"Democrats shouldn't be crossing party lines to help Republican ideology dominate"

[madfloridian]

The word "purist" is now replacing the words like "fringe activists" and "elitists" that were used against those of us who spoke out in 2003 and 2004.

We are called those things if we question actions our party is taking that are wrong and dangerous.

To quote two patriots from the past:

No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

-- Alexander Hamilton

Any time we deny any citizen the full exercise of his constitutional rights, we are weakening our own claim to them.

-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Just four years ago, the chairman of our party wrote some words in a book. He can't speak up about them now because his message is now the same as the Obama campaign, which is as it should be.

But I hope he is biting his tongue a lot. I spoke with someone at DFA offices yesterday, and it hurts them also to see that these words are forgotten.

During my presidential campaign I jokingly referred to the Democratic Leadership Council as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Some criticized this as a "gaffe". (The definition of a gaffe for Washington insiders is when you tell the truth, and they think you shouldn't have.) Yet it is true that the DLC contributed, however inadvertently, to the ascendancy of the Repubican Party by trumpeting the abandonment of the traditional values of the Democratic Party. We forgot that our values were what the people we represented needed, so our base became uninterested and despondent."

They abandoned the traditional interest groups of the party to get a stronger money base.

He had more to say.

"Democrats shouldn't be crossing party lines to help Republican ideology dominate, or breaking ranks to vote for measures like the Medicare prescription bill....There should be consequences for Democrats who do. For one thing, there is no reason not to pose primary challenges to Democratic incumbents who vote with the Republicans on critical Democratic priorities. When our own folks vote with Tom DeLay, it means that DeLay who is not stupid, gets to go to congressional Republicans from moderate districts and tell them he doesn't need their vote to pass his right-wing bill because he has enough Democratic votes to win."

"..Our opponents in Congress are extremists. We're fighting now for the future of our country and the future of democracy. To vote with the Republicans is to let extremism get the upper hand. In the past, our party's own ideal about inclusiveness kept us from having the necessary tools to fight. We need to toughen up. We can't afford to be divided by members peeling off on issues that touch upon our deeply held beliefs.

We don't need to march in lockstep on every vote. But on critical votes that touch on our key issues, Democrats can not abandon their core values. The history of the twentieth century teaches that we must never compromise with extremists."

Page 64, You Have the Power, 2004

We are now compromising with extremists. We did it on the FISA bill, and the Democratic leaders are already signaling a capitulation on offshore drilling.

The votes on the Iraq war resolution.

The votes on the bankruptcy bill.

Upcoming votes on privatizing Social Security, votes NOT being taken on fixing the horrible Medicare D drug plan.

Trade bill votes...fast track. Often done in secret.

Voting with the right wing to curb rights of women and gays.

Those are all votes that were compromising with people with extreme views.

There is going to be a fine line to walk from now on. For many of us who deep down see that what is happening is a dangerous path, it will be a hard one to walk.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere that we will not cross.

We can still do what we have to do to get Democrats back in power.

Now the question is what will they do with that power.

[madfloridian]

1. To be sure I am understood.

We will vote for Obama, we think he is great nominee, and would be a great president. We disagree with some of his right turns lately, and we think there is danger in them because some might lose their passion for change.

We have a bumper sticker on our card, we will support him.

We are unhappy with the congressional leadership lately.

[KittyWampus]

8. right "turns"? In plural? Keep flogging that dead horse madfloridian. It's SOOOO constructive.

[madfloridian]

12. Sorry you feel that way. It is why we are in Iraq.

It is why hundreds of millions are already being spent on covert Iran operations.

[Bette Noir]

23. I agree with you completely.

[mix]

34. yeah attacking endlessly fellow Obama

supporters who criticize him in good faith, that's real productive...

[f the letter]

48. There are bigger things than unity..

particularly when someone like the author of this post has repeatedly stated his support for Obama's presidency.

Honestly, would you have voted for FISA in good conscience? The fourth amendment is a big deal, and it's not "attacking Obama" to state that out in the open.

[mix]

59. Unity in getting Obama elected

does not preclude disagreements, even bitter ones, about his policies/positions...i wish his hardcore supporters, those who brook no criticism, would realize this

[bjobotts]

68. Excellent post. Naomi Klein shows how the "shock" is used to get off shore drilling

There's a link and an article on her new post at Crooks and Liars. Here's a representative sentence

"...This is the President as Extortionist in Chief, with gas nozzle pointed to the head of his hostage--which happens to be the entire country. Give me ANWR, or everyone has to spend their summer vacations in the backyard. A final stickup from the cowboy President..."

[Raster]

80. It's not a dead horse to me. And I appreciate madfloridian's efforts.

What I don't fucking appreciate is people telling me what I should or shouldn't think for the "good of the party." Take a damned good look around you. This is what complacency and cowardice has gotten us. We should be suspicious of just about every politician in Washington, including our own, as we have found MOST OF THEM cannot be trusted to put the people's best interests in front of their own or those of their corporate patrons.

