will not. Obama is wrong about a lot of things. So are you. So is the originator of this thread. Again, I ain't gonna get ANYTHING done. Neither are you. Obama is. He is the spear head of our big ugly filthy dirty 51% consensus and we should fan the flames of that ember before going back to demanding laundry lists.
---------------------------------------------------
Jim
Cut the crap!
Jim,
You wrote:
"The Third Party you seek is precisely the Democratic Party grass root Democrats seek, and are ever building/defending against intrusion of money and Right Wing ideology."
Are you serious? Barack Obama had $significantly$ more corporate money than John McCain.
Barack Obama is a corporatist candidate, beholden to the interests of the oligarchic-few. If a few crumbs fall from the tables of the rich, he's oh-so-happy for the democratic-many; he'll certainly take credit for the crumbs -- but does he *represent* the democratic-many? -- of course not.
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY VIS-A-VIS THEIR CORPORATE PAYMASTERS?
The Democratic Party serves a crucial function for the ruling class, the economic elite.
Should things start "heating up" on the left, should economic turmoil, social unrest and the class tensions that inevitably occur given the inequalities inherent in a capitalist economy -- should such status quo-endangering rumblings develop into broad-based, progressive movements, the Democratic Party is there to co-opt, dilute and eventually betray those democratic, broad-based movements.
The first thing the Democratic Party says to the people committed to these greaasroots, democratic movements is "T.I.N.A." -- "There Is No Alternative" -- that is to say, you have no alternative to the two-party choice; so you need to let us, the Democratic Party, speak on your behalf.
The Democratic Party thus becomes a political "safety valve" for any status quo-endangering movements. ... Acting on behalf of the economic elite, the Democratic Party's historic role has been to make sure that potentially radical, revolutionary movements don't get out of hand, don't go any further than the confines of their oligarchic agenda.
The Democratic Party:
-- sold out the workingclass in the 1870s (re. Tammany Hall).
-- sold out the Populist movement in the 1890s.
-- sold out the labor movement in the 1930s.
-- sold out the civil rights movement.
-- sold out the environmentalist movement.
-- and sold out the antiwar movement -- many, many times.
The Democratic Party has betrayed the antiwar movement four times (count 'em FOUR times!) in the past six years!
1.) In 2002, the Democratic Party told the voting public that that year's Congressional elections would *not* be about whether the US should invade Iraq. Invading Iraq was a done-deal, a bipartisan decision. Instead, we were told, and in no uncertain terms, that the 2002 Congressional elections would be about “other issues.”
In other words, peace was, officially, “off the table.”
2.) In 2004, what could have been a national referendum on Iraq -- a war candidate, George Bush, versus a (sort of) peace candidate, Howard Dean -- soon became a choice between two war candidates, Bush and Kerry.
3.) In 2006, the Democrats captured both houses of Congress, chiefly because millions of people voted Democratic specifically to have the Democrats end the war in Iraq.
In the days that followed, the Democratic leadership wasted no time making it clear that ending the War wasn’t going to happen.
4.) Which brings us to 2008 and Barack Obama, the king of the con men.
"Barack The Peace Candidate" has now become "Barack The Warmonger." How thankful we should be that Barack Obama has “clarified” his position on Iraq -- his position now being that if the commanders in the field say we should stay in Iraq, we stay.
(Now all we have to do is find a commander in Iraq who's a dove.)
That Obama’s now-clarified position is essentially the same as that of John McCain and George Bush has yet to make an impact on mainstream media. Doubtless, it never will.
In short, Obama wants to be a war president just as bad as George Bush and John McCain want to be war presidents. Obama supports two wars now in progress -- Iraq and Afghanistan; and has indicated his willingness to engage in two more wars --Iran and Pakistan -- with the use of nuclear weapons "not off the table."
The Democratic-Republican duopoly will never allow a national election to become a referendum on war or peace. Why? Because they know damn well that the American public, if given a chance, will vote for peace every time.
See the following site, and tell me how you would like to see your government spend all these billions of dollars -- on war, or on health, education and welfare -- http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
Note: Barack Obama supports the waging of war in four already-devastated countries -- and that's just in the Middle East.
