The lion is gone.

We lost the 'lion of the Senate' today. I wonder who will take his place. I fear the answer is 'no one.'

I was once a democrat -- I was raised a democrat. I still believe in the (former) ideals of the party; but I no longer believe that the party believes in them.

The current demcratic party lacks a rudder -- lacks any real belief in the ideals that were once their strength against bullies, and their rallying cry with the American people. They cower in the face of oposition because they don't really believe in the tenets they represent. Like all modern politicians, they spend their time with lobbyists. They are... influenced. They are hopelessly conflicted, and so they fail time and time again when everything is on the line and they are asked to represent the voters against the wishes of the corporate. They now enjoy a majority in the Senate, the House and they occupy the presidency -- and still they are hesitating, cowering before the media and backing down from every fight. The media they do NOT own; that is owned by big money interests, and used to its full advantage. The democrats in congress cower before it. If they actually believed... in anything... there would be no cowering. They would stand tall and fight back.

I see no real difference between the two parties of today. One party serves the lobbyists in the open; the other in secret. One claims that it will fix health care (while wining and dining with insurance lobbyists;) and the other openly denounces it and dreams up ridiculous catch phrases like 'death panels' to scare the gullible and the fearful... as though the current insurance company policies aren't already death panels for thousands if not millions of premium paying citizens.

The lines have blurred. But Edward Kennedy had a firm line and he defended it from all comers, all bullies, and he never backed down. He saw more tragedy in his life than most of us will ever know, and this made him stronger. It also made him compassionate. He fought for the poor, the disenfranchized, the middle class and the American workers. He fought for us -- whether we appreciated it or not. Now that he is gone, I can't imagine anyone (especially in the senate) that could possibly take up his mantle. The senate is full of millionaires. Few of them have any reason to care about the middle class or the poor. For some reason... Edward Kennedy and his brothers did care. Now they are gone. God help us.

My condolances to the Kennedy clan, and for all of us who lost a great champion today.

Spineless to the end

This is why I am a proud Independent. Not a Lieberman Independent... because I actually stand for something. Lieberman is a snake.

I have some hope for Obama... but Reid and Pelosi are pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. If they really think this guy (who is no doubt off laughing with his Neocon friends) will actually caucus with them, they are not only pathetic -- they are insane.

Thought for today, and a question

While the people retain their virtue, and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government, in the short space of four years.

- Abraham Lincoln

Is the disastrous state of our nation due to our own lack of 'virtue and vigilance;' or because the damage dragged on - unchecked - for eight full years instead of four?

We did surprise the establishment by sending a Democratic majority to Congress in 2006, assuming that they would push back and 'clean the place up.' They chose to do nothing. They didn't even vote to end the war in Iraq (which has cost us billions and resulted in an enormous debt to Communist China, not to mention ongoing loss of life.) They chose not to hold the Bush Administration accountable, even when the multitude of crimes committed by this administration became evident.

All of these components have led us to our current state of economic collapse and lack of respect around the globe.

President Jimmy Carter said yesterday that the "atrocious economic policies of the Bush administration had caused the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s." True. But what of the Democratic Congress we elected in 2006, and their responsibility to act as a check on those economic policies?

Seems to me that there is more than enough blame to go around.

My question for today: does our current state of affairs reflect badly on our vigilance as citizens, or on Democratic capitulation?

I still plan to vote for Obama. But I can't stop wondering... have the Democrats learned anything at all from this disaster? And if they haven't, do we really have any hope - other than in the foresight of one potentially great leader, Barack Obama - that this country can pull out if its nosedive?

Dear Indiana...

We are officially a 'toss up' state.

Do any of us even remember the last time we were a toss up?

I hear that Evan Bayh spoke at yesterday's Obama rally in Indy, describing his memory of attending an LBJ rally with his father when he was a child (LBJ was the last Democrat that won this state.)

I'm not old enough to remember LBJ's 1965 campaign. I'm not even sure my mother would remember that!

But this time, we are a toss up. We have turned from 'red' to 'yellow.' I don't need to tell fellow Hoosiers about the significance of this; especially in this former Klan state.

We've come a long way, baby. Move over Illinois, Ohio... :)

Democrats, Republicans both scorn their bases

From McClatchy New Bureau (real news for discerning thinkers:)

Lawmakers buck party bases on drilling, bailout
By James Rosen | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — In a dazzlingly short span of days, Democrats and Republicans each have caved on a core issue.

Bowing to pressure by Republicans, Democratic congressional leaders agreed this week to let the 26-year-old congressional ban on offshore oil- and natural-gas drilling expire Tuesday, when the federal fiscal year ends.

The move has angered environmentalists, a key constituency for Democrats.

"The environmental community is united in its opposition to drilling," said Anna Aurilio, who heads the Washington office of Environment America, which represents conservation groups in 26 states. "There is no need to open our coasts to drilling."

At the same time, President Bush, Republican presidential nominee John McCain and Republican congressional leaders are pushing their party peers to pass a massive financial-services bailout that would dwarf any government program since the New Deal.

That prospect is infuriating fiscal conservatives and small-government activists who underpin the Republican Party.

"This may be your last chance to protect taxpayers and our economy from what could be the greatest fiscal policy fiasco in our nation's history," Pete Sepp, a policy analyst with the National Taxpayers Union, a Washington group that tracks federal spending, wrote in a letter to lawmakers.

With elections less than six weeks away, is this any way for senators and representatives to treat their parties' most fervent loyalists?

I assume these politicians - of both parties - pander to lobbyist interests (and totally disregard their 'bases') because in our country, the lobbyists pay for election campaigns. McCain's campaign is actually being run by an active lobbyist for Freddie Mac.

That's right -- for all of his tough talk about lobbyists in Washington -- McCain's right hand man, Rick Davis, is still listed as an officer and lobbyist for Freddie Mac... and is still being paid by them. Talk about 'in our face...'

'We the people' simply vote in these staged elections, now rife with bogus regulations, bullying and electoral cheating.

That, and they know we have no choice. We have no alternative party. They have a political monopoly.

By the way - again - why don't we yet have a choice? What will it take for us to pull together and build a viable and strong third party in this country?

Nader is right in that regard; we'll never get our country back without one.

The Democrat and Republican machines have auctioned themselves to the corporate and banking behemoths that now run our government. The rest is simply a staged production to keep us all working and paying taxes.

Peaceful consumers -- that's all we are. Although the consuming part is going to slow and eventually cease as we all lose our homes and our jobs. I suppose at that point they'll simply sell all of our food and goods overseas and patrol our streets with Star Wars police squads wearing black body armor.

Lou Dobbs goes for the throat

I haven't been able to catch Lou lately (and I grew tired of the immigration rants; I'm much more concerned with saving our Constitution and democracy.) But when Lou Dobbs takes off the immigration hat and puts on his anti-corpocrisy helmet... he's 'everyman' with a bullhorn.

Judging from my latest CNN email alert, tonight is going to be fun.

From CNN: Tonight on Lou Dobbs

* Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Lehman Brother and AIG under federal investigation. The FBI is investigating the companies as part of a broader look into deceptive mortgage lending and possible fraud in creating the current market mess. At least 26 firms are under investigation as well

* For years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac feasted on public trust and the promise that their stocks were backed by a line of Treasury credit. As they grew bloated, and executive salaries skyrocketed, some experts warned that the U.S. economy was being put at risk. But that was drowned out by a virtual army of lobbyists.

* Lawmakers in the House of Representatives finally passed a Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights yesterday after months of waffling, partisan bickering, and holding meaningless hearings while failing to address the issue with legislation. But that doesn’t mean regular men and women are suddenly going to get a fair shake against the greedy mega-companies that can boost fees and change the rules at any time. After all, the Senate still has to pass the bill and the president has to sign it – both have said they oppose legislation that helps the middle class and not multi-billion dollar financial companies.

Lay waste to them Lou! If we all keep pounding on them from every direction, we may save this country yet.

By the way... this is what real patriotism looks like. Its not a bumper sticker. Its not even a flag.

Patriotism is a unified sea of Republicans, Democrats and Independents - united by our love of freedom, Constitution and democracy - rising up as one wave; and crashing down on any attempted tyranny (be it financial or otherwise.)

All of us, together.