[ooglymoogly]

82. When the truth becomes dangerous, we have lost our way. nt

[bjobotts]

69. You can both support and vote Obama but criticize him when he makes bad decisions

[bjobotts]

70. It's what Obama wants.."be engaged and tell me when I'm wrong. I'll listen"

[madfloridian]

83. Agreed.

:hi:

[Joe Fields]

2. Proud to recommend this. Absolutely essential post.

Thank you, madfloridian for taking the time and trouble to remind us all of the importance of holding to core principles.

K&R!

[madfloridian]

5. Well, I am waiting to be called an "Obama hater."

Or something worse.

It will not be a popular post here at all. But it is true.

[Joe Fields]

7. If it is a choice between being popular or telling the truth,

I choose truth every time. My guess is that the silence you are experiencing on this thread is the acknowledgment of the words you wrote, but reticence to express it in this forum.

[KittyWampus]

9. it sure as hell isn't unique.

[frog92969]

3. K&R

If Democrats aren't Democrats, they're no longer Democrats.
Makes it hard to know who's who.

[LWolf]

4. K & R n/t

[TroubleMan]

6. Most of the DLC are Democrats in name only.

I couldn't agree more.

[Straight Shooter]

10. "Now the question is what will they do with that power."

They will use it to amass even greater power, of course.

[Dr.Phool]

32. The majority gets all or most of the goodies from K-Street.

That's what it was all about in the first place.

[Straight Shooter]

38. The K stands for "kakistocracy"

:(

[GoldieAZ49]

11. what will they do with that power? Whatever they want.

thanks for the consistent threads worth reading.

[madfloridian]

13. Things to think about.

"The new statute permits the NSA to intercept phone calls and e-mails between the U.S. and a foreign location, without making any showing to a court and without judicial oversight, whether or not the communication has anything to do with al Qaeda -- indeed, even if there is no evidence that the communication has anything to do with terrorism, or any threat to national security."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

One of our sons lives overseas now. We think about things like this in a different way.

I have quit emailing a friend in Europe because I fear his hatred for Bush will lead to something uncomfortable. His words for dear leader make me uncomfortable.

[merh]

43. That is a false statement.

I have asked you before and I will ask you again, please back up these statements by citing the provision that supports your position.

I am tired of folks using the thoughts and words of others to condemn something without knowing what the bill actually provides. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

So take the time to link me to the offensive provision so that I will be enlightened and can join in the outrage.

[Mojorabbit]

64. Here is another reason why the bill is bad

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x370611

[merh]

66. Please cite me to the section of the legislation and/or the

provision that allows this.

While you are looking for it, might I suggest you not confuse section 702 with section 703 or 704. Pay close heed to the distinctions, 702 is about non-citizens outside of the US and specifically states:

SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.

‘(a) Authorization- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a determination under subsection (c)(2), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.

‘(b) Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)--

‘(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;

‘(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;

‘(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;

‘(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and

‘(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Whereas, Section 703 relates to US citizens and limits the monitoring and requires probable cause and lawful authorization.

‘SEC. 703. CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES TARGETING UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

‘(a) Jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall have jurisdiction to review an application and to enter an order approving the targeting of a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, if the acquisition constitutes electronic surveillance or the acquisition of stored electronic communications or stored electronic data that requires an order under this Act, and such acquisition is conducted within the United States.

‘(2) LIMITATION- If a United States person targeted under this subsection is reasonably believed to be located in the United States during the effective period of an order issued pursuant to subsection (c), an acquisition targeting such United States person under this section shall cease unless the targeted United States person is again reasonably believed to be located outside the United States while an order issued pursuant to subsection (c) is in effect. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Government to seek an order or authorization under, or otherwise engage in any activity that is authorized under, any other title of this Act.

And then there is

‘SEC. 704. OTHER ACQUISITIONS TARGETING UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

‘(a) Jurisdiction and Scope-

‘(1) JURISDICTION- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall have jurisdiction to enter an order pursuant to subsection (c).

‘(2) SCOPE- No element of the intelligence community may intentionally target, for the purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence information, a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States under circumstances in which the targeted United States person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required if the acquisition were conducted inside the United States for law enforcement purposes, unless a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has entered an order with respect to such targeted United States person or the Attorney General has authorized an emergency acquisition pursuant to subsection (c) or (d), respectively, or any other provision of this Act.

So please, take the time to provide me the language from the bill that supports that concern.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

51. People have been having their 4th Amendment rights violated for YEARS now

In the so-called "War On Drugs". People wringing their hands over FISA must not live in communities where cops kick in the door at any time and people have their property seized because drugs were found on it.

How about DUI checkpoints? Unconstitutional as all hell but they were upheld by SCOTUS back in the early 90s. Another intrusion on your liberty done in the name of "safety".

The Patriot Act?

And now FISA. It's just one more incremental step to a police state but the process was already in motion.

[bbgrunt]

14. you are sooooooo right. I was hoping

for a statesman and leader, but I fear that anyone with those characteristics would be quickly terminated with prejudice.