Also:
... this idea of "alienating" people by expressing one's anger and disgust with the soft-left continually selling out to the "lesser of the two evils" candidate;
... this constant barage of DPAers (Democratic Party Apologists) -- people who criticize the abominations of the Bush administration then suddenly develop a crippling case of cognitive-dissonance when they're reminded that for eight years the Democratic Party has "enabled" the Bush Administration in virtually all of its constitutional and international criminality;
.. this idea that anyone who supports a progressive by actually ***voting*** for a progressive is "holier than thou" ...
Pleeeze! Cut the crap, ok?
People on the soft-left who voted for the lesser-of-the-two-evils, by their own admission, have voted for an evil. ... Shame on you if you voted for Barack Obama! ... Whatever blood his Administration spills, whatever hardships his administration visits on the poor and the weak will only have happened because the soft-left helped get him elected.
You want the country and the world to take a new direction? Then stop rationalizing away the criminal complicity of the Democratic Party.
Also, you write of how difficult it is to establish a third party movement in the United States. And yet, as you well know, third party movements and third party participation in debates is commonplace in other advanced industrial nations.
To quote that great American philosopher, Wille Loman: "The woods are burning, boys!." ... And you're calling people who would like to put out the fire "holier than thou." (Lots of luck, Mother Earth.)
45% to 55% of the eligible electorate in the United States *don't* vote in a presidential election. ... That's higher than in any other advanced industrial country! ... You talk about Obama being elected "democratically." That's hardly the case -- not with half the electorate so disgusted with the Democratic-Republican duopoly that they don't vote.
You talk about "grassroots Democrats" trying to get corporate money out of politics. But then you turn around and urge people to vote for precisely the candidates who *benefit* from corporate money in politics! Obama being a prime example.
-- Obama has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $500 billion.
-- The Pentagon budget is over $500 billion dollars a year. How's this for a trifecta -- Barack Obama, John McCain and George Bush all want to *increase* the Pentagon budget.
-- The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing the US taxpayer
15 billion dollars per month. See http://www.costofwar.com/
Note: The vast majority of the 15 billion dollars per month is going into the hands of those who profit from America's military-industrial complex; specifically, the thieves and incompetents the above-trifecta (Obama, Bush and McCain) *rushed* to bail out.
-- Over 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of Gulf War II. See the following http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768/
Evidently, that's not enough killing to satisfy Barack Obama ... the (convenient) peace candidate.
-- Obama voted to confirm Condeleeeza Rice, as well as a host of other Bush nominees.
-- In 2006, Obama went out of his way to campaign for Joe Lieberman, in Lieberman’s primary fight against antiwar, *progressive* candidate Ned Lamont.
-- Obama voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act.
-- Obama voted for the F.I.S.A. bill – after vowing not to.
-- Immediately after he captured the nomination, Barack Obama appointed Wal-Mart's supported Josh Furman (I got his name wrong in my previous post) as his chief economic advisor -- see "Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama's Economic Policy" -- http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/10/9534/
And on and on and on.
And all we hear from the soft-left and the DPAers is "gotta-vote-for-the-lesser-of-the-two-evils, gotta-vote-for-the-lesser- of-the-two-evils" ... And not only does nothing fundamental change, it gets worse!
Rationalize that!
Angry, you bet I'm angry. Sugar-coating the truth is what got us in this economic, ecological and moral catastrophe in the first place.
LOL! You did not answer ANY of the questions I put to you.
That is in poor form. Also:
-You again vomit that 51% consensus sucks. No duh.
-You feel comforted in this by thinking of the Democratic Party as something "out there", a sports team perhaps. It is not. Consensus over Right Wing extremism is what it is: FILTHY. You claim to be above it by passing judgment on it. Again, big whoop.
-You give a laundry list of what 51% consensus has failed to do but you do not bother to think of what it has accomplished.
