I’m thinking of changing my voter registration information.

The Democrats don’t understand that the GOP has been winning arguments for the last 50 years because they don’t give a shit about being nice. It doesn’t matter how much the Dems appease them, they’re still going to be mocked as capitulating wimps. And when the Dems actually DO act like capitulating wimps, it only reinforces their point. Absolutely sickening. Unbelievable.

Nader in ’08!

Well, not really…

I’m still torn about what to do. Part of me just wants to say “fuck it”, slam my wallet shut, and go back to wasting my time on my own little projects. At the same time, I know for a fact that nothing would make the Grampaws of the world happier, and more powerful than to see everyone to the left of Joe Fucking Lieberman just quit the game in disgust.

Bottom line: I was naive to think that the ’06 midterms had magically reversed 15+ years of institutionalized triangulation and political cowardice. The answer is to strengthen the hands of the few courageous progressives and liberals that exist now (and to try to elect more of ’em) not to weaken them further by walking away.

The answer is to strengthen the hands of the few courageous progressives and liberals that exist now (and to try to elect more of ‘em) not to weaken them further by walking away.

Thank you, kingbu.

Seriously, what did you guys think? That once the Dems got all into Congress with their razor-thin “majority,” things would suddenly change?

This country is firmly under the thumb of a plutocratic triumvirate: The two major political parties and the media. Do you get it yet? Do you understand now, as Ralph Nader correctly pointed out, that there’s no difference between the Dems and the Rethugs? That this is how they and their MSM minions continue to maintain hegemony: By promoting for public consumption the myth that we have a democratic two-party system and a free press, when in fact all of them exist only to perpetuate their power structure?

And now, on to Iran! We’ll take them on the beaches (oh, it’s all a big beach, right?) We’ll bomb them into the stone age, or maybe up to the stone age.

Just so we can claim a moral victory over Islam?

Crusades, bitches.

Do you understand now, as Ralph Nader correctly pointed out, that there’s no difference between the Dems and the Rethugs?

That’s not true- there is a difference. Democrats are not crazy. They’re opportunists and they’re craven, but they aren’t insane. Republicans actually are completely out to lunch. That’s a very significant difference.

MzNicky:

You are correct that both parties are bought and paid for, and mostly by the same people. You are correct that there are many deadly important issues where there needs to be an alternative, but both parties are the same. You are right that the media in this country are antidemocratic, and far too powerful. I still think, however, that there is a significant difference between the two parties, and that we ignore this difference at our peril.

That’s not true- there is a difference. Democrats are not crazy. They’re opportunists and they’re craven, but they aren’t insane. Republicans actually are completely out to lunch.  That’s a very significant difference.

Enough of a difference for us to give them our support?

Enough of a difference for us to give them our support?

After six years of doing things your way, how do you like the results?

Oh well, at least my rep opposed it.

The Democrats don’t understand that the GOP has been winning arguments for the last 50 years because they don’t give a shit about being nice. It doesn’t matter how much the Dems appease them, they’re still going to be mocked as capitulating wimps. And when the Dems actually DO act like capitulating wimps, it only reinforces their point. Absolutely sickening. Unbelievable.

Can we can the “Democrats are spineless progressives” meme?

Honestly.

The American people, let alone the Democratic base, is dead set against this war. Yet the Democrats keep funding it.

At a certain point, y’all have got to come to terms with the fact that the leadership of the Democratic Party supports this war and occupation. Sure, they have their differences with the GOP over strategy and tactics. But on the whole they’re just as committed to militarism as the Republicans.

The problem isn’t that the Democrats aren’t willing to vote their values. The problem is that they are.

Hi, guys! It’s time for a visit!

This timetable thing was bullshit political theater from the start, and stupid theater at that. I had no idea what they thought was going to happen. Did they think Bush was going to sign onto it? That the Republicans were going to join them to override the veto? What?
You could see this coming a mile away, but it still pisses me off, because they SHOULD be jamming up the works. They SHOULD be stopping funding. They should be growing a pair. But they won’t, because this war belongs to them almost as much as it does to Bush. They signed onto it. Fuck man, their candidate in the 04 election said he’d vote for it again, and that if he was president he would have done the same thing- only smarter, or something.
But I’m sure Hillary will save us.
I don’t know. Wake me when the war crime trials start.

The problem isn’t that the Democrats aren’t willing to vote their values. The problem is that they are.

Right, at least for many Democrats. And so the question becomes, how hard are we activists willing to work to push them, change their mind, strengthen the few true antiwar Dems, weaken the prowar Dems, make public sentiment even stronger vs. the war, bribe them, whatever it takes to force them to change.

Dayv: My rep voted against it, too—and he’s a Republican. John Duncan, R-Tenn., has voted against this clusterfuck war since Day One. If my Red State Republican Rep can go maverick on the war, repeatedly, and still get reelected, then why can’t the USELESS Democrats do what they were elected to do?

There is simply no excuse for Pelosi, Reid, etc. to have voted FOR this funding bill. NONE. We gave them control based on their promises to END THE WAR, and they’re giving us the finger.

Sorry for the SHOUTING. We are so FUCKED.

I wonder if Bush reminded Reid and Pelosi that he never caught the anthrax killer… why else would they take an unpopular stand to do the wrong thing for an unpopular psychopath? Unless they are Cheney Democrats, of course.

Yep.
Kinda like watching a car crash in slo mo.
God I hate these people.

There is simply no excuse for Pelosi, Reid, etc. to have voted FOR this funding bill. NONE.

Being precise, Pelosi didn’t vote for it, she just negotiated it, which is awfully low.

Coming from a less precise angle, 60% of the Democrats voted as the people would have had them vote. How long should their leadership last?

What Incontinentia Buttocks said. The only conclusion that can be made is the Dems still support the occupation. The theater is for us. Green party 08.

I’m too disgusted for words. I can’t even form a decent rant…

Call me cynical but I’m not very suprised…

Guys, the Democrats didn’t have the votes to get past Numbnut’s veto.

Maybe they didn’t take the right approach considering that, but they also attached the minimum wage bill to the thing. Also, it seems that most of the Dems voted no after all; placing the repsonsiblity for Iraq finally, totally in the Repbulicans’ laps. I guess they could have made a huge drama over the thing, but look how well that worked out for Gingrich when he tried to shut things down.

On top of that, as someone pointed out, considering Monkeyboy doesn’t feel the need to follow FISA legislation (or anything else, apparently) why would we expect him to obey a benchmark regulation attached to his money?

The tragedy of course, is that this political grandstanding is being done at the expense of American soldiers (and Iraqi) lives. But since Bush is going to do it anyway, it doesn’t change much.

There are no neat and tidy solutions for this horrific mess, and rather than just admit that fact and sticking with their promise to force an end to the occupation and bring the troops home, the Dems are opting to let Bush have his way until he’s out and they’ve got the presidency back.

The Democrats have no ability to broker negotiations with Iran or any other country as long as asshole in chief is still running things so they’re opting to passively support the status quo until they can achieve meaningful control.

But really, this is about being afraid isn’t it? Afraid to admit that whether the troops come home or stay, Iraq is fucked and America is fucked and peace is fucked and war will inevitably continue. They’re afraid afraid afraid.

What you’re sadly lacking in America is leadership.

Well yay for Nancy Pelosi, anyway…

Yeah, but let’s also keep in mind (and no, I’m not trying to apologize for the Democrats here) that this is not a political dispute between two disagreeing factions. This is hostage negotiation. George Bush has a gun to the collective head of our military, and will pull the trigger if he is held to account for anything. Yes, the Democrats’ negotiation skills are lacking, but this is hostage negotiation, after all…

I love being pissed on and told it’s raining.

Three things. First, the Democrats are most certainly NOT the same as the republicans. Sure, they are craven, venal, self-interested…You know, politicians. But while I am not convinced that Clinton and Obama won’t start or maintain wars of their own, I AM certain that the assault on the constitution and the headlong rush to become an authoritarian police state would slow or stop under Democratic leadership.

