|
Molly rightfully nails the DC Dems
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Absoinglutely:
| quote: | Enough of the D.C. Dems
By Molly Ivins
March 2006 Issue
Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I will not be supporting Senator Clinton because: a) she has no clear stand on the war and b) Terri Schiavo and flag-burning are not issues where you reach out to the other side and try to split the difference. You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don’t jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater.
I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight.
Look at their reaction to this Abramoff scandal. They’re talking about “a lobby reform package.” We don’t need a lobby reform package, you dimwits, we need full public financing of campaigns, and every single one of you who spends half your time whoring after special interest contributions knows it. The Abramoff scandal is a once in a lifetime gift—a perfect lesson on what’s wrong with the system being laid out for people to see. Run with it, don’t mess around with little patches, and fix the system.
As usual, the Democrats have forty good issues on their side and want to run on thirty-nine of them. Here are three they should stick to:
1) Iraq is making terrorism worse; it’s a breeding ground. We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible. We are not helping the Iraqis by staying.
2) Full public financing of campaigns so as to drive the moneylenders from the halls of Washington.
3) Single-payer health insurance.
Every Democrat I talk to is appalled at the sheer gutlessness and spinelessness of the Democratic performance. The party is still cringing at the thought of being called, ooh-ooh, “unpatriotic” by a bunch of rightwingers.
Take “unpatriotic” and shove it. How dare they do this to our country? “Unpatriotic”? These people have ruined the American military! Not to mention the economy, the middle class, and our reputation in the world. Everything they touch turns to dirt, including Medicare prescription drugs and hurricane relief.
This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.
Who are these idiots talking about Warner of Virginia? Being anodyne is not sufficient qualification for being President. And if there’s nobody in Washington and we can’t find a Democratic governor, let’s run Bill Moyers, or Oprah, or some university president with ethics and charisma.
What happens now is not up to the has-beens in Washington who run this party. It is up to us. So let’s get off our butts and start building a progressive movement that can block the nomination of Hillary Clinton or any other candidate who supposedly has “all the money sewed up.”
I am tired of having the party nomination decided before the first primary vote is cast, tired of having the party beholden to the same old Establishment money.
We can raise our own money on the Internet, and we know it. Howard Dean raised $42 million, largely on the web, with a late start when he was running for President, and that ain’t chicken feed. If we double it, it gives us the lock on the nomination. So let’s go find a good candidate early and organize the out of our side.
Molly Ivins writes in this space every month. Her latest book is “Who Let the Dogs In?”
http://www.progressive.org/node/3142 |
That old Texas bat's still got some kick in her. I've stated this problem ad nauseum, and I can't ing understand why the hapless Dems. don't know how to fight. They will continue to get their teeth kicked in by the GOP if they don't stand up for themselves just once.
It's ing tiresome. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
Feingold? jesus you guys desperate.
when i said almost three years ago here that the democrats will do and say almost anything to regain their majority on all levels of government, i had no idea... |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Feingold? jesus you guys desperate.
when i said almost three years ago here that the democrats will do and say almost anything to regain their majority on all levels of government, i had no idea... |
So out of curiosity, who would be a worthy democrat? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Feingold? jesus you guys desperate.
when i said almost three years ago here that the democrats will do and say almost anything to regain their majority on all levels of government, i had no idea... |
Yes, I realize that calling out a president who knowingly and deliberately broke the law (in this case, FISA laws) may seem a bit desperate.
But then again, what was that thingy you GOPers did with Clinton again? And that lie which was clearly against the law entailed a little ing blowjob.
This illegal activity seemingly has quite a bigger ramification, especially when we start seeing spying activities like this come to fruition:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6031401520.html
Now you tell me EXACTLY which part of this censure is incorrect, and please support your assertions with verifiable evidence:
| quote: | RESOLUTION
Relating to the censure of George W. Bush.