To hell with this 'blue' and 'red' BS the political machines use to divide, then conquer us. The word 'biparisan' is completely empty in the face of our united, collective wrath. They can't beat us if we stick together. Nation before party! (Finally!)

The Great American Swindle

Our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub.

- Grover Norquist ('Field Marshal' of the Bush Plan)

Has the government drowned yet? (Can we finally shut off the water?)

Good piece from The Nation, by William Grieder:

Financial-market wise guys, who had been seized with fear, are suddenly drunk with hope. They are rallying explosively because they think they have successfully stampeded Washington into accepting the Wall Street Journal solution to the crisis: dump it all on the taxpayers. That is the meaning of the massive bailout Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has shopped around Congress. It would relieve the major banks and investment firms of their mountainous rotten assets and make the public swallow their losses--many hundreds of billions, maybe much more. What's not to like if you are a financial titan threatened with extinction?

If Wall Street gets away with this, it will represent an historic swindle of the American public--all sugar for the villains, lasting pain and damage for the victims. My advice to Washington politicians: Stop, take a deep breath and examine what you are being told to do by so-called "responsible opinion." If this deal succeeds, I predict it will become a transforming event in American politics--exposing the deep deformities in our democracy and launching a tidal wave of righteous anger and popular rebellion. As I have been saying for several months, this crisis has the potential to bring down one or both political parties, take your choice.

Actually... if they're brought down, perhaps we can start over. Its probably time to let these two bloated, corrupt parties crash with their buddies in the bloated, corrupt financial market. They all sleep in the same bed. The Republicans are now Neocons; the Democrats... Neocon collaborators. Any semblance of their former party platforms has long ago vanished.

While the growing ranks of angry Independents watch both parties hang themselves with their own neckties (you can make that a purse strap for Palin,) Greider talks about what our government could be doing... if it wasn't in bed with Wall Street lobbyists:

Let me be clear. The scandal is not that government is acting. The scandal is that government is not acting forcefully enough--using its ultimate emergency powers to take full control of the financial system and impose order on banks, firms and markets. Stop the music, so to speak, instead of allowing individual financiers and traders to take opportunistic moves to save themselves at the expense of the system. The step-by-step rescues that the Federal Reserve and Treasury have executed to date have failed utterly to reverse the flight of investors and banks worldwide from lending or buying in doubtful times. There is no obvious reason to assume this bailout proposal will change their minds, though it will certainly feel good to the financial houses that get to dump their bad paper on the government.

A serious intervention in which Washington takes charge would, first, require a new central authority to supervise the financial institutions and compel them to support the government's actions to stabilize the system. Government can apply killer leverage to the financial players: accept our objectives and follow our instructions or you are left on your own--cut off from government lending spigots and ineligible for any direct assistance. If they decline to cooperate, the money guys are stuck with their own mess. If they resist the government's orders to keep lending to the real economy of producers and consumers, banks and brokers will be effectively isolated, therefore doomed.

Since both parties serve their campaign financiers - corporate and banking lobbyists - of course nothing substantial will be done... other than dumping the entire thing on the backs of the already-struggling taxpayer.

The tub is overflowing. Can we turn off the water now?

How the Democrats blew it (woof! woof!)

Alexander Cockburn, in a scathing commentary posted to the upcoming Nation Magazine, has summed the Democratic Party's situation as succinctly as anyone to date. The Democrats have blown it... and on an epic scale.

And it only took them 8 months to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory:

Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a "confidence" rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.

The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it's escalating. The Democrats voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for "foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States." Enough Democrats joined Republicans to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Democrats control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she'd wanted to. But she didn't. The Democrats' game is to go along with the White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.

The commentary goes on - it is excellent, if wildly depressing.

Thrown to the Dogs

Matt Renner, writing for truthout.org, lays the blame squarely on the Blue Dog coalition; our closet army of Lieber-Bushies hell bent on obstructing any real change or progress in the Democratic party, using their voting bloc to support the Bush agenda, and openly supporting the war in Iraq:

The Blue Dogs pride themselves on being a fiscally conservative group intent on balancing the national budget and paying down the almost $9 trillion national debt. Tim Mahoney, who became the Representative for the 16th district of Florida after disgraced Republican Mark Foley dropped out of the 2006 election, recently became a member of the Blue Dogs. When he joined up, Mahoney described the coalition as a select group with an agenda. "We're hawks on national defense, we're pro-business, especially small business, and we believe in balancing the budget," Mahoney said. According to Mahoney, he faced a thorough vetting process before being accepted into the group. "You have to be interviewed and accepted by the group. You have to be able to demonstrate that you're ideologically supportive of being fiscally conservative. You show them speeches and statements you've made in the past," Mahoney told the Charlotte Sun, a local paper from his district.

The Blue Dogs have apparently informed the Democratic leadership in the House that they support the ongoing occupation of Iraq. According to Mahoney, he met with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and told her "The president should be free to maintain troops in Iraq, if the purpose is to thwart terrorism."

Mahoney's description of the Blue Dog's hawkish stance is not officially part of their platform, according to their spokesperson and their web site. The group does not issue press releases on national defense votes, although they have played an instrumental role in passing controversial bills that have been framed by the Bush administration as legislation intended to prevent terrorism.

The Blue Dogs have provided key votes on controversial bills backed by the Bush administration. In September of 2006, 31 Democratic representatives voted with the Republican majority in the House to pass The Military Commissions Act. The controversial act empowered Bush to designate individuals as "enemy combatants," and deny them certain legal rights. Twenty-three of the Democrats who supported the bill were Blue Dogs. At 10:20 PM on Saturday, August 4, 2007, with the help of 31 Blue Dogs, the House Republicans passed the Protect America Act, a bill that altered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and weakened safeguards against domestic warrantless wiretapping. The bill, a replica of a proposal by the Bush administration, passed with a 44 vote margin, with 227 Yeas and 183 Nays. Despite comprising 76 percent of the Democratic support for the bill, communications director for the Blue Dogs, Kristen Hawn, said that the Blue Dog Coalition took no official position on the bill.

Despite the fracture among Democrats, Pelosi allowed the Republican bill to come to the floor for a vote. After it passed, she went on record saying that the bill "does violence to the Constitution of the United States."

So there you have it. The Democrats are going down in flames, and the Blue Dogs set the fire.

I wonder, once the Democratic party is dead and buried... will the dawgs trot over to the Republican side of the aisle and join their buddy Joe?

I'm sure Lieberman will be waiting for each of them with an affectionate pat on the head, a chewy bone, and plenty of 'attaboys' for their unflinching loyalty to the president.

The fear of fear itself

Excellent editorial in the New York Times today:

It was appalling to watch over the last few days as Congress — now led by Democrats — caved in to yet another unnecessary and dangerous expansion of President Bush’s powers, this time to spy on Americans in violation of basic constitutional rights. Many of the 16 Democrats in the Senate and 41 in the House who voted for the bill said that they had acted in the name of national security, but the only security at play was their job security.

I am not sure at what point down the road this Democratic majority will finally 'get it,' and realize the epic proportion of their betrayal (as it is seen from out here,) but I am guessing it is already too late for their 2008 election hopes.

Democratic constituents who have been paying attention now know there is an enormous difference between a GOP rubber stamp 'Blue Dog' Democrat, and the other members of the party.

We're pretty sure we understand now... why impeachment is off the table, no matter what the crime. We're guessing that we are facing a veritable army of 'closet Liebermans' within the ranks of the party we expected to finally restore some oversight to this presidency.

NY Times editorial again:

But mostly, the spectacle left us wondering what the Democrats — especially their feckless Senate leaders — plan to do with their majority in Congress if they are too scared of Republican campaign ads to use it to protect the Constitution and restrain an out-of-control president.

Ah yes... the question we are all asking ourselves this week. What is the point of having you there? What good are you?

Democrats... Blue Dogs... you have failed us.

Independents and Republicans that might have voted Democrat in 2008 may not see the glaring difference between 'Democrat' and 'Blue Dog Democrat.' They will only see betrayal.

I suspect they will end up voting for some last minute Independent candidate, or perhaps will join the swelling ranks of the Ron Paul crowd. But they will not vote for you. You have proven yourselves traitors to the Constitution, and enablers of the most unpopular - and corrupt - president in history.

Democrats: you blew it.

There was obviously only one goal when you took office last November; one thing you really cared about, and that was your re-election and an even bigger majority in 2008. You blew it on an epic scale.