Second, as politicians, they made a political calculation. Along with most of you, I disagree with it, both as to it’s principal and it’s necessity. But we aren’t them. They thought the administration would win the “you abandoned our troops” meme. While I don’t think so, it IS possible, and anything that strengthens this administration at this point in time is terribly dangerous for us.

Last, though we cannot at this time know whether it will work out this way, by allowing the Republicans to “win” and extend the war, the surge and surge II, it is not inconceivable that lives, in the long run, will be saved. Certainly, short term, people will continue to die, hard and in large numbers. But while the occupation and the dying continue, the American people get angrier and more hardened against the policies of the bush/cheney cabal. Going into the 2008 election, the Republicans have made it that much harder to get unstuck from their mindless, permanent support for the iraq debacle. Their popularity, flexibility and ability to raise funds will be serverely hampered.

Instead of ownership, the Dems, by capitulating to the Repubs have effectively said “ok, guys, you win. Live with it”. Maybe I’m optimistic, and I certainly would have liked to see them just keep sending the original bill up the hill every week, who knows? It may all result in a landslide victory a year from November that will give the Democrats the power not just to end the occupation of iraq, but to roll back the them most egregious assaults on civil liberties, close guantanamo, reign in the NSA and begin to once again be a part of the world of nations.

Probably not, but that’s the best I’ve got this morning…

mikey

Guys, the Democrats didn’t have the votes to get past Numbnut’s veto.

They didn’t need to get past the veto. What they actually needed to do was simply defund the war by not bringing a supplemental to the floor at all. But if they insisted on the supplemental-with-timetables thing, they could have done what John Edwards has suggested: just keep passing such bills and wait for the President to blink. If he didn’t, the war would have been defunded by default.

First, the Democrats are most certainly NOT the same as the republicans. Sure, they are craven, venal, self-interested…You know, politicians. But while I am not convinced that Clinton and Obama won’t start or maintain wars of their own, I AM certain that the assault on the constitution and the headlong rush to become an authoritarian police state would slow or stop under Democratic leadership.

Second, as politicians, they made a political calculation…

I certainly never said that the Democrats and the Republicans are identical. The GOP is worse, especially on the constitutional issues you mention. But, as you say, Clinton and Obama are perfectly capable of starting wars on their own. Many leading Democrats favored this war from the start; many still do.

So I think you really have to make the argument that deciding to continue to fund the war was a “political calculation” (i.e. they didn’t really want to, but they chose to anyway) as opposed to a policy that the Democratic leadership actively supports.

I think there is at least as good a case to be made that the “political calculation” being made is their felt need to occasionally speak as if they don’t support the war in order to keep their base in line.

mikey:
It’s not so much that Dems and Rethugs are indistinguishable; it’s that they’re all part of the same exclusionary power structure. What you’ve described is akin to a brisk round of golf between two old chums at a country club that only lets the “right people” in. And while these two political parties play their games and make their calculations, hundreds, perhaps thousands, more will die.

Capitulating to Bush was bad. Acting like it was a big fucking victory (I’m looking at you, Harry Reid) was inexcusable.

If you’re going to fold, at least give Bush a rhetorical kick in the teeth. Don’t give me the “this is a huge step forward” line. If you’re going to be a pussy, don’t be a liar on top of it.

Our leading presidential candidates for 2008 are weak. Hillary Clinton will not win the White House, and neither will Barack Obama. The only guy who is electable in my opinion is John Edwards, and the same triangulating fucks who brought you this lovely Capitulation Bill will make sure Edwards does not get the Dem nomination. Fuck you, Rahm Emanuel. You fucking suck donkey bals.

Geez, they’ve got me so upset I misspelled “balls.”

yes, the dems are “our” politicians, in that their beliefs are much much closer to us than the republicans are. but that doesn’t mean they are good at what they do. they just happen to agree with us on stuff. as someone who plays poker, i can tell you that the dems are the people at the table who you like personally, at least in part because you take their money every week, not like that cocksucker bastard who you hate on every level. that dude plays tough.

Pat Buchanantoday in antiwar.com:

That is why congressional Democrats are surely saying privately of the angry antiwar left what has often been said by the Beltway Republican elite of the right: “Don’t worry about them. They have nowhere else to go.”

And that is why the antiwar left was thrown under the bus.

Sigh. Reckon so…

mikey

Can we can the “Democrats are spineless progressives� meme?

Sure, as soon as they show otherwise. Talk is cheap, $145,000,000 is louder than words.

I just yelled at some poor fuck trying to wring some DCCC campaign money out of me — and, in reality, I was just being as ineffectual as they were.

We can bitch all we want about the vote, the ‘exclusionary’ power structure, the system whatever — but realistically, we’re closer to the table these days. It’s not that the current set of Democrats are saviors, it’s that they are a desperate stopgap.

The question becomes a matter of will. If you really want a whole new system, how are you going to acheive it? Nader’s crusade, even if you think he was right on the problem (and I don’t), his prescription was — what, exactly?

To that end, it IS far easier and more compelling to bitch. Like Ralph did. Like I just did to the hapless calll-center flunkie on the phone. Like we’re doing now.

But, and here I guess I find myself agreeing with Kos, if you think the most effective way to change the system is to address it at its own power source (money and votes) — well, this is only a setback. Not the end.

So I won’t give money to the DCCC. But I WILL give money to anti-war progressive candidates. I won’t be held in thrall by some non-existent compromise, but I WILL support primary and leadership challenges by Democrats with balls.

Getting Congress back was a big step — but it’s crazy to think it was the last one. If you belive in progressivism as a popular movement, it is only acheivable through one of the major parties. The Democrats have a number of people in place who fit that bill too. And a number that need to be weeded out.

This is where the fight is. The war funding, the timidity, the soullessness. This is where we have to continue to fight and keep up the pressure. Defecting now makes the last two years of momentum meaningless.

Please, do dust off your “Nader pin.” That paranoid, archaic, monomaniacal, self-righteous, sanpaku motherf*ck*er more than deserves your vote…

Frederick,

I don’t think you get my point.

I question whether they’re progressives at all, spineless or otherwise.

When the Democratic Party repeatedly bucks the desires of both its base and the larger voting public, that doesn’t look like spinelessness to me. It suggests a firm commitment to whatever they’re doing, which in this case is supporting the war.

Also, this is a lousy situation, but we may have worse problems too.

It suggests a firm commitment to whatever they’re doing, which in this case is supporting the war.

This is simply not (necessarily) true. It may well be in some cases, but this was my point in saying this funding bill was a “Political Calculation”. People of conscience may disagree upon whether they get the right answer, but if they truly believed that to do otherwise would put them (and us) FARTHER from the goal rather than closer, if after careful consideration people who seek the same outcome as we do felt that this was the better path, than they actually are doing what we sent them to do, and to behave pragmatically is kind of what the “reality based community” is ultimately all about.

We can impute all sorts of motives, and when it comes to specific individuals, they may well be true. But I do NOT believe that Ms. Pelosi supports the war and wants it to contiue. Nor does Murtha, nor Reid, nor many other Democrats in DC.

Ultimately our role, as always, is secondary. We can indirectly influence who gets elected, and we can shout loud and clear at those in power in hopes of influencing their behavior. And as Jay B. says, these are things we must continue to do, and do more of. But ending the occupation when your party does not hold executive power is dificult, and will require a strategy and a process. Remember they are being resisted by others with equivelent or even greater power…

mikey

Since when is a 31-seat advantage in the House “razor-thin”?

“Also, it seems that most of the Dems voted no after all; placing the repsonsiblity for Iraq finally, totally in the Repbulicans’ laps”

Not in the Senate they didn’t. Only 10 Democrats voted against the bill. Out of 49. The percentage of Congressional Democrats voting against extending the war is actually lower than the percentage voting for the Iraq war resolution back before the whole thing started.