-I understand you want to rename the FILTH, Green instead of Democrat. Fine with me, but nothing has changed. A rose by any other name ... with all the same thorns. I asked for advice on HOW you would gain 51% consensus WITHOUT those thorns and you ran from answering it. Instead you continue to note that 51% consensus is filth.
-As to the ANTI-WAR crap: If you are not man enough to defend your family from aggressors, then so be it. Those of us with balls however, will. If you are saying instead that almost all Wars are political failings, then fine, say so rather than delivering philosophical tomes. Again, the goal is as peaceful a world as possible. The vast majority of Americans disagree with your soft left nonsense. Bin Laden needed to be pursued in Afghanistan and the Taliban made to pay. This remains true even if only to satisfy the blood lust of the Right in this Nation. THEY ARE AMERICANS and you have a social contract with them as well as having to live with them. There is far more to it than that but even that is enough to require a response to the mass murders on 911.
-You spend a lot of time on Obama. Again, no duh. He is also much of what you accomplished, so I asked you to make use of it rather than squander it. Get it, or must you continue to just pound your fist in righteous rage over how dumb the rest of us are? If so, then I would still ask others to make use of him. Go to change.gov. (By the way, I noticed that you were not elected President. Why don't you run? How would you run your campaign in order to win and to provide me with the change we need?)
-Nobody but you is rationalizing anything. Would it help if I was more upset? If so, then I would be happy to tell you to what extent your life is filled with evil and ignorance. How YOU kill. How YOU starve folks. How YOU fail to spend time in deep study before opening your mouth. Etc. Of course, you'll likely to say "I know you are but what am I ;)" but my point is NO DUH about the failings of 51% consensus. You have failings too. (As to some of your other points, you are simply incorrect).
------------------------------------------------
I'll again ask you to go berserk at how horrid the world is, but then STILL make use of Obama by going to change.gov and picking one thing to help him with. Is ACTUALLY accomplishing something too annoying to you? Too beneath you? Is recognizing where we are, for just a moment, and working with it for actual change not as fun as railing against the status quo? You'll be free to rail all you want even AFTER making a positive contribution. After the likelihood of advancement through Obama is gone.
Finally, you need to ANSWER my specific questions to you. I have answered you. You end specifically with the "lesser of two evils" bullshit rather than actually answering it. I'll offer you another chance. YOU DEMAND THAT WE VOTE FOR THE LESSER OF THREE EVILS. Big whoop. Get off your high horse and consider deriving truths from fundamental principles rather than cliches you've seen tossed about.
Jim
On third parties.
If American culture changes so that we feel settled with one party winning with say 20% of the vote, then ok. We are not there.
Arguments however, critically depend on 3 or more viewpoints, in order to limit "A" versus "NOT A" silliness. Consensus does not.
With respect to Greens as a third party, you will not get anywhere until you offer how you will keep out the filth as you build 51% consensus.
A partial answer might be American culture changing to admit no need for consensus, and therefore Greens could win with 34% of the vote. Folks could then vote for the less of three evils. That lesser percentage however might mean less need to include "marginal" elements as voting blocks. (And you'll note that "marginal" is a two edged sword. You can keep out rift raft as you (or I) might define it, but you do so by governing OVER fellow Americans in a 1 to 3 manner).
The above is not a very satisfying answer however since it requires a major change in American culture. One might simply just state it would be swell if the Democratic consensus was more Liberal. Well yeah.
Jim
Greenies are so cute when
Greenies are so cute when they're angry. Actually, you're just another Nader supporter who can't understand that Ralphie only represents about 2% (or less) of Americans who think like you.
You call yourself a "progressive," but you're really just an angry old commie.
Bill and Jim, this one slays me,
"Barack The Peace Candidate" has now become "Barack The Warmonger."
What in the hell was he listening to?
No where, at no time, did Barack Obama EVER claim to be "The Peace Candidate".
He made it clear that he would begin a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, AND
increase the troop level in Afghanistan.
Hmm- the disgruntled ones seem to make sh*t up as they go along.
--and Obama is not even in office yet.
And I concur with Obama ;)
At least I see this as a reasonable start to a conversation about foreign policy.