I wonder if you understand, finally, why we sent you to Washington last November. We asked you to govern. We asked you to defend us and our Constitution; we asked you to end this horrific and illegal war that is bankrupting our nation and destroying Iraq. We asked you to take back your constitutional oversight, your jobs as senators and congressmen, and reign in this 'Unitary Executive.'

Had you done any of these things (we expected all of them) you would no doubt have realized your dream of a massive landslide victory in 2008.

You have failed us at every turn. And now... we no longer trust you.

As Abraham Lincoln once said: "If once you forfeit the confidence of your fellow-citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem."

Wartime leaders from throughout our history might have given you a little advance advice, had any of you bothered to educate yourselves on their writings and their wisdom. FDR, who guided our nation through the Great Depression and WWII, would no doubt have told you that there is 'nothing to fear but fear itself.'

Lincoln, who presided over a horrific war the likes of which you cannot possibly imagine, and courageously signed the Emancipation Proclamation (which undoubtedly lead to his assassination,) would have told you this: "It often requires more courage to dare to do right than to fear to do wrong."

I imagine this is going right over your heads. You are politicians. We no longer elect 'statesmen' to represent us, and obviously to our peril.

So I suppose the fault is ours: we did not look 'deeply into your eyes' as Mr. Bush looked into Vladimir Putin's (pardon the sick metaphor.) We never studied you, and questioned your moral and ethical character.

Yes character. Turns out a little thing like personal character matters. You have shown yourselves to be lacking in both courage and ethics. And all of us will pay the price.

It is now obvious to everyone that you are entirely ruled by fear: fear of the media, and fear of 'looking weak.' How incredibly ironic that your fear of looking weak has actually made you weak: so weak that we voters question how we ever mistook you for actual vertebrates last fall.

A jellyfish or a Blue Dog Democrat? What difference?

A sad reflection on our government and this floundering Democratic party. Because apparently the GOP is right on at least one point: Democrats are weak. Democrats have chosen to be weak.

I hope that when you return from your vacation, you realize the ramifications of your betrayal. There is still time for you to grow some spine, and 'risk' a bit for the defense of your country and your Constitution. You have a choice: defend the Constitution and your constituents, or be thrown out of office in 2008. The choice is yours. We've had enough.

But understand one thing: we no longer trust you. That 2008 landslide will never happen now. We expected you to earn it. You have betrayed our trust.

Declaration of Independence... from all parties

I was just out on Daily Kos reading comments, and I must say I have never before seen such unleashed anger against the Democratic party. Lifelong Democrats are declaring that they have quit the party over this final betrayal - and I don't blame them.

If I hadn't already quit, I'd be quitting too.

The Democratic party no longer represents the people. The Democratic party has lost its way. Actually, the Republican party no longer represents anyone but big business either -- but at least they are up front about it. The betrayal of the Democratic party comes from their promises, followed closely by spineless capitulation, cowering then caving.

I imagine the ranks of Independents in this country have swelled to a staggering number. Time for a new poll. Time for a new party.

No more Republicans. No more Democrats. No more corpocracy, fear-mongering and capitulation. Any elected official who will not protect and defend the Constitution should be removed from office. This is not negotiable.

GOP smashing previous filibuster record

Remember the good old days, when the GOP was determined to get rid of the 'filibuster' entirely?

Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the "nuclear option," to thwart such filibusters.

Aww.

Too bad they didn't do it.

According to a new story from McClatchy, entitled 'Senate tied in knots by filibusters,' this GOP Senate is on track to blow all previous records for 'obstructionism' in Congress:

WASHINGTON: This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that’s rooted in — and could increase — the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.

--- snip ---

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.

Of course, as you've already guessed... the Democrats are to blame!

Republican Senate leader McConnell said Friday in a news conference that when he became minority leader, "it was not my goal to see us do nothing. I mean, you can always use the next election as a rationale for not doing anything. But as you all know, we've had a regularly scheduled election every two years since 1788, so there's always an election right around the corner."

--- snip ---

"And I think clearly the way to accomplish things is in the political middle, and I would challenge our friends on the other side of the aisle to step up and take a chance on something big and important for our country."

Oh please.

Of course the mainstream media has blamed the Democrats for gumming up the works, and most especially for demanding the all night session to debate an early withdrawal from Iraq. Some news reports have even accused the Democrats of filibustering.

McClatchy is one of the only news departments that has maintained any semblance of balance and honesty in their news reporting. As we've seen, just about every other news service has blamed the Democrats for congressional inaction, and ignored the fact that the GOP has been obstructing at every turn. The fact that they are taking it to a new historic level... can't wait to see that reported on CNN and NBC.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., forced an all-night session on the Iraq war this week to draw attention to what Democrats called Republican obstruction.

"The minority party has decided we have to get to 60 votes on almost everything we vote on of substance," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "That's not the way this place is supposed to work."

Even Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who's served in Congress since 1973, complained that "the Senate is spiraling into the ground to a degree that I have never seen before, and I've been here a long time. All modicum of courtesy is going out the window."

I read McClatchy, but it was fun to take a trip down memory lane and revisit Frist at his high-handed finest; criticizing the Democrats for 'blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees'. Uh huh.

Maybe its time to bring back that nuclear option...

$#%@& Stop spinning me!

Warning: This is a rant, and I've been writing it for days... although due to a planetary convergence (and the outrageous gall of our commander-guy,) I am posting it at the apex of my fury. Because I started it several days ago, you will be spared much of my current vitriol. Know that it is there.

I am no longer asking... I am demanding impeachment. I am not kidding.

Master of Destruction

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. - Abraham Lincoln

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776.

Money for nothin

I keep receiving emails from the DCCC, asking for money.

This of course is no surprise; every day I am bombarded with requests for money from presidential candidates, environmental groups, independent progressive newsletters and advocacy campaigns. I try to support progressive candidates that I know will really step up and make a difference.

My trust in the Democratic Party, however, has worn quite thin. Quite thin indeed. The DCCC can get in line. The last few emails I've received illustrate perfectly the moral bankruptcy inherent in this money-based election system. Rather than governing, the party is focused only on the next election - a year and a half away.

Meanwhile, our democracy is falling apart before my eyes. Our morality as a nation - not RELIGION, but the basic morality of our grandfathers and ancestors who DID NOT TORTURE, honored HABEAS CORPUS, and who believed in THE RULE OF LAW, separation of church and state -- and simple REASON: all of this is disintegrating.

And the DCCC writes emails, singing about some upcoming election - shades of the emails I received less than a year ago, about another 'upcoming election' and how that one would rock my world.

Right. Tell that to some other sucker.

Perhaps I wouldn't mind as much - that the DCCC is already hanging around in my inbasket, daily begging for my money - if I could see that the Democrats really meant business: that they plan to clean up this disaster that once was our Federal Government.

But from what I heard in April - supposedly from Democrat staffers 'in the know' - they plan to investigate solely to draw attention to Bush and Cheney's mishandling of our government; then leave them untouched, so they can use these scandals to draw voters to the Democratic Party.

The reason we should all vote for Democrats? "Because we aren't as lousy as the neocons!"

Friday's DCCC email was supposedly from Rahm Emanuel, and entitled 'Dick Cheney':

According to Dick Cheney, everything we learned in school is wrong. Instead of three branches of government, there are now four – the legislative, the executive, the judicial, and Dick Cheney.

In an attempt to obstruct meaningful oversight and avoid being held accountable, the Vice President said he did not consider himself part of the executive branch.

We both know the power to hold Dick Cheney accountable belongs to Congress. Could you possibly think of a better reason to have a stronger Democratic Majority?

My reply?

"When you decide to actually use that power to 'hold Dick Cheney accountable' and file impeachment articles against him.... then I will donate."

In other words: We already GAVE you the majority you need to impeach. Now pay me what you owe me, by honoring your constitutional oaths of office, before you come back asking for money! (That, and give me a little time to get over my disappointment in your lack of performance after the last election... please...)

Stop spinning me! Damn it! I'm sick to death of this endless propaganda! I know what 'nothing' looks like - and you're giving me nothing!

The DCCC obviously thinks that I am really stupid (or they are hoping that I'm really stupid.) Because by the time Rahm's fellow congresscritters are elected, in theory, Dick will be out of office.