“Also, it seems that most of the Dems voted no after all; placing the repsonsiblity for Iraq finally, totally in the Repbulicans’ laps.”

Not in the Senate they didn’t. Only 10 Democrats voted against the bill. Out of 49. The percentage of Congressional Democrats voting against extending the war is actually lower than the percentage voting for the Iraq war resolution back before the whole thing started.

They’ve only placed it in the Republican’s laps so far as they’re sitting on the laps themselves. The Dems — now in control of both houses of Congress — have bought the war.

Since when is a 31-seat advantage in the House “razor-thin�?

Since you have to get legislation through a virtually deadlocked Senate AND override a presidential veto, it doesn’t really help that much…

mikey

If you ignore party affiliations and align congresscritters by factions, the “Corporatist-Imperialist” faction is probably 75% of the congress: almost all Rs and close to half the Ds. Whenever the C-I coalition mobilizes on an issue, it has a veto-proof supermajority. In fact, it’s majority is even larger than the votes would indicate, because so many C-I congresscritters vote to cover their ass AFTER the vote has already been decided (frex, Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher both voted against the Iraq Supplemental, not to mention Clinton & Obama, despite being charter members of the C-I coalition).

IMO, the only hope for the future is to fund and vote for anti-C-I candidates of either party. When in doubt, it is still better to flip a seat from R to D, because the Ds are less beholden to C-I interests.

There is the possiblity to reform the party over time, however it will probably take a Great Depression type collapse in the US before enough people wake up to what the C-I coalition is doing to the country. I don’t think we’ll have to wait too long before it happens.

The trick will be to make sure that it is corporatism and imperialism that get the blame when the collapse happens. There will be a tendency to place the blame according to which party is more in control at the time of the collapse. If it happens after 2009, the Democrats will likely get the blame, with consequences that are truly frightening to contemplate.

Green party 08.

Sure, let’s all give up on the Democrats so people like this insane cunt can run the country. Sounds like a plan.

Companies,BIG companies and industries ,own politics. It’s really pretty simple,as far as the bottom line goes. There is too much money in the process and it stinks the place up. You and I don’t matter,they throw us just enough bones to keep us from full out revolt,it’s been that way since the time of the robber barons and railroads. Do away with K Street and you’d remove most of the corruption. It’s bribery,nothing less.

Progressive is a term that’s been hijacked,for fuck’s sake,Hillary and Bill have used the term to describe themselves and so have others. NO! They aren’t even “liberal”for the love of puppies.

It’s bad enough that “liberal”has become a bad word,if Progressive does,I quit.

Man I miss Paul Wellstone.

I think it’s pretty safe to say that Nancy Pelosi is a bust. If she were an NBA draft pick, she’d be Chris Washburn.

They didn’t need to get past the veto. What they actually needed to do was simply defund the war by not bringing a supplemental to the floor at all. But if they insisted on the supplemental-with-timetables thing, they could have done what John Edwards has suggested: just keep passing such bills and wait for the President to blink. If he didn’t, the war would have been defunded by default.

See, this is what Gingrich tought back in Clinton’s days, too; misunderstanding popular support for his platform with support for him personally. When it came to a personal pissing mmatch and he shut the government down because he felt slighted, the voters called him on it, expressing a preference for Congress to TRY and get some friggin work done like they’re supposed to. Can you positively predict that shutting down the funding by a stalling tactic wouldn’t backfire on the Democrats the same way? After all, there’s massive support for ending the war; this is not the same thing as massive support for Democrats or Congress.

Capitulating to Bush was bad. Acting like it was a big fucking victory (I’m looking at you, Harry Reid) was inexcusable. Agreed. This is politcial BS and presumes we’re idiots. The facts should be spelled out: Bush held the cards in this case, and we’re gonna have to try to keep advancing the end of the war in other means.

I think it’s pretty safe to say that Nancy Pelosi is a bust.

Alright, I’m gonna have to call you on that one. One failure equals a bust? By that measure, NO ONE has ever amounted to anything. If you don’t fail, it means you’re not working at the limits of your abilities. The Dems tried a tactic that was an admitted long shot. Hell, one year ago nobody even figured they could even try something like this. The Republicans are still hanging together and they need to be punished for that. Let’s keep in mind who the opposition is here. ONE of the political parties is TRYING to end the war.

Hey, look, I’m not saying the Dems are a magic bullet that will solve all our problems. The Party is far too fractious and diverse to do that. Disagree with them as individuals, their tactics, whatever; but that smug bastard Rove certainly would like nothing better than to watch this devolve into an old fashioned Democratic Circular Firing squad and the pressure aimed at ayone but him, George, and Alberto.

Vent, whine, harangue, and indulge in paroxysms of incoherent rage–God knows I’m well into my second day of same–but never forget this: If you give up, if you walk away, if you support Captain Rumpled Suit in his inevitable ’08 run, you will be REWARDING these swine for pissing you off and for dooming our soldiers.

Are you honestly so disappointed you’re willing to make Reid’s life easier? How about Rahm? How about Joe fucking Klein? Are you actually so disgusted you’ll cede the field to these ballbags?

I’m not. I’m joining the state party and signing up to become a precinct captain–I don’t have delusions of effectiveness or anything, but if these sons of bitches are going to sell my country out they’re gonna look me in the fuckin’ eye when they do it.

One last 3-day weekend of impotent bitching for me and then it’s ON. Well, okay, the bitching might carry over into the early part of Tuesday, but as soon as I’m done with lunch it’s ON.

JK47 said,

Geez, they’ve got me so upset I misspelled “balls.�

Rahm sucks so hard he sucked that ‘l’ right off.

Thank Cthulhu my congressman and both of my senators voted the way all good-hearted people did, but why would a veto threat be enough to stop the others? Make that motherfucker veto troop funding once a week, and point out every week that he refuses to fund the troops.

And if you’re in an area with one who voted with Bush, start looking into possible primary opponents NOW. All these people can be replaced, but you have to target them early.

If she were an NBA draft pick, she’d be Chris Washburn.

Ooh, I wanna play! If she were an NFL first round pick she’d be Ryan Leaf.

Alright, I’m gonna have to call you on that one. One failure equals a bust? By that measure, NO ONE has ever amounted to anything.

I agree. Pelosi seems considerably more skillful, and more progressive, than the average politician to me.

The Dems Owners: The Corporatists, yanked their chain good and hard. We NEED publicly funded elections.

This is why it’s easier to be a wingnut. Hell, after six straight years of abject failure on everything but making rich folk richer — they STILL believe in the fundemental mission.

One shitty vote and Pelosi’s a flop, everyone’s ready to give up and blame everyone else.

It took decades to produce a political culture that would give someone like Monica Goodling a place at the table. It might take more than two years to change it back.

Alright, I’m gonna have to call you on that one. One failure equals a bust? By that measure, NO ONE has ever amounted to anything. If you don’t fail, it means you’re not working at the limits of your abilities.

It’s not just that she failed– it’s the way she failed. The way the Dem leadership failed on this suggests that they just don’t get it. This was a golden opportunity to stand up to Bush and at least win a rhetorical victory. Instead, it’s the same old shit. Instead of daring tactics and passionate rhetoric, we got triangulation and a phony claim of victory.

The Iraq War was THE issue in the 2006 elections, and it’s THE issue in American politics right now. Instead of using the Iraq War as a cudgel to bludgeon Bush, they pulled their punches and let Bush walk away with yet another blank check. This wasn’t a minor setback– it was huge. Now Americans know without a doubt that Democrats don’t have their back.

For the record, I’m not giving up on Pelosi by any means. This was extremely disappointing, but the “Pelosi is a bust” comment was really a setup for the Chris Washburn punchline. Hopefully they learn their lesson after this debacle– they’re getting roasted by the press, the blogs and the late night comedy shows, and deservedly so.