[lark]

73. They already are

Edwards, Biden, Richardson - all are people of values and principals who were pushed out of the race early leaving us with MOR Obama in the end.

[samsingh]

15. unfortunately, too many do

[madfloridian]

16. The most telling words I have seen here lately....

"I used to respect your posts."

Words like that have been directed at me by many here who used to stand up and speak words of truth.

That's the worst part, trying to instill the fear of speaking out when wrongheaded votes are taken.

Many I felt so compatible with here are now advocating total lack of critique until November.

I am not sure it is worth it anymore. I have always made it clear I supported the nominee.

That does not seem to matter. We must be silent or suffer the consequences of being someone people "used to respect."

I see posts using the words "Obama Haters" (come on now)...getting huge recommends. I see posts saying get the f*** out of this forum on the top of the front page news.

When did this happen?

[totodeinhere]

18. I think it's pretty simple.

After eight years of the criminal bush administration, people are so desperate for a change that they don't care what Obama says or does if that's what it takes for him to get elected.

While I understand that point of view, I disagree with it for tactical reasons. IMO Obama is more likely to win and to win big if he sticks up for his progressive principles rather than compromises and moves to the so-called middle. But a lot of sincere people don't see it my way. And to me that's fine. We are all on the same side here. At least I hope we are.

[madfloridian]

19. I am more concerned about our congressional leaders.

They have not been standing up for Democratic principles.

[depakid]

26. "After eight years of the criminal bush administration..."

some seem to have (perhaps through osmosis) lost the ability to think critically or objectively about the issues or strategy -and have in a sense come to emulate Bush's own supporters.

[Dr.Phool]

35. Kick! One thing about your excellent posts MF,

Through the years, I have never put a single person on ignore. But lately, whenever I come to one of your posts, I can find plenty of candidates for the honor.

[bertman]

49. I think your name about sums it up Dr.Phool

[Shipwack]

76. Jumped the gun; self delete.

[Dr.Phool]

77. Reply retracted.

[madfloridian]

56. There is even a thread begun...

to get dissent out of the GDP.

I am expecting soon another note telling me I can not post this stuff in this forum.

[Dr.Phool]

79. It's getting bad around here anymore.

I'm spending most of my time on the Stock Market Watch, and LBN anymore.

[bertman]

62. Oops! Dr. Phool I think I misINTERPRETATED your comment. My apology.

[lark]

74. Thank you for that

Even though I'm not the good doc, I was wondering about you prior to your retraction. It's nice to see a bit of civility on this board for a change.

[Dr.Phool]

78. Apology accepted, and my reply retracted.

[followthemoney]

17. A vote for the new FISA law is a vote FOR Bush's third term.

A choice was made as to whether Bush should be prosecuted.
(that would be AGAINST Bush)

Or if he should be given a free pass for his crimes.
(that would be FOR Bush)

The Democrats have voted FOR Bush consistently through both terms. If the Democratic leadership votes so consistently FOR Bush why shouldn't the majority of Americans follow the Democratic leadership and vote for a Bush THIRD TERM? The majority of congress sees no problem with voting for Bush;Why should the public?

The legislative actions of the Democrats have minimized the crimes committed by Bush and endorsed him.

[madfloridian]

21. And Bush is having so much fun gloating at his victory.

.

[comradebillyboy]

20. tell that to the democratic leadership

in congress. They can't stand up to a president with an approval rating in the 20's. What gutless wonders.

[chill_wind]

22. Thank you for speaking out. I said this today elsewhere and I'll say it again:

It's possible to be critical of a candidate's position on a key issue and not be an Obama "hater". REALLY, it is.

It's possible to be a supporter without supplicating in total blind fealty to every vote and decision made.

If Obama had voted differently, there would be a LOT more criticism and a lot less self-censoring and other-directed censure about the FISA capitulation and ALL the Dems who voted with Republicans on it yesterday. Including words about those who voted, along with 100% of the Republicans on the cloture vote. It doesn't bother DUers that Obama went that far?

There would be a LOT more criticism. Unless the last 2+ years of DU intensity on the FISA issue have been a total figment of my imagination. Funny, all that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6481487#6482399

The sudden amount of rationalization is amazing and incredibly dismaying. Especially when served up with some of the occasionally excess nasty zealotry seen here and there.

Just to reiterate on the issue itself:

Those claiming that this new FISA law is just some sort of innocuous or mild extension of the Government's surveillance powers under the old FISA law should listen to Jaffer's extremely clear and detailed explanation of what this law really is, how invasive the powers it creates are, and why it tramples on core Constitutional protections. The podcast can be heard here.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/


Jameel Jaffer:

Jameel Jaffer is a litigator for the American Civil Liberties Union and Director of the ACLU's National Security Project. Currently, his docket includes Doe v. Gonzales, a challenge to the FBI's "national security letter" authority; ACLU v. NSA, a challenge to the constitutionality of warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency; American Academy of Religion v. Chertoff, a challenge to the government's refusal to grant a visa to Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan; and ACLU v. Department of Defense, litigation under the Freedom of Information Act for records concerning the treatment and detention of prisoners held by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq, and at Guantánamo Bay. Jaffer is a graduate of Williams College, Cambridge University, and Harvard Law School

K & R.