I say 'in theory' because of course, we cannot bank on that, can we? No, we cannot bank on that because no one will touch him, so it's really up to Dick whether he steps down... or not. Our Constitution has been thrown under the bus, and the Democratic majority is refusing to lift a finger to save it.

We daily read about amazing breaches of governmental law, accountability and Constitution, and still impeachment is "Off the table." That is so outrageous it is very nearly criminal.

Madam speaker, if I may respectfully remind you... you swore an oath to protect the Constitution! I intend to hold you to that oath, and I suspect a huge percentage of my fellow Americans concur.

For God's sake: FIND A TABLE!

Cheney is still in office; a very real, constant danger to our democracy and to the world. And in spite of their majority, the Democrats sit on their hands. They don't even use impeachment as a threat.

NO: I won't give you any more money for not representing me or honoring your oaths of office - sorry guys. I like some return on my investment. I'm sure the lobbyists got theirs, now I want mine.

I think what irritates me the most is that Rahm (or someone pretending to be Rahm) thinks he only has to mention the word 'Dick Cheney' and I will immediately pull out my checkbook - even though he doesn't plan to actually do anything about Dick Cheney and his rampant abuse of power. Is Dick Cheney now the DCCC's bestest-buddy fundraiser-helper? Say it isn't so!

Anyway - I refuse to play.

Saturday's email was entitled 'Bush's 15 million':

Midnight tonight is the deadline. We are just $65,000 away and just hours from our Million Dollar Challenge before the critical June 30th FEC deadline where we report our fundraising totals and the media and pundits will use them to judge our chances for success in 2008.

What the hell...? Now I am supposed you give you money because you are cowering about what the 'media pundits' will say?

Like hell!

You don't care about protecting the rule of law and democracy - you just want us to help keep the media off your backs. Could you not - perhaps - have taken a different tack, and requested our citizen contributions so that you wouldn't have to go crawling to big business for cash? I might have signed on for that, because then I would know you were truly accountable to me - the voter.

No - of course you didn't say that, because you plan to go crawling to big business anyway. You always do. And you represent them quite well, I might add. Tell them about Bush's millions. Don't bother me again until you plan to represent me.

It's this poll thing - this fear of the bully media, that motives you guys, not the interests of your base. The media is now nothing more than a giant, corporate bully club; used by corporations and their lobbyists to beat you, intimidate you, and keep you all in line. And of course, to keep you from actually doing anything on my behalf.

Sorry, I won't play.

No free lunch

I don't give a flying @&$*% what the media pundits say. Because you don't give a flying @(*$*% what I am saying right now. Damn it: FIX MY GOVERNMENT. Fix it right now, and get your eyes off the damn 2008 calendar. We just elected you!

Imagine if an employee was hired on the basis of his willingness to do a job, and several months later - after doing absolutely no productive work, including the job he was hired to do (get us out of Iraq) - came asking for a raise. He'd be tossed right out of the employer's office, and most likely find himself in the unemployment line. Think about that.

The future is promised to no one... and that is especially true right now. How do you know we won't be at war with Iran in 2008? You're taking a huge chance with our freedom, and with the safety of the world. These guys won't even take nukes off the table. Imagine what their hero Reagan would think of that... he'd think they are madmen.

You couldn't even do the one thing that we absolutely demanded you accomplish: get our troops out of Iraq. You couldn't manage to exercise your budget oversight and cut the gravy train - which was your job, not some scary option - and you did nothing to demand your lawful oversight for any planned attacks on Iran. Oh some smart progressives that we sent to Washington suggested this, but you wouldn't have it.

You totally caved.

And sure, Bush was going to say 'no' anyway. We all knew this. You could at least have stood your ground, don't you think? Once again, you were worried about what he would say about you, while you were out of town and on vacation.

Did you give UP your vacation to do the right thing? HELL NO.

Terrific representation and dedication to country! We have people dying for us in Iraq and Afghanistan - sent there by you - and you couldn't even give up your Memorial Day on their behalf? What a sick way to honor their sacrifices.

This president has one of the lowest approval ratings in history, and is breaking laws and issuing signing statements at a rate that puts Nixon to shame -- and you refuse to hold him accountable. Oh sure you are investigating... but to what end? Simply to win an election that is over a year away? What about responsibility for the future - setting a precedent that should have been set with Nixon? Yes, that national nightmare is back! That you refuse to impeach Bush and Cheney for behaving worse than Nixon... is mind-boggling to me.

Cheney is outright lawless... and you won't even support one of your own, Dennis Kucinich, who had the courage to move forward with impeachment seemingly on his own. Brave Dennis, the people's champion. He must drive you crazy. Always whipping out that Constitution. Well let me tell you -- I'd take an entire Congress full of Dennises right now! A Congress full of Dennises and a Senate full of Russes. That might do the trick.

Even angry Republicans are supporting you, hoping and praying that you would reign in their own party - and still you fold, repeatedly, like a cheap suit!

Last night at the Giant's game, as the National Anthem began some unidentified people unfurled a banner about 14 feet long and 5 feet high that simply said IMPEACH. They were up in the walkway above the bleachers so the majority of the fans could have seen it, though it would have been easy enough to miss.

Within a minute, stadium people were on the scene and the banner was taken down. I took a picture on my camera phone which isn’t great, but good enough.

Frankly you're worth neither my vote or my money without action.

As they say in business - and this is something you should understand: it's all about results. I'll pay you when I see a return on my last investment.

Right now, I'm losing - and losing big. I'm losing my Constitution, my Bill of Rights, my country's troops are still in Iraq, my Federal agencies of oversight have all been outsourced, my food - and my pets' food - is tainted, my planet is heating up, our jobs have been outsourced, our Federal coffers are being looted (and that's my Social Security money you're blowing, or should I say 'handing off to Halliburton.')

Leahy, Feingold, Conyers and Waxman are the exceptions to your party capitulation, along with a handful of other progressives that you label 'fringe' because they actually get it. Dennis Kucinich is an American hero. And do you intend to back them as they deal with this 'larger-than-Watergate' scandal in the Executive Branch?

All over the world, people are watching you... watching us. Watching this once great democracy, and beacon of freedom for the world flounder around like a gutted carp in a row boat. They are waiting to see what YOU WILL DO:

Vice-President Dick Cheney was personally responsible for American policies that subjected terrorist suspects to cruelty and denied them the right to a fair trial, according to revelations from senior US government officials.

The details have laid bare more than ever before the remarkable influence of Mr Cheney in shaping the prosecution of the war on terror which led to the scandals at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

You wring your hands and you cower - and secretly you think you can just leave Bush and Cheney there to draw our ire so that we will magically re-elect you with an even greater majority - all for doing NOTHING. You haven't even reigned in the war profiteers, and you gutted your own oil-gouging legislation. And you wonder why you're polling so low? You're polling low because you have betrayed us!

That dog won't hunt

My own 'Blue Dog' representative is a total disgrace; simply a lump in the system, clogging up the workings of democracy. He's not a Republican - and he certainly isn't a Democrat. He's a lump. Slightly better than a Joe Lieberman, and slightly better than the Republican he replaced. But that's about all.

That dog won't hunt; and both the DCCC and Moveon.org actually asked me to spend hours calling voters on his behalf, insisting he was part of this 'great and glorious Democratic majority' that would change the world (or at least reign in the Bush Administration.)

I'm quite sure - especially given the letter I received from him concerning impeachment of Dick Cheney - that he is one of the reasons impeachment is 'off the table.' He doesn't want to 'rile his Republican friends.' I'd recall him for failure to honor his oath of office if I could. He is no representative of mine, and as far as I am concerned -- he is an oath-breaker!

I will give what little money I can spare to progressive candidates - even if they're other people's representatives, because I obviously can't get any decent representation of my own. I will give to the online, independent media that keeps me informed while the corporate media talks about Paris Hilton. I will support the environmental causes that are fighting to save the places that I love, and I will do whatever I can to make a difference with my money. But I no longer trust Moveon or the DCCC to spend it wisely.

If once you forfeit the confidence of your fellow-citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. - Abraham Lincoln

A word of advice to this Democratic Majority: I'm not the only one that feels this way. You'd better wise up and start acting on those campaign promises - start defending our constitutional rights - or you're going to be very unhappy when the 2008 elections finally do roll around.