Bubba is right, first off. Ace the leadership. Rahm walks the plank, Nancy has some ‘splainin to do.
But did anyone expect any better? Most of the Dems there are still the same ass covering career politicians that were around for the last six years. They’re like puppies that have been so abused they just sit in the corner and piss on themselves. It’s gonna take a while for that generation to die off.
Me, I’m just hoping Conyers has the balls to push impeachment towards being a reality. Or at least that there’s some kind of strike against Cheney’s authority in the works.
The Dem leadership is stuck in a post 9/11 mindset, like CheneyCo is.
They need to start thinking post Katrina.

You know I gotta say collectively we sound like a bunch of suicidal manic depressives coming of a meth weekend.
Do you think the right wing operatives that took the GOP from the mushy middle to the far right, walked out of the party the minute they failed to get what they want? No they identified their friends and champions, marked their ennemies and 5th colummists and used their dollars and their time accordingly. Making the Democratic Party of the United States of America a truly liberal party is not a 2 year project. It’s gonna take your fucking lifetime and if you are not willing to commit you ain’t ever gonna see it. Now you have three choices, take my advice, spend the next 12 years in the fruitless persuit of 3rd party politics or opt out and bitch all the time.

You know I’m Fing right.
Identify your friends, mark your ennemies, act accordingly.

my 2 cents

As usual, it’s about the oil.

Despite record high gas prices – US demand is up 2% over last year.

The occupation of Iraq is all about securing a source of Middle East oil other than Saudi Arabia, so that the US can 1) ensure it’s own supply of oil and 2) have a hand in manipulating world oil prices.

Any politician who allows the flow of oil to the US to be less than adequate will be thrown out on their asses. The Dems know that if it happens, they will be blamed. People talk a lot about wanting the war to be over, but they want their petroleum more.

Identify your friends, mark your ennemies, act accordingly.

True. My enemies are Rahm Emanuel and the Triangulating, Wolf-in-Sheep’s-Clothing Clintonistas.

Getting upset at the Republicans at this stage is like getting upset at a lion for eating a zebra. We know what they do, and we know they’re never going to change. My focus (with my time and my wallet) is going to be on eliminating the suckass Lieberman wing of our mediocre party.

I gave money to Ned Lamont and Jim Webb last election cycle, and felt good about it even though Lamont didn’t pull it out. I’ll continue doing that, and I’ll continue coming here to vent my frustration when the Democratic Party does things that suck.

The fact is, we win, you liberals lose.

The fact is, we win, you liberals lose.

The fact is, you win, the troops lose.

This was a golden opportunity to stand up to Bush and at least win a rhetorical victory.

Exactly. We don’t need a “rhetorical victory”. We need to find a way to wrench control of foreign policy from the criminals. We need to take practical steps. We need to understand we do NOT hold all the cards. We need to accept that it’s going to be a PROCESS, and if we stomp out the door ’cause we didn’t get a pony in five months then the bushies will be laughing at us as they start their next war, abrogate their next treaty and crap on another constitutional guarantee.

Iraq will likely be decided in January of 2009. Start thinking about that. Are you going to help elect a president that will actually pull out of iraq? Or might you actually be supporting a candidate that will leave 40,000 troops in “superbases” in the iraqi hinterlands to threaten and destabilze the entire region for the oil companies and the Israel lobby?

It’s crucially important that we WIN this, not that we feel good about ourselves. If you really thougt the Dems were going to win in a first round knockout, you need to go back and learn the rules of this game. Process, my friends, it’s all about process…

mikey

I do NOT believe that Ms. Pelosi supports the war and wants it to contiue. Nor does Murtha, nor Reid, nor many other Democrats in DC.

Do they support immediate withdrawal? If not, they are in favor of continuing the war, though I’ll grant that they disagree amongst themselves and with the president about how long to continue it.

The percentage of Congressional Democrats voting against extending the war is actually lower than the percentage voting for the Iraq war resolution back before the whole thing started.

And a lot of these “no” votes are freebies that don’t ultimately count. As >a href=”http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/24/9255/80693″>David Sirota pointed out yesterday, the vote that counted in the House was the vote on the rule. Voting “no” on the rule was the one way to actually stop this thing. Only seven Democrats voted “no” on the rule: Waters, Harman (!), Clay, Moore (WI), McNerney, Kucinich and Stark. Eight other Democrats didn’t vote on the rule: Cardoza, DeGette, Engel, Gutierrez, Jones (OH), Lewis (GA), Oberstar and Shea-Porter. That, I think, is a pretty good measure of the level of serious, as opposed to nominal, antiwar sentiment in the House Democratic Caucus.

JK47

right – being in California- my primary vote didn’t even count in ’04 – so I said “fuck it, I’ll vote for Kucinich” (sp?)
And in ’06 I voted for one of the Democratic challengers to Feinstein in the primary. Just to make a statement.

Anyway – with California moving up its primary for the ’08 election – I may actually have a primary vote that counts this time – so, I’ll be seeing who I like. I know it isn’t Hillary.

One shitty vote and Pelosi’s a flop, everyone’s ready to give up and blame everyone else.

I’d call it one crucial vote, and there’s more to Pelosi-fatigue than this, leaving out the manufactured controversies even.

Incremental progress is nice and all, but there’s an idiotic war on and some people who could have made all the difference in the world simply did not.

What else should a career be dependent on? A blowjob?

If she were an NBA draft pick, she’d be Chris Washburn.

If she were an NBA draft pick, she’d be Len Bias.

The comparison between defunding the war and the Gingrich governmental shutdown misses a key point: when Gingrich and the GOP shut down the government, all kinds of popular federal programs were imperiled. Federal museums and national parks shut. I remember going to Point Reyes National Seashore in California in the midst of all that. Literally hundreds of us arrived at the park only to face barriers and signs that the park was closed. Some went home, others jumped the barriers. Everyone was furious.

The Iraq War, on the other hand, is not popular.

All this concern about public reaction to a particular political strategy is misplaced. The public reacts to political effects, not the bureaucratic maneuvering that produces them. This is an unpopular war. Left to his own devices, Bush will simply continue to escalate it. The only way the Democrats can stop it (if they even want to stop it, which I believe they don’t) would be to defund it.

Actually, I take that back. Harry Reid’s more like Len Bias. Could have been great, but ultimately a tragic disappointment.

I’m willing to see what Pelosi does next. I think it’s important that she does well a) because the cro-magnons in this country need to see that a woman can lead without the country falling to shit and b) because I personally think that women are better leaders. At least she didn’t vote for it, which confuses the hell out of me. If you don’t agree with it, don’t fucking provide cover for it by standing with Reid when he tries to claim it as some sort of fuckin’ pyrrhic victory.

Only seven Democrats voted “no� on the rule: Waters, Harman (!), Clay, Moore (WI), McNerney, Kucinich and Stark. Eight other Democrats didn’t vote on the rule: Cardoza, DeGette, Engel, Gutierrez, Jones (OH), Lewis (GA), Oberstar and Shea-Porter.

It’s pretty distressing not to see my usually excellent rep (Waxman) on that list. Man, do the House Democrats fucking blow.

Mikey, it’s not about process, it’s about outcomes. That is all that matters. Does the US still have a massive imperial military presence in Iraq or not?

Until the answer is no, all this process stuff is just Beltway Politicians dangling shiny objects in front of activists’ eyes. Ooh, the wonkety wonk, so inscrutably complex yet so fascinating…

The cycle keeps repeating itself:

– Dem politicians fail to accomplish anything concrete (Alito

– bloggers get pissed and gripe

– other bloggers counsel patience, invoke the complexity of Teh Process, remind everyone that the Dems are powerless even with a majority in Congress

– rinse and repeat

I’ve got a Darth Nader pin myself but I’m not breaking it out yet. The Dems are pussies for the most part but the GOP is criminally insane.

The least progressive bloggers can do is refuse to buy the rope-a-dope bullshit excuses the Beltway Dems continue to throw out.

Stay engaged, stay feisty. Massive, sustained bitching works sometimes. Excusing the Dem “Leadership” for not getting anything done just allows them to take activists for granted.