[Mojorabbit]

24. I agree with you completely.

A wonderful post that speaks to how I feel. Thank you.

[chill_wind]

25. ...

[conscious evolution]

27. K & R

Infiltrate and subvert.
That is what the pukes have done to our party.

They have done so with so many of this countrys institutions that NO ONE should be surprised that they done so with our party.

[RufusTFirefly]

28. Thank you, madfloridian! Another stellar post.

I'm so appalled, hurt, and confused by the continuous Democratic capitulation on such core values that I feel as though my heart is going to break and my head is going to explode.

And then another side of me, who understands something about the events of 1930s Europe but not as much about the mind set, wonders, "Is this how it happens?"


"...what Washington means by bipartisanship is mainly that everyone should come together to give conservatives what they want." -- Paul Krugman

[antigop]

29. Thank you, mad. K&R. n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. Thank you

Pity that those great quotes are too long to be used as a sig.

[kentuck]

31. Wise words...

There are times when we need to stick together out of loyalty to our country.

[dailykoff]

33. K & R

Wise words indeed.

[mkultra]

36. seems like a simple answer

If you want to influence the political spectrum, you vote for the candidate who is closest to your views. If your not getting the candidate you like, work harder in the primaries to support your candidate so they can win. Democracy is about compromise. If compromise pisses you off, then to fucking bad.

[Kermitt Gribble]

53. There should be no "compromise" on the Constitution.

[f the letter]

55. That's the core issue.

Gutting the Constitution in favor of short-sighted political 'expediency' is not a compromise, it's a gutting of the Constitution for selfish reasons. i fully agree. i don't want to compromise on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, etc amendments, or on life and liberty being inalienable rights. End of story.

[RufusTFirefly]

57. Indeed. That's "burning the village in order to save it." It's wrong. And insane. n/t

[ElboRuum]

63. There SHOULDN'T be.

You are right. But the reality is different.

[mkultra]

67. and i SHOULD have a porsche

but i don't and there is.

[lark]

75. You got it

I don't understand why so many here think that compromising on the constitution is acceptable just because Obama did it. Some things should be core values that cannot be compromised and upholding the constitution is foremost among those. Obama and every single Dem that voted for this were wrong, wrong, wrong and nothing can make that any different. He gambit of saying he'd review this later and make changes seems like a small sop to the left that means no more than when he said he'd never for for this law in the first place. To vote for cloture on this, stabbing Feingold etc. in the back when they are standing up for principals he previously claims and now discards, is just heinous.

However, like a beloved family member that makes a huge mistake, we can't kick Obama to the curb, he's all we have at the moment. We need to work with him (letters, emails, calls) to let him know Repug lite won't fly and makes him look weak. Stand up for what you believe, Obama and even more people will stand with you!!

[tnlefty]

37. The unPatriot Act, The Military Commissions Act are a couple

more.

Another aspect of this that is really frustrating is wanting to write LTTEs, etc., to call the Bush** administration out for their abuses only to discover that a dem candidate is going along with a particular policy, so one will be slamming a dem candidate in the process. For those of us who are sick of being ruled by republicans from the local level up and are desperate to try to get dems elected a choice must be made: try to educate the public about why the policies and abuses are bad and in the process slam a dem candidate who doesn't have the guts to educate voters, or shut up and try to get a dem elected.

It's getting really old. Thanks for this post.

[MasonJar]

39. Please, Madfloridian, continue to speak out. You are right to do so.

IMHO it is to Obama's advantage that he finds out before it is too late that the road to the WH does NOT hinge on moves to the center (he has always been there and so is sometimes now moving right of center), but on having a clear vision with strong democratic values....one which he maintains with consistency and fervor. FISA was a poor vote. I trust Jonathan Turley and he says that the decision is (paraphrasing) a diminuation of the Constitution. If Obama had stood strong for the Constitution, the bill might not have passed. Many of the Democratic senators who saw their standard bearer fold possibly took the easy way out themselves. I greatly admire those who did NOT falter.

[NorthCarolina]

40. DLC and Blue Dogs are DINO's

try your hardest to dump them at every opportunity. Look for progressive primary challengers to these Republicrat incumbents and support those challengers in the primaries. It is the only way to reclaim the party. A two party system in which both parties represent the same corporate-conservative interests is not a Democracy.

[polichick]

47. That's exactly what we have to do!

[Phred42]

41. They aren't Democrats

They are DLC and BlueDog republicans

The sad thing is that there really are very few Democrats in either house today.

We are seeing the evolution of Rove's "Permanent Republican Majority" its here, and it has been here.

You're not taken in just because they put a "D" in from of their states initials, are you?

Bush and the Reich have been continuing their agenda almost unhindered in any way. They put on a SHOW for the rabble but in the end - The Reich gets what it wants.