Paybacks are a mother.

All it will take is one credible Independent candidate... and people will start flocking to the banner. I know you think it can't be done, but you have completely misread the seriousness of this situation, and underestimated the wrath of the Democrat and Republican masses that feel entirely unrepresented out here.

We're pissed - no, we're MAD AS HELL - and we want results. We demand justice! This is a nation of law, of order. That goes from the 'lowliest citizen' to the highest official. No special favors, no double standard. With Liberty and Justice FOR ALL.

We want our Constitution protected, this Executive Branch reigned in and prosecuted for breaking the LAW, starting this ILLEGAL WAR, TORTURING PEOPLE and TAKING THEM HOSTAGE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, and destroying everything this country once represented around the world... and yes, we want our government back.

WE THE PEOPLE. You may have forgotten, but I'll be damned if we have.

Oh... and if you do impeach these monsters? If you do come through for us? I'll personally walk all the way from Indiana to Washington D.C. and bring you cookies. Seriously. It will be well worth it.

Gloves off now, Democrats?

WASHINGTON -- President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case. Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That decision put the pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Jesus. Even Paris Hilton went to jail. Not poor, poor Scooter. Never the Scooter.

This country is going to the dogs. Absolutely to the dogs. No, dogs have more class than neocons.

No - I won't play this stupid game

I keep getting emails from the DCCC, asking for money. This of course is no surprise; every day I am bombarded with requests for money from presidential candidates, environmental groups, independent progressive newsletters and advocacy campaigns.

The DCCC can get in line; because frankly their reasons for asking simply underlined everything that is wrong with both the money-based election system, and the Democratic party itself.

Yesterday's email was supposedly from Rahm Emanuel, and entitled 'Dick Cheney':

According to Dick Cheney, everything we learned in school is wrong. Instead of three branches of government, there are now four – the legislative, the executive, the judicial, and Dick Cheney.

In an attempt to obstruct meaningful oversight and avoid being held accountable, the Vice President said he did not consider himself part of the executive branch.

We both know the power to hold Dick Cheney accountable belongs to Congress. Could you possibly think of a better reason to have a stronger Democratic Majority?

My reply?

"You begin the impeachment process, and I will donate."

In other words: pay me what you owe me, before you come asking me for more money.

The DCCC obviously thinks that I am really stupid. Fool me once, shame on you... but you will never fool me twice.

By the time Rahm's fellow minions are elected, in theory, Dick will be out of office. I say 'in theory' because of course, we cannot bank on that. Our Constitution has been turned on it's ear -- and the Democratic majority is refusing to lift a finger to save it. We daily read about these amazing breaches of government and Constitution, and still impeachment is 'off the table' with these guys. So NO, I won't give you any more money for not representing me or honoring your oaths of office, sorry guys. I like some payout on my investment. I'm sure the lobbyists got theirs, now I want mine.

I think what irritated me the most was that Rahm (or someone pretending to be Rahm) thinks he only has to mention the word 'Dick Cheney' and I will immediately pull out my checkbook - even though he doesn't plan to actually do anything about Dick Cheney and his rampant abuse of power. Dick Cheney is the DCCC's bestest-buddy fundraiser-helper.

Or so the DCCC thinks. I refuse to play.

Saturday's email was entitled 'Bush's 15 million':

Midnight tonight is the deadline. We are just $65,000 away and just hours from our Million Dollar Challenge before the critical June 30th FEC deadline where we report our fundraising totals and the media and pundits will use them to judge our chances for success in 2008.

What the hell...? Now I am supposed you give you money because you are cowering about what the 'media pundits' will say? Like hell.

You don't care about protecting the rule of law and democracy - you just want us to help keep the media off your backs. Could you not - perhaps - have taken a different tack, and requested our help so that you wouldn't have to go crawling to big business for cash?

No - of course you didn't say that, because you plan to go crawling to big business anyway. You always do. And you represent them quite well, I might add. Tell them about Bush's millions. Don't talk to me until you plan to represent me.

It's this poll thing - this fear of the bully media, that motives you guys, not the interests of your base. The media is now nothing more than a giant, corporate bully club; used by big business and their lobbyists to beat you, intimidate you, and keep you all in line. And keep you from actually doing anything on my behalf.

And still you have the temerity to ask for money. Sorry, I won't play.

I don't give a flying @&$*% what the media pundits say. Because you don't give a flying @(*$*% what I am saying right now. Damn it: FIX MY GOVERNMENT. Fix it right now, and get your eyes off the damn 2008 calendar. How the hell do you even know we won't be at war with Iran by 2008? You don't know: because you can't even cut funding for the Iraq war - which is your job - and you did nothing to demand your lawful oversight for any planned attacks on Iran. You totally caved. Sure Bush was going to say 'no' anyway, but you could at least have stood your ground!

This president has one of the lowest approval ratings in history, and is breaking laws and issuing signing statements at a rate that puts Nixon to shame -- and you refuse to hold him accountable. Cheney is outright lawless... and you can't even support one of your own, Dennis Kucinich, who had the courage to move forward with impeachment. Dennis gives a damn about this country. You obviously care more about your own party's interests to even take a chance that maybe, just maybe, we want some justice out here!

Frankly you're worth neither my vote or my money without action.

As they say in business, and this is something you should understand: it's all about results. I'll pay you when I see a return on my last investment.

Right now, I'm losing - and losing big. I'm losing my Constitution, my Bill of Rights, my country's troops are still in Iraq, my Federal agencies of oversight have all been outsourced, my food - and my pets' food - is tainted, my planet is heating up, our jobs have been outsourced, our Federal coffers are being looted (and that's my Social Security money you're blowing, or should I say 'handing off to Halliburton.')

We gave you a majority just last November, because you said that you were going to fix all of this, and you haven't done jack with it -- you have capitulated the entire way. Leahy, Feingold, Conyers and Waxman are the exceptions, and Dennis Kucinich is a hero.

And do you intend to back them up as they deal with this 'larger-than-Watergate' scandal in the Executive Branch? Fat chance. You wring your hands and you cower and secretly you think you can just leave Bush and Cheney there to draw our ire so that we will magically re-elect you with an even greater majority - all for doing NOTHING. You haven't even reigned in the war profiteers, and you gutted your own oil-gouging legislation. And you wonder why you're all polling so low?





My own 'Blue Dog' representative is a total disgrace; simply a lump in the system, clogging up the workings of democracy. He's not a Republican - and he certainly isn't a Democrat. He's a lump. Slightly better than a Joe Lieberman, and slightly better than the Republican he replaced. But that's about all.

That dog won't hunt; and both the DCCC and Moveon.org actually asked me to spend hours calling voters on his behalf, insisting he was part of this 'great and glorious Democratic majority' that would change the world (or at least reign in the Bush Administration.)

I'm quite sure - especially given the letter I received from him concerning impeachment of Dick Cheney - that he is one of the reasons impeachment is 'off the table.' He doesn't want to 'rile his Republican friends.' I'd recall him for failure to honor his oath of office if I could. He is no representative of mine, and as far as I am concerned -- he is an oath-breaker.

I will give what little money I can spare to progressive candidates, even if they're other people's representatives (I obviously can't get any decent representation of my own.) I will give to the online, independent media that keeps me informed while the corporate media talks about Paris. I will support the environmental causes that are fighting to save the places that I love, and I will do whatever I can to make a difference with my money. But I no longer trust Moveon or the DCCC to spend my money wisely.

And a word of warning to this Democratic Majority: I'm not the only one that feels this way. You'd better wise up and start acting on those campaign promises, or you're going to be very unhappy when the 2008 elections finally do roll around. Paybacks are a mother. All it will take is one credible Independent candidate... you think it can't be done, but as usual, you have completely underestimated the wrath of the Democrat and Republican masses that are entirely unrepresented out here. We're pissed, and we want results. We want our Constitution protected, this Executive Branch reigned in, and we want our government back.

WE THE PEOPLE. You may have forgotten, but I'll be damned if we have.

Conservatives fed up with power grab

Disaffected conservatives set a litmus test for '08
Want vow to curb presidential power

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | June 12, 2007

WASHINGTON -- A new political group recently asked Mitt Romney to promise not to wiretap Americans without a judge's approval or to imprison US citizens without a trial as "enemy combatants." When Romney declined to sign their pledge, the group denounced him as "unfit to serve as president."