ImJohnGalt, I pretty much agree with you about Pelosi. She isn’t perfect but I kinda think she’s better than what we have had for a while.
Also, call me old fashioned but, the incredibly nasty, stupid, childish, bigoted way that the media and the right wing attacked her for going to talk to the Syrians while wearing a headscarf has made me want to defend her leadership when I possibly can.

Mikey, it’s not about process, it’s about outcomes. That is all that matters. Does the US still have a massive imperial military presence in Iraq or not?

Until the answer is no, all this process stuff is just Beltway Politicians dangling shiny objects in front of activists’ eyes. Ooh, the wonkety wonk, so inscrutably complex yet so fascinating…

I’m sorry, dude, but that’s fucking INSANE. Take any undertaking. If you can’t get it with one try in a few months, do you give up? Especially if its really, really important?

Of fucking COURSE it’s about process. There’s an outcome we want. Step one, we switched congressional leadership. Guess what? There’s a step two, and a step three, and on and on. How can you not recognize that they aren’t just going to roll over and LET us win? We are going to have to BEAT them, and it’s going to take time. You sound silly. Poor us, we gave it a shot, we lost. No, we STARTED, and the game is still on.

After your freshman year in college, they didn’t give you diploma. Know why? You hadn’t FINISHED the process. When you had, you got the diploma which was your goal.

Get freakin real. The next time they’re going to win again. But maybe by a little less, and with a little less certainty. I can’t even begin to describe how baffled I am at your sense of crushing defeat at the end of the first round…

mikey

If you can’t get it with one try in a few months, do you give up?

Why yes. Is that not what’s been demonstrated?

I really don’t get what you’re talking about with this “process” stuff. It always comes down to individual decisions, and that’s how people are measured.

In this case, leadership brokered a bill that was precisely the opposite of what everybody wants except an ever-decreasing subset of Republicans. That’s simply bad.

They could have sent forward another bill like the last one, which I seem to recall a lot of people saying was also bad but a compromise, or they could have sent nothing and gone on to something else.

I’m sorry, dude, but that’s fucking INSANE. Take any undertaking. If you can’t get it with one try in a few months, do you give up? Especially if its really, really important?

Mikey, shystee never suggested that we “give up.” In fact (s)he said this:

Stay engaged, stay feisty. Massive, sustained bitching works sometimes. Excusing the Dem “Leadership� for not getting anything done just allows them to take activists for granted.

That doesn’t sound like “giving up” to me, in fact it sounds like exactly the opposite.

Seems to me we can use both Mikey’s plan of a long term legislative fight, and Shystee’s plan of continual bitching. There is not necessarily any conflict between these two strategies.

Seems to me we can use both Mikey’s plan of a long term legislative fight, and Shystee’s plan of continual bitching. There is not necessarily any conflict between these two strategies.

Note that until very recently there wasn’t a need for either of them regarding a definite withdrawal from Iraq.

Righteous Bubba: Were you convinced that the withdrawal plan was a sure thing? If so, why?

Mikey,

I said nothing about giving up. I’m just saying the Beltway Dems seems to me to use Process as a convenient excuse for not coming up with Results.

“It’s going to take time”. Sure. How much time? When is the Process supposed to end? When are we getting the fuck out of Iraq? 2007? 2009? 2013? Ever?

Just like the Reich Wing’s mantra: “victory in Iraq will take a long time, but we don’t want to set any artificial time tables” the Dems seem content to keep kicking the can another (Rahm) Emanuel Unit down the road.

In ’06 the Dems said “we can’t stand up to Bush because we’re the minority. But give us control of Congress and we’ll bring the troops home.”

Now in ’07 it’s “we can’t stand up to Bush because we don’t have a veto-proof supermajority. But give us that AND the White House and we’ll bring the troops home”.

From what I can tell from HillBama’s speeches, in ’09 it’s going to be “we can’t get out of Iraq because we need to protect our interests in the Middle East. But thanks for voting Democratic, sucka ass bitches!”

Until the Dems do something (anything!) concrete, the “baby steps” argument will continue to look like more rope-a-dope to me. Just another rhetorical tactic to keep the activists locked in while doing squat about the life-and-death issues.

Righteous Bubba: Were you convinced that the withdrawal plan was a sure thing? If so, why?

I wasn’t convinced it was sure. It was, however, exceedingly possible.

On the one hand, there was a bill with a timetable for withdrawal, and on the other there was no bill. Either would end the war. That seemed to me to be a decent position, especially with the public against the war.

Until the Dems do something (anything!) concrete, the “baby steps� argument will continue to look like more rope-a-dope to me. Just another rhetorical tactic to keep the activists locked in while doing squat about the life-and-death issues.

I wholly agree.

Until the Dems do something (anything!) concrete, the “baby steps� argument will continue to look like more rope-a-dope to me. Just another rhetorical tactic to keep the activists locked in while doing squat about the life-and-death issues.

Especially since their “fight” against Bush was so tepid. The Dems should have at least made it look like they were fighting Bush tooth and nail. They just have a tin ear and played this badly.

Ok, I’ll try it again.

1. I happen to agree with you guys. If it was up to me, I would have sent the same bill back up every wednesday until forever. You can’t win a game of chicken if you’re, well, chicken.

2. It was not up to me. It was up to the Democratic leadership in the congress. They made a different political calculation. Where I begin to disagree with some of y’all is this assumption that they ALL want to stay in Iraq. I am convinced that is not so. I think SOME of them do. I do not think pelosi, murtha, feingold, reid, etc want to. I think Hillary and Hoyer do.

3. It’s easy for you guys (and me) to sit here and trash them, but it is well within the realm of possiblity that the Dems might have lost that game of chicken. Maybe the Administration would have found another way to fund the war. Maybe opinior would have turned against the Dems and the Repubs might have actually won the standoff and GAINED power and popularity. If you can promise me you know what the outcome would have been, you don’t understand the law of unintended consequeces.

4. Yes, they made a political decision designed, at least in part, to preserve their political careers. They are politicians. Are you really SHOCKED, Shocked!! that they did. Do you think there will be anyone who reaches that level of power that isn’t hardwired to preserve their power? Has it ever been otherwise?

I’m just saying they lost the first round. Maybe they could have won it. But when I look at the political landscape, even this bleak morning, I know clearly and without doubt who the bad guys are…

mikey

On the one hand, there was a bill with a timetable for withdrawal, and on the other there was no bill. Either would end the war. That seemed to me to be a decent position, especially with the public against the war.

I agree with you, Bubba, that either choice would have been a good one. And I wish that they had chose one of them. I am very disappointed as well. And like JK47, I wish the Democrats would at least make it look like they were fighting.

However, I guess that I am not personally very surprised by this turn of events. I am just thinking and strategizing now. Is Mikey correct when he says that the majority of Democrats would like to end the occupation of Iraq? Or is Madame Buttocks correct when she says that most Democrats wish to stay in Iraq? I tend to lean more towards Mikey’s way of thinking, but I don’t know the answer. It may be a good idea to start getting a more clear idea of this, and, while we are at it, a clearer idea of exactly what the Democratic, and Republican, candidates think about an airstrike or a campaign of political subversion in Iran.

3. It’s easy for you guys (and me) to sit here and trash them, but it is well within the realm of possiblity that the Dems might have lost that game of chicken. Maybe the Administration would have found another way to fund the war. Maybe opinior would have turned against the Dems and the Repubs might have actually won the standoff and GAINED power and popularity. If you can promise me you know what the outcome would have been, you don’t understand the law of unintended consequeces.

Once again Mikey with the common sense!

Where I begin to disagree with some of y’all is this assumption that they ALL want to stay in Iraq. I am convinced that is not so. I think SOME of them do. I do not think pelosi, murtha, feingold, reid, etc want to. I think Hillary and Hoyer do.

I think it’s only some of ’em too. However it’d be nice to have the people’s will reflected and so on, regardless of their cockamamie feelings.