[jgraz]

60. I hate to break it to you, Phred. These ARE the Democrats

We have a lot of work to do if we want a party that represents US. Pretending that the DLC and the BlueDogs are just the fringe players is a recipe for defeat. The Speaker, House Majority Leader, Senate Majority Leader and our Presumptive Nominee all were part of this FISA capitulation.

How is that not the core of the party?

[Phred42]

81. I didnt'say they are fringe - there are too many to be fringe

But DLC & Blue Dogs represent the Largest part of the Cancer that needs to be cut out. Personally I don't consider DLC or Blue Dogs Democrats. They are Republicans that lied to get elected.

We HAVE Rove's Permanent Republican Majority. I agree with you that we have a lot of work to do to correct that. The Conservatives are the core of the party and that element is in large part DLC and Blue DOG. One of the Dogs is my problem (Melissa Bean) and I am well aware of the problems with her.

I'm from Illinois - Obama has never been all that progressive

http://www.kirkusobscura.com/index.php?view=article&catid=37%3Aamericonia-news-and-information&id=56%3Athe-blue-dog-party&option=com_content&Itemid=11">The Blue Dog Party:


http://www.kirkusobscura.com/index.php?view=article&catid=37%3Aamericonia-news-and-information&id=55%3Athe-dlc-party&option=com_content&Itemid=11"> The DLC Party

[Lorien]

84. I agree completely: "They are Republicans that lied to get elected."

their game all along was to destroy the Democratic party from the inside out. We need REAL Democrats to challenge them everywhere they hold a seat.

[madfloridian]

42. "if the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was"

Russ Feingold:

"I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about those activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of Americans. If we grant these new powers to the government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

They did it according to Steny Hoyer to keep the Blue Dogs happy and content.

[RufusTFirefly]

45. ... and when it's too late and our members are forced to admit their mistake...

... they'll chuckle sadly and sheepishly and say "If I only knew then what I know now," as though the revelations and ramifications are breaking news to them, something they couldn't possibly have seen coming.

And yet paradoxically when we remind them of our prescient and passionate objections from the past, we'll be told that that's "old news." We'll be asked once again to "move on," to "put it behind us," with a badly hobbled democracy whose limp grows increasingly pronounced until ultimately it can no longer walk at all.

[tomp]

44. we could recognize that the Democrats are bad enough...

...that we don't need to "reach across the aisle" like obama wants to do.

[polichick]

46. Kinda hard to tell what principles our Dem leaders believe in these days.

[madfloridian]

50. Being voted out of a forum for honest discussion of Democracy...

priceless. :shrug:

[bertman]

52. What is so heartbreakingly sad about this topic is that so many Democrats do not understand

the ramifications of BLINDLY FOLLOWING ANY LEADER OR LEADERS.

Madfloridian, I think you have consistently and fully illuminated most, if not all, of the arguments for the Democratic Party to take a long, hard look at where we are going. Thank you.


I AM SO IMPRESSED WITH BARACK OBAMA AS A HUMAN BEING AND A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THAT SOMETIMES I AM ALMOST OVERWHELMED BY THE HOPE HE INSPIRES IN ME.

That said, it is apparent from what has transpired over the last eight years (and before during the Clinton years) that the Democratic Party has been moving inexorably toward the RIGHT. My opinion is that the reason is very simple: CORPORATE MONEY EQUALS CORPORATE INFLUENCE.

It's not because the American people have become more conservative because they have shown time and again that they strongly support PROGRESSIVE ISSUES like medical care for all Americans, the rights of women to make the most personal decisions about their bodies and their lives that they may ever have to make, the role of the government in helping Americans who are the victims of natural disasters, the role of government in providing a safety net during retirement for those who have worked to make this nation and economy great.

So, why do OUR Democratic leaders continue to vote against Democratic Party values? The DLC is the perfect example of people who are so beholden to Corporate cash and who are themselves members of the moneyed elite that THEY NO LONGER CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE. THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT PROTECTING THEIR INTERESTS AND CORPORATE INTERESTS.

So, here we are with a young, inspiring, charismatic, intelligent, energetic leader who gives so many so much hope for the future and yet we now wonder if he will allow himself to become just another corporate enabler. Or will he be strong enough to stand against the powers that be in the Democratic Party? I don't know the answer but I am hoping against hope that he will rise to the challenge.

IN THE MEANTIME I WILL CONTINUE TO SPEAK OUT WHEN HE AND ANY OTHER DEMOCRATIC LEADERS FAIL TO ACT LIKE DEMOCRATS. AND I WILL APPLAUD THOSE DEMOCRATS WHO STAND TALL FOR DEMOCRACY.

[PassingFair]

72. I feel exactly the same way.

Great contribution to a needed thread.

:hi:

[Kermitt Gribble]

54. Thank you madfloridian, for another spot-on post!

I agree 100%!

[TellTheTruth82]

58. Partially disagree

Democrats (and Republicans) should be voting for what they think is right (and representing their constituents), no matter the source of bill. If their constituents are against a bill, their representative should be voting against the bill - not playing politics.