Bravo!

Note to Republicans and Democrats in Congress: this means you too, all of you.

Such rhetoric might be expected from liberal activists. But these critics, who call their organization American Freedom Agenda, are hardly leftists. They represent what they insist is a growing group of disaffected conservatives who are demanding that the Republican Party return to its traditional mistrust of concentrated government power.

"Mitt Romney's ignorance of the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses would have alarmed the Founding Fathers and their conservative philosophy," said Bruce Fein, one of the group's co founders and a Reagan administration attorney, in a press release last month attacking Romney for not signing the pledge.

The American Freedom Agenda, which intends to put all candidates in both parties to the same test, is aiming to revive a strand of conservatism that they say has been drowned out since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The conservative principle of limited government, they say, means not just cutting the budget, but imposing checks and balances on those who wield power.

"Conservatives have to go back to the basics," said co founder Richard Viguerie , a veteran direct-mail strategist and author of "Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause." "We have to go back and re launch the conservative movement. And for traditional conservatives, it's part of our nature to believe in the separation of powers."

People of every party; Republican, Democrat and Independent -- we're on the same page here. I actually feel badly for my Republican friends, because they feel betrayed by their party. This 'big government' and mounting debt was what they came to expect from the Democrats. Imagine their surprise to see a Republican administration take it to this extreme.

The Joey problem

Joe Lieberman, asked by Fox's Sean Hannity whether he could see himself supporting a Republican presidential candidate in 2008: "I definitely could, Sean. I mean, I've got to tell you, just to be a -- talk straight to you and those who are listening, so far in all of the debates and public statements, it is certainly the Republican -- the leading Republican candidates for the presidential nomination that I am much more in -- consistent with on the defining issue of our time."

Isn't it odd that the Democrats still let Joey hang out in their club house?

WASHINGTON -- Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said yesterday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats in the new Congress, but he would not rule out switching to the Republican caucus if he starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats.

Benedict Lieberman has the Democrats on the ropes. He's that whiny kid with the bully brothers, who kicks your dog and spits on your ice cream cone. You can't get rid of him, or his brothers will beat you up and take your club house. But you can't live with him either; he ruins every ball game by deliberately striking out or hitting into a double play, then laughing like a hyena in your face.

I sometimes think Joe's entire job in life is to make the Democrats' life a living hell.

I've often wondered what would have happened had Gore had been elected allowed to take office, with this neocon as his Vice. Rove and Cheney, hedging their bets? Win-win, either way?

Tim Grieve from the Salon:

Lieberman singled out John McCain and Rudy Giuliani for praise, and he went out of way of his way to knock John Edwards for saying that the "war on terror" was just a "bumper-sticker slogan." "The Arabs and the Israelis [know] that the war on terror is not a bumper sticker slogan for politics," Lieberman said. "It is a reality that they live with every day. And of course, we should, too."

And when Lieberman says that we should "live with it," he seems to mean that we should "live with it" even more than we already have: In an appearance on "Face the Nation" Sunday, Lieberman said that the United States should take military action against Iran if that country does not end its nuclear program.

Do they really have to put up with this crap?

Well, not if they are willing to risk having Cheney as a tie-breaking vote:

With Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) publicly stating he'd consider becoming a Republican if Democrats block new funding for the Iraq War, many Democrats worry that control of the Senate hangs in the balance. However, their fears are unfounded. Many think back to 2001 when former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) began caucusing with Democrats instead of Republicans, taking control of the Senate out of GOP hands. However, the two situations - though outwardly similar - contain one important difference.

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.

Considering how Joey has been voting these days, honestly, what's the difference? Toss Joey from the playhouse and let the chips fall where they may.

34,750 lobbyists ran off with our democracy

I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. - Thomas Jefferson

Do you realize that the number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since Bush took office? Is it any wonder Congress is thrashing around, sneaking coal and oil-friendly legislation into unrelated bills and struggling mightily to clean up its own act?

There is an aggressive cancer eating at the heart of our Federal government, and a vast majority of Democrats are standing around, wringing their hands - and occasionally offering an aspirin. They really can't do much more than that, because most of them ran for office using cash contributed by the very corporations who are now demanding repayment of their investments. The candidates are happy to accept our votes, but the real representation goes elsewhere.

de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation Key - [di-mok-ruh-see] – noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. - Thomas Jefferson

cap·i·tal·ism Pronunciation Key - [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] – noun

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Hmm.

Doesn't take long to see why this isn't working out very well - for us anyway.
Its too bad our forefathers weren't able to slip in a little constitutional language about separation of corp and state.

Its that whole sticky issue of representation. Who is heard? The voices of the common man, or the few, influential power brokers who can afford to buy legislators and votes? If you've misplaced your di-mok-ruh-see lately, try looking on K Street.

Lobbyists now outnumber legislators :

The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy.

The lobbying boom has been caused by three factors, experts say: rapid growth in government, Republican control of both the White House and Congress, and wide acceptance among corporations that they need to hire professional lobbyists to secure their share of federal benefits.

They may soon have their own candidate for president: Fred Thompson, the cigar-smoking, tough-talking, 'oh please be our next Reagan' actor the GOP pundits are all swooning over. What the GOP doesn't want you to know is that he spent 18 years as a Washington lobbyist.

Thom Hartmann did a piece on this - and I saw that David Sirota has one on Alternet too - but of course the mainstream media won't touch it. Thompson is already their golden boy.

After Thom Hartmann brought this up, I started doing some digging and couldn't believe the things (asbestos, savings and loan deregulation) that came to light. I'm actually glad there is a little extra time before the upcoming election. Maybe some of this dirt will come out in time, if only via blogging and by word of mouth.

This from Wikipedia:

From 1975 to 1992 Thompson worked as a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. He represented such clients as Westinghouse, General Electric (the current corporate owner of the NBC Universal-NBC television network), and the Tennessee Savings and Loan League.[8]

By 1982, Thompson was lobbying the U.S. Congress for passage of the Savings and Loan deregulation legislation. The federal deregulation legislation allowed for additional government support of ailing S&Ls; gave U.S. thrifts the freedom to invest in potentially more profitable, but riskier, ventures; and eliminated interest-rate ceilings on new accounts. Thompson's recommendations were incorporated into the Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982.[8]

In 1991, he began work with the Washington, D.C. firm of Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin, & Kahn, representing overseas business entities as a registered foreign agent.

All the NY Times had to say about him was 'he took on some lobbying clients:'

"Mr. Thompson came into the public eye -- and ear, considering his distinctive voice -- in the early 1970s when he served as Republican counsel to the Senate Watergate committee. He then took on some lobbying clients, and was later asked to investigate a parole scandal in Tennessee. That episode led to a book and a movie, 'Marie,' in which Mr. Thompson played himself, kicking off his acting career. Elected to the Senate in 1994 to fill the remaining two years of Al Gore's term after he was elected vice president."

According to this workingassetsblog post, Politico reported a month ago that:

"Over about two decades of lobbying (during which he also acted and practiced law), Thompson made nearly $1.3 million and represented clients including a British reinsurance company facing billions of dollars in asbestos claims, Canadian-owned cable companies, and deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, according to government documents and media accounts from his first run for the Senate in 1994...'There's nothing wrong with lobbying. It's an honorable profession,' Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo said...A year after stepping down [from the Senate], he registered to lobby for British reinsurance company Equitas Ltd. The company paid him $760,000 to guard its interests against several bills seeking to protect businesses from asbestos lawsuits."

Move over Rudi - even you can't beat that track record.

Yes, this is Wall Street's dream candidate for 2008. Maybe he can rebuild our schools with asbestos, and change 'No Child Left Behind' to 'No Child Left Alive.'

Wonder why impeachment isn't taken seriously (especially considering the constitutional offenses,) by more than a handful of faithful representatives - even though the populace and many lawyers are screaming for it? The masters don't approve. I mean, that's really only logical, when you think about it from their point of view. It's hard to imagine that the lobbyists and their corporate employers would take kindly to an impeachment process that would shut down their gravy train of government contracts and government privatization. They've never had it so good!

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. - Thomas Jefferson

A gradual takeover

It is obvious how we got here: corporate interests. Oil. The lucrative 'war contracting' business, and the Military Industrial. Washington has changed. Its now completely over-run with lobbyists.