Maybe opinion would have turned against the Dems and the Repubs might have actually won the standoff and GAINED power and popularity.

My own bullshit theory about this is that they’d rather Iraq collapse completely after the presidential election and not before.

Yes, they made a political decision designed, at least in part, to preserve their political careers. They are politicians. Are you really SHOCKED, Shocked!! that they did. Do you think there will be anyone who reaches that level of power that isn’t hardwired to preserve their power? Has it ever been otherwise?

I’m just saying they lost the first round. Maybe they could have won it. But when I look at the political landscape, even this bleak morning, I know clearly and without doubt who the bad guys are…

The point in the last paragraph contrasts markedly with the point in the paragraph above. Personally I think I can discern the lesser evil.

Look at Vietnam to figure out how hard it is to stop a war from the “Congressional funding” standpoint. A huge segment of Democratic cacus and the American people had turned decisively against the war by 1967 — enough that when LBJ only got 58% of the primary vote in New Hampshire in 1968, he dropped out of the race.

And still the war went on for another 7 years.

I’m not saying that’s right, but the genie doesn’t fit neatly back into the bottle.

It makes no difference what Dem politicians really want, deep in their heart of hearts.

Nancy Pelosi’s ultimate goal might be to bring the gift of Botox to Nouri Al-Maliki’s eye-bags, for all we know.

The only thing that matters is what they DO. By their fruits ye shall know them … and all that.

Stay engaged, stay feisty. Massive, sustained bitching works sometimes.

It does. You know what else helps, too? sustained praise for those who do the right thing.

Politicians are people. People are mammals. Mammals like to have their bellies rubbed. More to the point: when one mammal is getting its belly rubbed and another isn’t, the one who is getting rubbed is happy and relaxed and the one who ain’t getting’ rubbed wonders WTF they are doing wrong. I wish that BF Skinner’s conclusions weren’t right, and that rational action dominated behavior, but wishing doesn’t make it so.

We’ve all had the boss who always only complains and never praises. How long did it take for you to stop taking them seriously and only pay lip-service? Same holds true here.

Yup, politicians are craven junkies for public approval. This is a fact we can use to our advantage.

Ok, shystee, untie this knot:

Jack Murtha voted for the bill because he said that he now feels the Pentagon WOULD be in trouble and the troops screwed if the money wasn’t in there. That he also said that he would lead the fight against Iraq money in the upcoming Pentagon budget in June is immaterial to the point at hand.

But what can’t be denied is that Murtha has LONG been out front opposing this war. He’s been up front and honest about this issue (if not others) and without him, the Democrats may haven’t gotten the first timeline bill through to begin with. In short, he’s the guy taking the lead and he says that the bill is necessary for the troops. Does one believe him or not?

Hmmm. The problem is not in the House Democrats. All but a small number of D’s voted the deadline bill out just to have it vetoed by King George. I understand the frustration of activists with the Congres. There you will find 435 presidential wannabees waiting for their turn. Now the Senate is sitting on the edge with the highly unstable Joe Liebrman calling the majority. If that nut wakes up in a bad mood we have two more years of Bush court appointees.
A word to adults; 08 is the game. 06 was just the warm up.

But what can’t be denied is that Murtha has LONG been out front opposing this war. He’s been up front and honest about this issue (if not others) and without him, the Democrats may haven’t gotten the first timeline bill through to begin with. In short, he’s the guy taking the lead and he says that the bill is necessary for the troops. Does one believe him or not?

I’d like to see Murtha’s statement. I did a bunch of searching and couldn’t find it. Linky?

Now the Senate is sitting on the edge with the highly unstable Joe Liebrman calling the majority. If that nut wakes up in a bad mood we have two more years of Bush court appointees.

Not true. This was on the front page of DailyKos today:

The operating agreement for the Senate this term means that Reid remains Majority Leader even if Democrats lose their effective majority. Under no circumstances can Mitch McConnell become Majority Leader. So Lieberman cannot flip control of the Senate by switching parties.

Under no circumstances can Mitch McConnell become Majority Leader.

That is bloody GREAT news, and I’m damn glad to hear it. But there’s control (the power, able to lead committees and bring legislation to the floor) and effective control (51 votes for a piece of legislation). Y’know? Lieberman still counts all out of proportion to his little mug…

mikey

And how many more Iraqis have died today, in our name, because of “our” country’s “occupation” of their country, while we’ve all been sitting here chatting virtually with each other over the nuances of what the Dems and Rethugs may or may not do, have or have not done? How many more American troops will die before the weekend’s out? How many is acceptable? When will it be too many? Ever? What will it, finally, take? To answer my own self on that last score, I don’t think anything we can do as collections of individual citizens will end this. If hundreds of thousands of us marched on DC tomorrow and chained ourselves en masse to the WH gates and then set ourselves on fire like Buddhist monks did during the Vietnam war, the soulless thugs who currently call themselves our government wouldn’t bat an eye. If (BIG fucking “if”) the worthless Democrats manage to put forth a candidate worthy of supporting, there’s a shot this abomination might finally wind down—”in due course,” of course. That’s at least two years from now. How many more will die in the meantime? Would it make it more urgent if it were our loved ones at stake? Because, after all, in the end, it is, you know.

I’d like to see Murtha’s statement. I did a bunch of searching and couldn’t find it. Linky?

Is this what you’re looking for?

Murtha’s statement was basically “we didn’t have the votes” which is better than “this is really a victory for Dems,” but his statement is still disappointing and I think more than a bit naive. He’s arguing for sort of a reverse Friedman Unit, suggesting that by September, the clusterfuck will be so bad that the Dems will be able to peel off Republicans. I doubt this is true. We’ll be having this same discussion four months from now when the magical September date rolls around, and all that will happen is that another Friedman will be granted. We all know this is true.

How many more will die in the meantime? Would it make it more urgent if it were our loved ones at stake? Because, after all, in the end, it is, you know.

Truth. Sharp-edged, with Leather Grips. This is the stakes. And it is NOT that the case that you don’t know them. You DO! They are us, we are them, bleeding is all they have, that and the most powerful kind of love that’s ever been. People who’ve been downrange with you. People, dammit, people you’ve SEEN ’em get up and move, putting rounds downrange to take the pressure off of YOU, their flesh offered up for nothing but a moment of your life.

Thank you ma’am. Keep sayin it. Keep hearing it. We have GOT to get those kids out of there. Goddammit…

mikey

One of the main problems I have with Democrats, is that they suck at debating. I’ve learned over time, that it’s more important in how you frame the debate, than whatever issue you’re discussing. It absolutely drives me nuts.

I use the Estate tax as a prime example of framing and how even just one word matters. When you call it the Estate tax, Americans supported the policy. When Republicans started calling it the “Death tax”, support fell considerably. Is it so freaking hard to say there’s no such tax as a death tax? Is it that difficult to say the dead aren’t being taxed, it’s a tax on their children, similar to unearned income? Is it so hard to say that calling it the Death tax is a lie?

I’m not suggesting Democrats talk like robots, but there’s a right way and wrong way to make your case to the public.

I haven’t made up my mind on whether the Dems just don’t realize how much backing and therefore power they have to take on Bush more aggressively or if they just don’t want to force the end of this war but I do think it’s about time to be demonstrating. I’ve seen lefty bloggers minimizing the importance of taking to the streets vs. online organizing but that attitude just seems sillier and more smug every day that this goes on and people keep on dying.

And where’s the protest music? There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of it buring up the charts does there? Well here’s one protest song.

Let me expand on what I was saying above.

Republicans framed the Iraq quagmire debate with the classic “support the troops” slogan. Democrats have plenty of ammo to turn it around and throw it right back in their faces. How dare Republicans say they support the troops when they voted twice against providing the troops with the best body armor. They have balls saying that, when they cut veterans benefits. Is overextending their tours supporting the troops? Is nickle and diming their pay raise supporting the troops? Was privatizing veterans hospitals supporting the troops?