[madfloridian]

61. I must disagree...considering the hijacking of our country by the extreme right

in 2000 and 2004. Just because the groups with connnected with Falwell and Robertson had the power and used it....did not make it right.

Too many votes were taken in haste and without much thought in the early days of the Bush presidency.

Too many of our Democrats voted in fear for things they once would have treated with disdain.

We could have stopped this tragic war if someone had stopped and thought and spoken out....the people only saw one side during the media drumbeating for revenge. It was so bad we voted with the GOP to attack a country that had never harmed us.

There must be something that is right and wrong, and if we enable extremists we pay dearly as a country and a party.

[hardtoport]

65. K&R

Keep telling it like it is, MF. No one ever got anything done by worrying about the discomfort of others. If people don't want to hear criticism of Obama, then they know whose posts to avoid.

[bjobotts]

71. Your views are in the majority btw. K&R and thanks for posting this.

[madfloridian]

144. I would like to think they are, but lately I wonder.

If they are in the majority, that is.

:hi:

[Buzz Clik]

85. I was busy all day. I was afraid I missed today's slew of "we won't shut up" threads.

Let me summarize the threads dedicated to this topic:

1. We used to love Obama, but now we're upset at his shockingly centrist stance.
2. We have the right -- the obligation! -- to criticize Obama when he is sooooo wrong.
3. We won't shut up.

Ok. We get it.

The only part I don't think you get is Hillary Clinton swung way the hell to the right when she thought she had the nomination locked, but you forgot to complain. When she was your candidate, it was all good -- she clearly had to woo the middle in order to win. We knew it, and we forgave her unapologetic stance on her vote on the war, her heavy criticism of Obama as being "naive" for being willing to negotiate with foreign leaders, portraying herself as a gun lover, commuting to "work" in an SUV and then posing for photo-ops in the back of a pickup truck. She did it all, both policy-wise and with her image. "Hey, it's just politics. She's still Hillary."

So, continue to carry on. Keep screaming until you puke.

I'm voting Obama. Period.

[madfloridian]

86. You must have mistaken me for someone else.

The day Hillary claimed Florida delegates, we backed away from her completely.

Do a search on my user name and florida and delegates...you just mistook me for someone else.

[Egnever]

88. Mad was never a Hillary supporter

having said that I like the rest of your post.

[Egnever]

87. There is no question there needs to be a house cleaning

I think where you are running into trouble here is you are demanding instant gratification instead of showing a willingness to work with people to achieve your end goals.

As Obama said over and over the Fisa bill is not all that he wants it to b e and he finds the immunity portion intolerable.

Once that is said what do you want him to do?

The votes were not there to stop this thing hell there weren't even enough to sustain a filibuster.

He understands your concerns and agrees with them for the most part but he is only one vote at this point despite his being the nominee. He can not force the senate to do his will.

My problem with your posts lately and others is they ignore the reality of the day in favor of the ideals they want imposed. Of course we all want our privacy protected. Do you doubt that?

Obama throughout his career has shown an inclination towards a more open government and has even already enacted laws to ensure it. Do you truly believe that he is suddenly morphing into a republican or can you put aside your Ideology for a second and give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

He so far has run one of the most brilliant campaigns ever put on by a dem, His goal right now is to get into office. There is plenty of history to go back and look at he has laid out his thoughts in books he has a publicly verifiable record you can look at and he is talking every day about the things he believes in.

My problem with your posts lately is you are willing to throw everything you know about the man or should know by now in order to persecute him on a single vote that he has basically agreed with you on.With his words as well as his deeds. He can not make a power play right now and get petulant and stomp his feet and demand congress does what is right but he can if he gets into office.

Are you trying to facilitate this with your constant drumbeat of criticism of him on FISA or are you sowing division within the ranks? Most of the people that read this board don't take the time or have the time to investigate what is true and what is media spin they come here and read in good faith, with the belief that the discussion will reveal the truth.

I am not asking for you to lay aside legitimate concerns and you have over the years revealed plenty of legitimate concerns. What I am asking is to balance those concerns against your end goals and to understand that you cant have everything you want on every issue to be willing to let O)bama run this race and to trust in his past actions and his stated beliefs that once in Office he will have the power to champion much more effectively.

There is a lot of hysteria surrounding the FISA bill a reading of the bill reveals quite clearly that much of the commentary quoted in posts here is uninformed or deliberately dishonest. Feeding that hysteria does no one any service except the republicans whose only chance now lies with the Dem's defeating themselves.

There are people posting here whose sole intention is to sow division or to undermine Obama at any opportunity. Be they republicans or just bitter supporters of some other candidate. Many of us here are fighting those people every day in post after post of concern with Obamas doing this or that. You are giving those people the excuse to continue with some of your latest posts.

Concern is valid but perhaps a bigger picture approach is what many are asking for here. I personally have done my research on obama I feel pretty confident I am aware of his main motivations and based on that I am willing to trust in him. Change IS what he is about but he cant do it if he doesn't get into Office.

And this is long enough for now so ....Keep up the great work mad I love ya even when we disagree.