But it didn't happen over night. Most lobbying growth occurred after the end of Nixon administration, and during the rise of Reaganomics: which may explain why we are seeing a return to Nixon-era behavior in the White House, without the Nixon-era opposition from Congress. Throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s - while we were busy eating, sleeping, working and watching TV - capitalism ate democracy. We are reeling in the aftershocks of an explosion that started decades ago.

Founder and editor of The Washington Monthly, Charlie Peters came to Washington D.C. with the Kennedy campaign in 1961. Peters recalls:

When I came here [in the early 1960s], I had many young friends on Capitol Hill who ... worked on the staff of congressmen and senators, ... but they were mostly very idealistic people and what they were up to all the time was they were trying to get legislation changed for the good. They were trying a phrase in the bill here or there that would make it better. Or even if they were conservative, it was ideologically driven and they were not sold out.

Now, suddenly, in the '80s, as the culture of greed began to take hold in the whole country and you began to get this great growth in executive salaries and all those things that manifested that greed, the congressional staff members began to think not about doing good, but about currying favor with lobbyists who could give them $300,000 a year jobs so that they could eat lunch every day in those fancy restaurants and wear those Italian suits and all that went with it. And drive the Mercedes. All of those things, those guys began to want and so they began to behave in a way that was designed to please lobbyists and that has caused terrible corruption on Capitol Hill.

It's not a corruption where people are bribed directly. They are bribed indirectly by the possibility of future lucrative employment. So, that's the sad story. Those are the great ingredients I think in the sad story of the growth of Washington to its present position of dominance.

The 80s... under the Reagan administration. No wonder Wall Street is drooling over Fred Thompson. Bush is drawing way too much fire with his cowboy act and inability to speak clear English. Maybe a nice, suave, macho, comforting cloud of cigar smoke can cover the smell of stinking pork wafting through the air from the back rooms of Congress.

We must quickly become a lot smarter about the way we choose our presidential candidates. Rather than simply listening to their spin, we may have to actually do a little digging to figure out what promises they might have traded for campaign cash, behind the political fund-raising curtain.

According to Dean Baker, we can all do a quick test to determine if our favorites candidates have been bought out from under us by Wall Street:

Just call or email your favorite presidential candidate, and ask their staff whether he or she supports a securities transactions tax (STET). You will probably have to explain to the candidate's staffer what a STET is. You can tell them that a STET is a small tax placed on a trade of a share of stock or other financial asset (e.g. bonds, options, futures, etc.).

Or of course, another easy way is to simply look them up on Open Secrets. The list of contributors may surprise you... just take a look at Hillary...

Bill Maher: Why Carter was right the first time

To be Republican... Democrat... or American.

Cindy Sheehan quit the Democratic Party yesterday.

I and many others happily welcome Cindy into the freedom of 'Independent-hood' with open arms.

Leaving the Democratic Party was a very empowering experience for me. I became an Independent after placing a call to Nancy Pelosi's office last winter. I asked the aide who answered Pelosi's phone just what - exactly - it would take for Nancy to put impeachment 'on the table.' The aide became flustered, angry, said something snippy and hung up on me.

I was stunned, furious and speechless. Something snapped: I felt it break. It was the cord that tied me to this broken party.

No voter (let alone active supporter) should ever tolerate this kind of abuse from a representative that we supported and carried into her vaulted position as House Speaker.

The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men (and apparently the women) who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln

After a lifetime as a Democrat, I quit the party on the spot. I felt a heavy weight lift from my soul. Suddenly I was no longer powerless. I have opted out of the lie. I refuse to play this 'if you don't want them, you're stuck with us' game anymore. Anyone who wants my vote will have to earn it.

I highly recommend this - it really has changed my perspective, on everything. I can think of no better way to end this childish, partisan behavior than to simply walk away from it.

Neither a Republican nor a Democrat be; be rather, a true American citizen. Swear allegiance to no party with small-minded, selfish interests, but rather save your devotion for the high-minded ideals of true patriotism, democracy and liberty. - me, trying my best to sound grave and historical.

Lincoln left the Whig party and became a Republican, in a time when being 'Republican' meant believing in freedom for all people, regardless of race. He walked away from the Whigs - and we can walk away from these two corrupted parties.

The only way we will save our democracy is to turn our backs on these corporate pawns and build a coalition that represents the will of the people. I use the word 'coalition,' because no one should be left out, from either party.

No one will do this for us - no one else will magically fix our government. We must do this ourselves, as our forefathers did it before us, and for us.

In her Memorial Day letter to Congress, Cindy wrote:

The Camp Casey Peace Institute is calling all citizens who are as disgusted as we are with you all to join us in Philadelphia on July 4th to try and figure a way out of this "two" party system that is bought and paid for by the war machine which has a stranglehold on every aspect of our lives. As for myself, I am leaving the Democratic Party. You have completely failed those who put you in power to change the direction our country is heading. We did not elect you to help sink our ship of state but to guide it to safe harbor. We do not condone our government's violent meddling in sovereign countries and we condemn the continued murderous occupation of Iraq.

Cindy is right. There must be a third alternative. Not a weak alternative, or fragmented, divided groups that only undercut other progressives, including those still within the Democratic Party. Gore would have been a terrific president, and hopefully we will get another shot at electing him. When discussing his new book, "The Assault on Reason" recently, he described many current politicians as 'good people trapped in a bad system.'

Strangely, these 'good people' can't seem to get together and actually fix the 'bad system' that has shut them down. It appears our only hope is to somehow fix it from out here, by electing representatives free of ties to either of these partisan parties.

My version of 'becoming an Independent' doesn't preclude voting for progressive Democrats, or Republicans for that matter. What it does mean is that I - we - no longer endorse these parties as a whole. We no longer serve the interests of their lobbyist toadies. We have opted out of the game, as played by their rules - which are not the rules of our nation's founders.

Both parties have sold their souls to corporate interests, and in doing so, both parties have sold out the people... and apparently now, the planet. We need a third party that can be embraced by enough people to actually win.

In our particular case and in our time, winning is everything. The winner restores democracy and fights climate change - hopefully in time to make a difference. Time is running out. If Gore had been in office the past 6 years, we could be reversing harmful greenhouse emissions right now, at this very moment. Instead, the Bush administration only made it worse. He and his corporate minions have corrupted and infiltrated the very watchdog departments within our government that served to protect us from tainted food, poisoned water, and environmental calamity.

We can't afford to let another Necon walk away with the White House. Whatever we do, we can't afford to let that happen again. It will avail us nothing if we try to claim some sort of ideological high ground while our democracy - and all of humanity - are destroyed in the process.

We must commit to actually win.

This will undoubtedly mean pulling together to back an Independent candidate, an Independent Bipartisan ticket, or a Progressive Democrat - and invite all angry Republicans and Democrats to join us. The only way we will win, is by throwing out those divisive 'wedge' issues and coming together in this common cause.

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. - Abraham Lincoln

Truth or consequences

I wonder if we as Americans can ever break free of media influence and elect a president that will really represent us.

Oh we have plenty of leaders: candidates with integrity, honesty, new and creative solutions to serious national issues - even a little 'fire in the belly' from time to time. We also have legislators with strong records of defending our interests in congress, instead of toeing the lobbyist line.

Yet for some mysterious reason, we we allow our television media - and powerful corporate donors - to pick our candidates for us, and the best people seem to fall right off the radar. If a candidate doesn't have that desired 'look' or 'slick packaging', they are marginalized - ignored - summarily dismissed as irrelevant. We are letting corporations and the media dictate our democracy to us, based on... appearances and sound bites.

Why is that? Can't we think for ourselves anymore?

I often find myself comparing our current, broken electoral system with the one that was in place just before the Civil War, when the fledgling Republican party had recently formed out of a coalition of former Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free-Soilers who opposed the expansion of slavery (hint to angry Democrats and Republicans - we've formed new parties before, and quite successfully.)

Abraham Lincoln made made a national name for himself as an outspoken critic of slavery, and as a brilliant orator during a series of debates with popular and charismatic Democrat Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 (both were running for the US Senate seat from Illinois.) In spite of his gawky, tall frame, ill-fitting suits and high, reedy voice, Lincoln had a rare gift: he could inspire an audience by connecting with them on a human level, and by telling them the truth.