Republicans say they support “traditional marriage”, I say treating groups of people unequally is immoral, unconstitutional, and borderline un-American.

Words matter…

“Why’d I vote for these guys again?”

Um.

HippieLawnGuy said “And where’s the protest music? There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of it buring up the charts does there? Well here’s one protest song.”

Hehe, and Mike said there are no more hippies! Nothin’ says hippie like protest music! Hey lawn guy, I’ve written you a hippie protest song. And not just any hippie protest song. It’s all in lower case, and no punctuation, just like Rosie!

republicans kill
progressives heal like the
mother bear nursing her young
i am alone
fried cheese

Sing it while beating a drum. Girls will flock to you!

(In other words, your next post is too disgusting for me to poke fun at you guys. That’s some serious sh*t you are ignoring. This one however, is exactly disgusting enough!)

Can I write another? Assuming your answer is ‘yes’:

the bough did not break
from the weight of the next
diligent father saw to that
cheese angry
it was not fried
with the touch of a child it was solved
eat it
she said

Note to poets: Make sure and not punctuate your poems, and for God’s sake, don’t capitalize anything! It makes you much deeper than you are. Ex.

note to poets
punctuation is capitalist
i will not capitalize
for your misogynistic patriarchal world
no

See? Doing a dance is gravy, but make sure no music is playing! Otherwise it looks like you are just dancing. With no music, or with someone talking, you are making a statement. Maybe even a political one!

Thank you! I’ll be here all weekend. Not on that other thread though. You really shook me.

This isn’t a protest song, but it does feature the hottest mega-babe in all of indie rock, Annie Hardy. This one’s for you, Kevin!

Well, thanks for outing me, you jerk, jk47! But still, it portends good. Maybe liberals aren’t devoid of humor. I’m assuming you found mine and Rosie’s poetry writing style to infantile? Can’t say I’m unhappy with that.

Also, what are you doing tonight? This one’s for you, JK! It takes a little translating, but I’ve no doubt you are capable. Plus, she’s cute as hell! You know, for a girl. Now that you’ve outed me, I don’t have to pretend anymore!

JOY!

Do you understand now, as Ralph Nader correctly pointed out, that there’s no difference between the Dems and the Rethugs?
—

Stupidest statement on the planet. Two issues. Minimum wage. Global Warming. Difference in Ds and Rs is black and white. Quoting Ralph Nader is the last refuge of spongy, weak-brained, jobless leftist losers.

Totally spic! As if global warming was an ‘issue’!

So whatd’ya think jk? She’s like a dude or something, so it’s totally cool to like her. Especially if you are a Democrat. They dig dudes, from what I understand.

Want to end the war?

One word:

Impeachment

Mikey said, “It’s easy for you guys (and me) to sit here and trash them, but . . . [i]f you can promise me you know what the outcome would have been, you don’t understand the law of unintended consequeces.”

The outcome would’ve been this: Bush-Cheney, the Gop, and the corporate media blame the Dems for the debacle that is Iraq. Which they will do anyway, of course; but for now, while memories of cakewalks and aluminum tubes are still fresh in people’s minds, it is Bush Jr.’s war. And the Dems won’t change that before ’08, not with polls showing a solid majority in favor of “funding with [meaningless] benchmarks.”

Personally, I think the Dems are wrong; I think they should stand up for what is right, and let the chips fall. If their positions were reversed, the Gops sure as hell would’ve pulled the plug on “Gore’s Folly” or “Clinton’s Fiasco” and impeached said Dem for not catching bin-Forgotten SIX FREAKIN YEARS AFTER 9/11. But Gops can afford to be partisan, because the corporate media hates regulation and controls what passes for discourse, and because rural America loves its guns and controls the electoral college. So it goes.

EdsAppliance said,

May 26, 2007 at 7:10

Want to end the war?

Pretty sure the war ended 3 wks after it started. did you mean an end to the occupation? Hell, yeah, I want that! We won’t have the manpower to do Iran and Syria without it!

semper fi.

Funny aside:

“Mikey said, “It’s easy for you guys (and me) to sit here and trash them, but . . . [i]f you can promise me you know what the outcome would have been, you don’t understand the law of unintended consequeces[sic].â€?”

weikuboy says: “The outcome would’ve been this:…”

Even hippies have to be able to get the humor there (Aside: I had to [sic] him, because you know how hippies are. They jump at the littlest thing. If I didn’t, by the time it was over, they would have said that _I_ was the poor speller, and being from NJ/Louisiana, well, you know. They’re hippies. You can’t trust them to be honest).

Coconut Cream is my favorite, but no, I really couldn’t take the last piece.

[…] post by Kevin Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and […]

I think Mikey’s gotta start his own blog, he’s that good.

Give it some thought, Mikey. Your own blog would be gold, gold, I tell ya.

Seriously.

Your own blog would be gold, gold, I tell ya.

Teh mikey

Thanks, kingubu. It’s teh best.

“Coconut Cream is my favorite, but no, I really couldn’t take the last piece.”

Haha! I get it now. You read my site. The sad part is that we’ve still got them :(. You’d think pies would get eaten. You’d be surprised.

And I agree with rubdmc. start a blog mikey! Hippies need a new outlet for their… tiedye stuff? Nah, they sell that here, right? Still start a blog! And don’t call yourself The Mikey. Say something like teh mikey, as kingubu said. The mispelling will give you street cred!’

Also, per kingubu, you could use the number 2 to mean to, or even too! ‘R’ could be ‘are’. Do it mikey! together with kingubu, you guys could be gold! Hey! Anything that ends in -ate, you could use the number 8! I just made that up, but feel free to use it.

Are you guys this horrible, or am I just imagining it. Because I am indeed imagining a couple of words. Horrible is one. Weak is the other.

Just sayin’

I have unpublished data indicating that fear of dirty fucking hippies is strongly correlated with being rejected by that cute stoner chick with the hairy armpits at the Grateful Dead concert that one time.

Am I the only one who realised that having the moderate Republi…I mean the Democrats in power wouldn’t actually change anything? There is not a snowball’s chance in hell of the moderate Republi…I mean the Democrats actually standing up to the right wing of the party (popularly referred to as the “GOP”).

Vote however you want, all you’ll get is a politician.

Hehe, I’m (in general) not picking on yoy guys tonight so I hope you’ll go light on me reciprically. But islamofascist[sic] is kinda right! I was a big fan of the Dead, though not the LSD follow them around type. But one of the two times I saw them, this one in Denver – a generally pretty hippie chick (young hippie chicks are all generally pretty, they just don’t age well in that lifestyle) made some moves. I was pretty sure I was in.

Then she raised her arms in that slow wavy dance style that hippie chicks have at Dead concerts (on acid, but that may be an incorrect assumption)… she had more hair under her arms than I have on my head. Well I WASN’T on acid, so that was a dealbreaker. Can’t deal with those! Your link was hilarious though!

This may be even more info that you aren’t interested in, but I’ve added hair to at least 6 of my only slightly better than Gavin’s pshoppings of hippie chicks as part of whatever I was doing to make fun of them. I assume you guys don’t think ladies with hairy armpits is as utterly disgusting as I do? Don’t get me wrong. If I was gay, I’d have my bf shave too. So it’s not sexist or anything.

Kadin, you accidentally kept confusing the Repubi’s with the Demo’s. Just a fyi.

Holy cow, I haven’t posted unrelated pics! Normally, I just do it to tick you guys off, but I’m doing my best not to be disagreeable on this thread, since it’s so important, and both of our sides may actually agree on it, assuming Rosie O’Donnell doesn’t show up. But just for fun, have you seen Pepsi’s new flavor?

Ok, I added the squid, but they are really selling a beverage called ‘ice cucumber’! Have you guys been to the coolest site ever? Well, big deal! I have the collectible action figure! Still in the box!

What happens when you give the French or Harry Reid an ultimatum? This.