[madfloridian]

90. I did not mention Obama in my post.

I was writing about the tendencies of our party.

How did you get that I did not support Obama.

His vote was wrong on FISA. There is nothing wrong with saying that.

[Egnever]

93. Ok I am going to revise my perception of your post

At this point I am going to say you have become kneejerk defensive. I am not attacking you. I think you do great stuff.

Your right there is nothing wrong with saying his vote was wrong on FISA. Expecting people not to disagree with you on that and getting defensive when they do to the point of posting threads about being defensive of previous posts. I think you are starting to tilt at windmills and it diminishes your credibility. Something I believe you have earned a lot of over the years i have read your posts.


So rail away if you want you have certainly earned the right to here. But try not to be so suprised when people disagree with you and say so.

[madfloridian]

95. Many agree. If you don't like it put me on ignore or alert on me

BUT if you accuse me of not being truthful, you need to apologize or I will alert.

[Egnever]

98. Again tilting at windmills

I never accused you of being untruthful that's something you made up all on your own. Alert away though if it makes you feel better.

[madfloridian]

101. I just quoted you. You totally insulted me. See my post below.

You put me down and then accused me of hurting new people to DU.

[Egnever]

105. Clearly you want to feel insulted

I cant help you with that

[madfloridian]

108. Clearly you think you have the right to post untrue things about me.

Clearly you are getting away with it.

I hope it makes you feel good and important.

[Egnever]

112. more poor me

Can you not defend your positions without feeling accused?

[madfloridian]

116. You accused me of not telling the truth.

It angers me. I see you are getting away with it, too.

[Egnever]

122. I accused you of reposting peoples comments that may or may not be telling the truth

if you cant see the difference I cant help you.

[madfloridian]

125. Almost every respected scholar informed on the issue condemned FISA

So it is up to you.

You should be ashamed for turning this thread into something vicious.

I will not forget.

[Egnever]

127. For what mad

What did they condemn it for specifically? not a general fisa is bad booga booga it destroys our fourth amendment boooga boogaq. What specifically in the bill do they have a problem with?

I am more than willing to listen to well drawn arguments on it I am not in the least interested in fear mongering generalities.

[madfloridian]

130. I am not writing it all over again. Read my effing journal or back off the attacks.

[Egnever]

131. the attacks are in your head mad

I am not attacking you. Again I have a lot of respect for you and your posts over the years. You seem to think any disagreement is a personal attack for some reason.

[madfloridian]

132. Here are your words...read it again. You said I was feeding hysteria.

"My problem with your posts lately and others is they ignore the reality of the day in favor of the ideals they want imposed. Of course we all want our privacy protected. Do you doubt that?

Obama throughout his career has shown an inclination towards a more open government and has even already enacted laws to ensure it. Do you truly believe that he is suddenly morphing into a republican or can you put aside your Ideology for a second and give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

He so far has run one of the most brilliant campaigns ever put on by a dem, His goal right now is to get into office. There is plenty of history to go back and look at he has laid out his thoughts in books he has a publicly verifiable record you can look at and he is talking every day about the things he believes in.

My problem with your posts lately is you are willing to throw everything you know about the man or should know by now in order to persecute him on a single vote that he has basically agreed with you on.With his words as well as his deeds. He can not make a power play right now and get petulant and stomp his feet and demand congress does what is right but he can if he gets into office.

Are you trying to facilitate this with your constant drumbeat of criticism of him on FISA or are you sowing division within the ranks? Most of the people that read this board don't take the time or have the time to investigate what is true and what is media spin they come here and read in good faith, with the belief that the discussion will reveal the truth.

I am not asking for you to lay aside legitimate concerns and you have over the years revealed plenty of legitimate concerns. What I am asking is to balance those concerns against your end goals and to understand that you cant have everything you want on every issue to be willing to let O)bama run this race and to trust in his past actions and his stated beliefs that once in Office he will have the power to champion much more effectively.

"There is a lot of hysteria surrounding the FISA bill a reading of the bill reveals quite clearly that much of the commentary quoted in posts here is uninformed or deliberately dishonest. Feeding that hysteria does no one any service except the republicans whose only chance now lies with the Dem's defeating themselves

There are people posting here whose sole intention is to sow division or to undermine Obama at any opportunity. Be they republicans or just bitter supporters of some other candidate. Many of us here are fighting those people every day in post after post of concern with Obamas doing this or that. You are giving those people the excuse to continue with some of your latest posts.

Concern is valid but perhaps a bigger picture approach is what many are asking for here. I personally have done my research on obama I feel pretty confident I am aware of his main motivations and based on that I am willing to trust in him. Change IS what he is about but he cant do it if he doesn't get into Office"

I did not mention him in my post.

Do you realize you blamed me for speaking out against the vote, saying I was enabling people not to vote Obama?

Shame on you.

[Egnever]

133. and I stand by it

I went to your journal and looked at one of your recent FISA posts regarding the 28 groups.

What they are putting forth is completely dishonest and you are parroting it.