Lincoln lost the Senate race in 1858, but beat Douglas two years later in the 1860 presidential campaign, to become President of the United States. By this time, everyone knew who he was and remembered his fiery and persuasive arguments from the Illinois debates.

The two differed in more than background and education (Douglas received a classical education, and Lincoln was from a humble background and self-taught.) Douglas had chaired the Senate Committee on Territories, and helped enact the Compromise of 1850, which included the highly controversial Fugitive Slave Act. Passage of the Fugitive Slave Act outraged many abolitionists, and heightened their resolve to put an end to slavery once and for all. This act also served to bring the the subject of slavery squarely into the public eye, and many people who had previously been ambivalent began to question the morality of the institution.

Douglas was a proponent of 'Popular Sovereignty,' and was responsible for the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which led to the outbreaks of unprecedented violence in Kansas. In contrast, Lincoln represented the growing anti-slavery movement that was taking hold across the nation, and believed that the country could not survive as one nation, half slave and half free. The country was being torn apart by the divisive issue of slavery, and people were paying close attention to the opinions held by each candidate - as demonstrated in both their words, and their actions.

The media of the time - which consisted solely of newspapers - was undoubtedly every bit as slanted as it is today, with the exception that there was no television: the people actually read, and thus were able to see actual transcripts of the candidates' speeches and debates, rather than relying on sound bites picked out by the television media. By reading the actual words of the candidates, citizens could discern where each one stood on important issues. And if a candidate was a talented writer/speaker, he could often sway many readers solely by his choice of words, the intensity of his argument, and his intellectual prowess as he made his case.

People have a pretty good sense for when they are being told the truth. In recent years, our contact with our candidates has been carefully screened by 'handlers' and edited by the powerful, corporately-owned media. But surely, people really do want the truth. They crave the truth. They have simply lost track of how to connect with the authenticity of the person for whom they plan to vote.

In the old days of 'stumping,' the people gathered around and actually listened to live speeches and debates. There was no hiding for these politicians - no lights, no make-up, no leading questions. They duked it out in a clever and intelligent war of words, and to the victor went both popular support... and the nod of his party. In those days, intelligence and grasp of issues easily trumped looks, lighting or corporate sponsors. The candidate sank or swam on his own merit.

Candidates were picked by their own party leaders - who had known them for years, and could vouch for their character. The chosen candidate's intelligence and ability was well established, and generally anyone who was picked to represent his party in a general election had the education, stability and leadership skills to eventually run the nation. It is believed that members of Lincoln's new party underestimated his independent nature, and expected him to take direction from more powerful leaders behind the scenes and basically toe the party line.

However once elected, Lincoln showed creativity and an unusual willingness to embrace non-partisanship, by picking for his cabinet political opponents and politicians who frankly and openly disliked him - all on the basis of their credentials. Lincoln demonstrated a remarkable ability to pick the most effective and competent person for each of his cabinet positions, and placed his loyalty to party - and personal comfort - behind the best interests of the nation as a whole.

We don't have to go back to Lincoln's time to find examples of political courage and devotion to 'nation over partisanship.' Lately we have been treated to some rather remarkable acts of political courage and devotion to truth, in presidential debates and on the House floor.

Last Wednesday, Dennis Kucinich claimed an hour of time on the House floor, and delivered a powerful and truthful expose on the inner workings of the oil industry and their designs on Iraqi oil. Kucinich explained how this lust for Iraqi oil led us directly into this current and disastrous war, and implied that we will never extricate ourselves while the Iraqi people manage to hold out against the interests of Exxon, Chevron and BP.

This was amazing, truthful and critically relevant testimony. Yet it received no mainstream, corporate media coverage, was largely ignored by other members of the House - even members of the Democratic party. I find it hard to imagine that something so critical and so fundamental to our current situation could have been swept under the rug, but there it is: it happened.

Kucinich is often laughed at or simply ignored by the national media. Whereas Lincoln was 'too tall,' Kucinich is apparently 'too short'; he speaks his mind, and sometimes comes across as a bit folksy or 'off the cuff,' (similar in many ways to Lincoln and his famous yarns.) The media pundits will also tell you something else - something that would have spelled disaster for Lincoln if he were to run for the presidency today. According to television media 'experts,' Kucinich doesn't look presidential.

I have often wondered if 'doesn't look presidential' really translates to 'we can't bully, influence or control you.'

The media would have us believe that issues are of far less importance... than how the candidate looks, and how well he or she 'spins.' Since most Americans claim that they do not want a president that lies or 'spins' every word, but rather gives it to us straight: it would appear that the television media and our best interests are at cross purposes.

In his own time, Lincoln suffered many of the same, lame media abuses. Cartoonists mocked him, portrayed him as an ape, a hillbilly and made fun of his home-spun humor, while describing him as an ignorant farmer. Of course as we know today, the truth was vastly different. Lincoln was one of the sharpest minds and wits in our presidential history, with a firm grasp of law, government, and even military strategy.

Somehow, the people saw through all of the media slander and connected with the character of the man. And they were rewarded with 'presidential courage,' and dedicated, bipartisan leadership during a time of national crisis.

If not for Lincoln's leadership, America would be two separate nations today... or perhaps it would have ceased entirely to exist. Perhaps we would now be a region of Canada, a 'state' in Mexico, or worse... the Nazis or Japanese would have eventually invaded and enslaved us during WWII. It is impossible to know where we would be today, had there been no President Abraham Lincoln to bring us through the bloody Civil War as one nation, intact.

I often wonder if we have lost our way as people, and as a nation. We seem to have forgotten to use our minds, but instead sit dumbly and passively in front of the television set, feeding on whatever garbage the media has served up for our consumption. Perhaps this is the result of several generations of Americans growing up with televisions as glorified babysitters; or perhaps there is some other brain deadening effect built into the medium that allows us to abandon our natural skepticism and reason when we flip on the set.

Do we really want the truth? Because candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would be happy to tell us everything we say we want to hear, and more. Or are we instead willing to settle for a political 'American Idol;' with blow-dried, clean-cut and good-looking actor/politicians, posing for the cameras while carefully avoiding the issues - or heaven forbid - letting slip with any comments that might be construed as an actual opinion?

What about the pathetic state of our health care system, our disappearing jobs, the poisoning of our food, pollution, climate change, inflation, loss of our constitutional protections, and this horrific, bloody, illegal and budget-breaking war? These are issues that affect us all, every single day. Who on earth really cares or is affected by how much John Edwards paid for a haircut? How on earth can that possibly be relevant in a presidential campaign? When will we tire of this media circus, and demand some real honesty, authenticity and straight answers?

Dennis Kucinich gave us issues and answers, and he sounded a very loud trumpet of alarm. So did Ron Paul, when he lectured Rudy Giuliani on the finer points of U.S. history - and our years of intervention in Middle Eastern politics - during the second GOP debate. It is time for us to pay attention... even if this means occasionally watching C-Span, to find out what is really happening in our government (yes, it is boring to watch the House and Senate plod around.) It is time for us to break free of media influence, especially that of television, and instead turn on our active brains and doggedly pursue the truth.

Why are we in Iraq? What is the best plan of action to get our troops out? Every voting American should be asking these questions and actively seeking out the candidate that will best accomplish this end. John Edward's haircut has nothing to do with our nation's role in this bloody 'War on Terror.' Mitt Romney's declaration that he would like to 'double the size of Guantanamo,' and Rudy Giuliani's shameless promotion of torture are frighteningly relevant to our future as a nation.

What do we the people of this nation think it means to be 'American,' and what is our system of values? What do we believe in - what do we consider moral? Is torture moral? Are cluster bombs that kill hundreds of innocent civilians... moral? And are we truly willing to give up our democracy for a little 'temporary safety?' If not, we had better get off the couch and take charge of our government: it is ours, and we have been entrusted with its protection so that it will survive for future generations.

The Internet provides many new opportunities to hear our candidates as they wish to be heard, speaking in their authentic voices - whether via personal blogs, their own video and YouTube presentations (free of media influence,) or their own written dispatches. There is no longer any reason to settle for sugar-coated drivel dished out by mainstream television pundits. We don't need a cynical middle man editing our democratic dialog... we need truth.

I believe it was Mulder of 'X-Files' fame who said "the truth is out there." The opportunity to wake up, pay attention, and meet our candidates is available to us. The choice is in our hands.