Whereas Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and in so doing provided the executive branch with clear authority to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States;
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 has been amended multiple times since 1978, to expand the surveillance authority of the executive branch and address new technological developments;
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 states that it and the criminal wiretap law are the `exclusive means by which electronic surveillance' may be conducted by the United States Government and makes it a crime to wiretap individuals without complying with this statutory authority;
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 permits the Government to initiate wiretapping immediately in emergencies as long as the Government obtains approval from the court established under section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803) within 72 hours of initiating the wiretap;
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 authorizes wiretaps without the court orders otherwise required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for the first 15 days following a declaration of war by Congress;
Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force that became law on September 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), did not grant the President the power to authorize wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;
Whereas the President's inherent constitutional authority does not give him the power to violate the explicit statutory prohibition on warrantless wiretaps in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;
Whereas George W. Bush, President of the United States, has authorized and continues to authorize wiretaps by the National Security Agency of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;
Whereas President George W. Bush has failed to inform the full congressional intelligence committees about this program, as required by the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.);
Whereas President George W. Bush repeatedly misled the public prior to the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program by indicating his Administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, by stating--
(1) on April 20, 2004, that `When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.';
(2) on July 14, 2004, that `the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order'; and
(3) on June 9, 2005, that `Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools.';
Whereas President George W. Bush has, since the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program, falsely implied that the program was necessary because the executive branch did not have authority to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, by making statements about the supposed need for the program, including--
(1) on January 25, 2006, stating at the National Security Agency that `When terrorist operatives are here in America communicating with someone overseas, we must understand what's going on if we're going to do our job to protect the people. The safety and security of the American people depend on our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, and what they're planning. In the weeks following September the 11th, I authorized a terrorist surveillance program to detect and intercept al Qaeda communications involving someone here in the United States.'; and
(2) on January 31, 2006, asserting during the State of the Union that `The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.'; and
Whereas President George W. Bush inaccurately stated in his January 31, 2006, State of the Union address that `Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority.', even though the President has failed to identify a single instance since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 became law in which another President has authorized wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and no Federal court has evaluated whether the President has the inherent authority to authorize wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his Administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.RES.398: |
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
So out of curiosity, who would be a worthy democrat? |
Oooo, ooooo, I know! Lieberman, right? Ain't he a swell Republican, err, I mean Democrat? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
So out of curiosity, who would be a worthy democrat? |
not Feingold!
no, that Governor of New Mexico (Dem), seriously. i'd like to see him handle the primaries first but yeah, him. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Yes, I realize that calling out a president who knowingly and deliberately broke the law (in this case, FISA laws) may seem a bit desperate. |
prosecute him then, Derchiwitz:rolleyes: yeah, like i said |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
prosecute him then, Derchiwitz:rolleyes: yeah, like i said |
Well Jesus, how about a simple investigation? The actual committee to do the formal investigation on the matter is Senator Roberts' SSCI committee, and he along with the rest of the Republicans squelched an actual investigation of any sort.
Despite the evidence being stacked up against Bush in my opinion, I'm still more than willing to hear this Administration's side of the story under oath. I honestly can't see how that is too much to ask. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| there isn't one flippin Democrat in Congress that stands out to me. Republicans are a very short list as well. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Well Jesus, how about a simple investigation? The actual committee to do the formal investigation on the matter is Senator Roberts' SSCI committee, and he along with the rest of the Republicans squelched an actual investigation of any sort.
Despite the evidence being stacked up against Bush in my opinion, I'm still more than willing to hear this Administration's side of the story under oath. I honestly can't see how that is too much to ask. |
no dude. you've said (ad nauseum) that he broke the law.
the burden of proof is on you, couselor.
now you just want an investigation? cause if he's investigated, then obviously he's done something wrong...whoopity dooo!:rolleyes:
but if he's prosecuted due to the investigation...well, that's just gravy! whoopity dooo! |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
no dude. you've said (ad nauseum) that he broke the law.
the burden of proof is on you, couselor.
now you just want an investigation? cause if he's investigated, then obviously he's done something wrong...whoopity dooo!:rolleyes:
but if he's prosecuted due to the investigation...well, that's just gravy! whoopity dooo! |
Well if there's any case for him to say and prove otherwise, he should be entitled to do just that under oath, just as our courts mandate. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
f**k that weak ass punk. nothing irratates me more than someone ridin the fence all the time.
no offence, but the last thing we need right now is a Jew in the head office.
i said that in 2000, 2004 and now i'm gonna get on for it.:D |
Wow. Well, uh, can I ask why you're so adamantly against a person of Jewish descent becoming the President? I guess I never really considered such religious matters so important to running the country.
And I must tell you to please be careful what you say. That was a fairly racist thing to state, and despite us disagreeing on practically everything, I still don't want to see you suspended/banned/etc.
So just temper it a bit, if you would sir. |
|
|
|
|