I’ve seen lefty bloggers minimizing the importance of taking to the streets vs. online organizing but that attitude just seems sillier and more smug every day that this goes on and people keep on dying.

That’s very true, lawnguy. Do keep in mind, however, that we have been doing street protests, continually, since 2003. Some of these have been quite huge (Washington DC, Sept. ’05, for just one example). The problem is that, outside of its home city, a street protest is only as effective as the media is willing to let it be by reportage. And the papers and TV have been continually issuing obviously low counts of the people at street protests, or ignoring them altogether.

Nice blog, Mikey. Some very nice work indeed.

The problem is that, outside of its home city, a street protest is only as effective as the media is willing to let it be by reportage. And the papers and TV have been continually issuing obviously low counts of the people at street protests, or ignoring them altogether.

Very true, atheist, and that’s but one of the problems. Another is maintaining massive political action from the populace even in the face of the media playing “I can’t see you” and the politicians just not giving a fuck. But sustained political action is what it will take, and visible action at that.

If we’re going to get anything done, we have to be prepared to work hard for it, because they’re not going to give it to us with a big ribbon. Politicians are mostly selfish bastards who care only about their own careers, so as an earlier commenter said, we have to support the progressives and try to weed out the regressives.

Give an asshole your opinion. Sendahole.com.

Thanks MIkey, Some Guy and others with great suggestions re: marauding herons.

Picked up a big, fake Koi today. Later, I thought ‘Why didn’t I get a school of them? Cheaper than live fish, less work, same excitement level’.

Might go back tomorrow and get some more. Trojan Fish. Love it.

Do you understand now, as Ralph Nader correctly pointed out, that there’s no difference between the Dems and the Rethugs?

Even in light of this latest spineless move on the part of the Democrats, this statement is idiotic.

from the populace even in the face of the media playing “I can’t see you� and the politicians just not giving a fuck. But sustained political action is what it will take, and visible action at that.

Qetesh, that’s very true- we do need to keep going on the protests. But I have wanted to start focussing on more targeted actions too. Like, I keep wanting to start a group specifically designed to write letters to the local paper’s editor when they publish articles about Iraq, about Iran, about Afghanistan. We need to be a bigger presence there. There’s lots of actions above and beyond the marches, to take. Especially when the occupation has dragged on so long that even people who are sympathetic to the cause are like, “Oh no- another dang march!”.

I don’t know, this shit has gone on so long that I feel we in the peace movement have to stop fucking around and treat this like a job, a day-in day-out activity.

It’s just frustrating when most people are like, “Oh, who cares about that stuff? It’s just Iraq.”

I went to a meeting of “Millitary Families Speak Out” today. A rather somber event. Deeply angry parents. A guy got up, who was in Iraq for a year. The guy was dressed as a hippie. He was in Iraq for a year, got back to Kentucky, felt personally messed up, didn’t have the stregth to do much but go from bar to bar with his millitary buddies, bad nightmares, did not feel connected to the rest of society, could not hold a job. No help from the VA hospital for any of them. He had PTSD and his opinion was that all his buddies did too. He was called to go to Iraq again, and he went AWOL. Went to Canada, started speaking against the war. Stayed up there for a time, but felt he needed to come back to Kentucky. Did so, and also turned himself into the Army. They did not court-martial him (for which he is lucky, apparently), but they did give him an “Other than Honorable” discharge, and now he cannot get veteran’s benefits. Which is a problem because he still feels mentally wrong, still has PTSD. He finished, saying something like, “You have to help us, support us, the veterans of this war. Really help us. Putting a little yellow ribbon on your car does not do anything for us, for my buddies or for me. Help us with our real problems, and end this war, stop this pointless bloodshed, stop creating more guys like me.”

You can say he brought it on himself by enlisting and then going AWOL. But I don’t see it that way.

We who want peace must pull together more and start taking this stuff seriously and act in targeted ways.

I figure it’s a little late to comment on this, but what they hey.

The Iraq appropriations bill is a little more complicated than a magic “troops out of Iraq” button that Pelosi refused to push because she might make Bush pout. There’s a whole lot of domestic spending tied to the bill as well: more disaster relief for Hurricane Katrina victims, funding for veterans’ programs and hospitals, and a whole bunch of other earmarked funding. Since there was no chance in Hell of the Democrats being able to push through a veto-proof bill with a withdrawal timeline, they at least negotiated a bill with a lot of other, smaller Democratic Party objectives.

I’m not happy about the bill, but I really don’t think it’s a vast betrayal, just a mildly disappointing compromise.

I’m not happy about the bill, but I really don’t think it’s a vast betrayal, just a mildly disappointing compromise.

How many thousand dead will be strongly disappointing? Really, balancing that kind of death against domestic spending is grotesque.

The single most frustrating part about the damn bill is that it’s completely and totally unnecessary. There’s plenty of money elsewhere in the military budget to cover the war expenditures for the next few months. Ever worked for a bureaucracy before? You just juggle the money around out of a couple of other accounts designated for expenses similar to the Iraq war, and then reimburse them at the start of the next fiscal year in October. Big fucking deal. It’s political theater on the part of BOTH Democrats AND Republicans, and is the primary source of my frustration on this topic.

Hokay, I’m convinced. Sure. There was NO RISK to the Democrats. They could have just not brought the funding bill to the floor. Yeah, that’s the ticket. I mean, what could possibly go wrong. There was no possible spin the Republicans might have used that would actually cause large numbers of the American Population to wonder if the Democrats had over-reached. Nope, no possible way that the republicans could have used this decision to pound the Dems in the ’08 elections.

I totally get it. It was a clean, no risk, can’t lose deal, and out of sheer desire to see our troops killed in large numbers the Democrats made a purely venal decision, one that indicates their thinking going forward. They had a certain, long term victory in their hands, and they pissed it away, because they’re really nothing but neocon thugs in disguise. Yeah. Sure. Right…

mikey

Much as I love you, mikey, I gotta disagree here.

There are times when standing up for what your conscience tells you is not only the right thing to do, but the right thing to do politically in the long run.

Imagine what a different presidential campaign we’d be facing if whoever gets the Democratic nomination would’ve been able to stand up and honestly say “Don’t look at me – I didn’t vote for this stupid clusterfuck of a war in the first place”.

Yeah, a vote like that would’ve cost them big time in the short run, but in the long run – like leading up to where we are right now – imagine what a strong position that would have put them in.

The way things are now, the only person who was actually in Congress at the time and who is running for the nomination is Dennis Kucinich, and the powers that be have already deemed him unelectable. But just think what a huge feather in the cap such a claim could be for a politician – and now imagine what’s going to happen during the campaign: “You voted for the continued funding and authorization of troops in Iraq. You must have wanted the war as much as anyone else did”.

This vote is going to be an albatross for these guys, whatever short-term prestige they crib from it.

As an aside, I just finished watching the documentary “Why We Fight”. It’s a great watch, and one that seems singularly appropriate to this Memorial Day weekend. A few things came out of the film that I didn’t know before, and one of them really struck me:

In Eisenhower’s famous farewell address, he introduced us all to the concept of the “military-industrical complex”. It turns out that apparently in the first drafts of the speech, he had wanted to warn America of the dangers of the “military-industrial-Congressional complex” – but was worried about tarnishing the memory of his good working relationship with Congress if he did so.

What I get for being a smartass. I only meant, Jillian, that it’s the OUTCOME that’s critically important here. The goal is to get our people out of Iraq as fast as possible. And all I’m saying is I’m not convinced that this course of action isn’t the most pragmatic. Sure, lots of things would have FELT better. But we need to be as practical under the current situation as possible. I’m not certain it would not have been better to go a different route, but I’m just not as certain as a lot of people here that it would have all worked out in the best way either…

mikey

I’m not certain it would not have been better to go a different route, but I’m just not as certain as a lot of people here that it would have all worked out in the best way either…

All routes are disastrous, which is why I favour the soonest. I do not hold hopes for a “best” from any course of action taken.