That is far more than I can say about Right Wing nonsense and "NO WAR EVER" philosophies.
Absolutely, Jim!
For the first time in eight years, I hear of a plan
that has merit and is based on facts and logic.
A place for Peace.
Within that conversation kwahlf there is certainly a place for those who want to advance that MAYBE we can eliminate War.
The key is in not demanding that everyone believe, that nothing in the world could ever happen which will break the peace.
Starting from a realistic HOPE, I'm sure folks are open to absorbing some evil rather than reacting to it.
President-Elect
It appears that we have a vast assembly of readers and commentators. I wonder if the President elect has even had time to unpack his bags yet? It doesn't seem that some of the comments made here, actually think the president elect is already in office. Hello, George W Bush is still in the White House. As much as most Americans would have him kicked out already if they could. President George W Bush is in a very voliticale position ask we speak. He plans a minimun of one more big 'SCREW' "WE THE PEOPLE'" one mkore time. His pardoning himself and everyone else that has been a part of his criminal actions against "We the People" and the Constitution of the United States.
If some of the commentors would spend the time and effort to become aware of what this man has done for the past eight years, including having mknowledge of, as well as no action to prevent this financial mess that 'ALL OF US ' are bgurdened with.
President elect Obama has an enormous moiuntain of actions to undo much of what George W Bush has simply 'WALKED OUT ON' due mostly because he doesn't know what to do!
I would like to recommend giving our President elect, the remainder of time remaining before his taking over the reigns, to familiarize himself with the vast screw-ups that have been "DUMPED' in his lap. He hasn't done anything yet. He is not our President yet.
Joe.
Indeed!
Consider going to change.gov for a heads up on what we can help along. Click on AGENDA.
Jim
P.S. There will be plenty of time for us to be pissed ;) Might as well be proactive while the iron is hot.
The Greens versus Filthy Democrats accomplishments.
Greens:
Just a sample for Democrats:
Obama Offers Job Creation Plan
"Take troops out of Iraq and shove them into Afghanistan?"
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Though without the disparaging slant.
Three weeks in Iraq costing us the same as our entire expenditure in Afghanistan means that, YES, our troops in Afghanistan could use some help going after the mass murderers who attacked our Nation.
Further, greater fury in Afghanistan does not mean greater collateral damage. My hope has always been for greater effort to be spent there in order to ensure less damage. THAT is costly, but a price a great Nation can pay when it is not hemorrhaging from inane military and tax policies.
To declare that Bush's notions were insane on the face of it, was reasonable. It is altogether unreasonable however to act as if Obama is some how "out there" simply because he agrees with the majority of Americans.
Your attempt to lump Obama with Bush, on this issue, is intellectually dishonest at best.
Jim
P.S. I do agree that the waters in Afghanistan have been so muddied by the ineptness of Republican rule, that it is no longer clear how much good can yet be accomplished there. I'm open to a detailed debate.
There is nothing preemptive about increasing troop
levels in Afghanistan.
That is where both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces have regrouped and increased
their numbers.
This happened while most of our troops were in Iraq, trying to settle a
civil war.A skeleton crew was sent to Afghanistan to fight in a region
where they were geographically and militarily disadvantaged.
Oh, and those Taliban forces there?
They are the ones who blew up huge, 1,700 year old sandstone statues
of Buddha carved into the mountain side.
They're not into negotiations or compromises.
http://tinyurl.com/5ez9nm
Just ask yourself why Switzerland was never invaded during WWI and WWII
( besides the fact that they remained neutral, that never stopped the Nazis)
and you get an idea of what they are dealing with in Afghanistan.
I voted for Obama too, but....
I was not too happy with his position on faith-based initiatives either, in addition to the items mentioned above. Guess I will have to give what I would have given to a church, had I not been totally disillusioned with Christianity and indeed all religion, to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
To inhibit the pernicious spread of fascism in these United States, it is necessary to take away the tax-exemption of churches and also necessary to put a limit on how much money far, far right religious predators are permitted to accumulate. Otherwise, they get too much power and are able to do things like elect Really Bad Presidents who ruin the entire country.