Heres what they say

The bill would authorize massive warrantless surveillance. The bill allows the government to intentionally acquire millions of Americans’ international communications with no individualized warrant or determination of probable cause, so long as one party to a phone call or e-mail is believed to be located abroad and the purpose is to gather foreign intelligence.

This is completely untrue.

REQUIREMENT- Subject to subparagraph (B), prior to the implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall provide to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a written certification and any supporting affidavit, under oath and under seal, in accordance with this subsection.

‘(B) EXCEPTION- If the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence make a determination under subsection (c)(2) and time does not permit the submission of a certification under this subsection prior to the implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the Court a certification for such authorization as soon as practicable but in no event later than 7 days after such determination is made.


So now that they have lied outright about the bill how am i expected to believe them going forward?

Its great that you trust your sources. Expecting others to though is not a reasonable expectation and acting like you are being called a lair when people question those sources boarders on the nutty side.

[madfloridian]

134. So you know better than all of them combined.

I don't claim to be that knowledgable.

[Egnever]

135. Sigh

apparently the point of this is beyond you. I don't care how many groups people whatever you site unless they can make compelling arguments and back it up by pointing to the flaws in the legislation( I dont by any means think FISA is perfect) then all they are doing is spouting opinions and opinions are like assholes....

My opinion included.

Can you have an actual conversation on this subject without touting your 28 groups or are all your arguments based solely on what others tell you to think?

[madfloridian]

136. If you already know the answer, then why listen to experts?

I am no legal scholar so I seek out those who are.

[Egnever]

137. Thats the fucking point are you thick?

I dont know the answer nor do you! and these so called fucking experts arent helping the situation .

WTF?

Can they not lay pout the case? can they not show what is wrong with the bill? the text is there for all to read. Why cant any of the 28 come out and show us what is wrong with it?

[madfloridian]

139. I am not very smart.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

109. I don't mind disagreements. I mind accusations and insults.

You are getting away with it, too.

[Egnever]

118. Again you are seeing things that arent there

until this thread I have had nothing but respect for you and have stood up for your posts many times in the past. However in this particular exchange you are showing a willingness to play victim I find quite troubling.

You post a lot of good threads mad and I applaud you for them. That in now way means I take them as gospel nor does it mean because you can quote it it is right. If that seems like a personal attack on you well sorry you feel that way but it doesn't change my position on this one Iota.

[madfloridian]

121. It was a personal attack.

And you got away with it.

[Egnever]

124. if thats what you want to believe mad

its your prerogative.

[madfloridian]

94. Every word I posted is true. If you accuse...you prove it.

That is only fair.

I do not post lies...uncomfortable truths...but truths.

I resent that you said I would mislead people.

I have no agenda, but to keep my party from caving in on everything.

People who fear truth have their own agenda.

Alert on me or back off on saying I did not tell the truth.

[Egnever]

99. Perhaps You are missreading my post or perhaps

I did not convey it correctly. I am not accusing you of being untruthful I am accusing the people you quote of it.

Merh has asked you time and time again to post anything backing up your quotes on the fisa bill and you have chosen to either ignore those or post more quotes back at him. What I am saying is everyone has an agenda and finding the truth isn't as easy as quoting someone else s take on it.

[madfloridian]

102. I have post after post quoting scholars on this issue of FISA.

You and Merh are accusing 28 groups of not knowing what they are talking about.

28 groups plus the bloggers like Greenwald and Marcy Wheeler who are lawyers, plus many more sources in my post.

I resent it. I can't see merh's posts now, and I never thought that would happen.

I don't attack people, and I do NOT expect to be attacked over a sensible post.

[Egnever]

104. again

everyone has an agenda, you may be willing to take what people say at face value without any personal investigation of your own but don't expect others to.

The fact that you have put Merh on ignore is sad and point to you being unable to sustain your arguments on their own merit and not someone else s. I am quite sure I can pull 28 groups up that say the exact opposite of your groups, and that is exactly the point you can find people to quote defending whatever position you want to pull out of your butt that doesn't make those people right just because you want to agree with them.

[madfloridian]

107. Yes, it is sad indeed.

I posted this post with no argument, just my sentiments, and you have turned it into a bashing for me.

That is detestable. Good by.

[madfloridian]

100. Here are your words I find accusatory....I don't appreciate it.

Do not say I am not speaking truth. It is our party that has spun this stuff to us. It is not a compromise. It was a cave in.

Here is what you said, and it really does concern me that you are so fearful. Your words about my post.

"Are you trying to facilitate this with your constant drumbeat of criticism of him on FISA or are you sowing division within the ranks? Most of the people that read this board don't take the time or have the time to investigate what is true and what is media spin they come here and read in good faith, with the belief that the discussion will reveal the truth.

I am not asking for you to lay aside legitimate concerns and you have over the years revealed plenty of legitimate concerns. What I am asking is to balance those concerns against your end goals and to understand that you cant have everything you want on every issue to be willing to let O)bama run this race and to trust in his past actions and his stated beliefs that once in Office he will have the power to champion much more effectively.

There is a lot of hysteria surrounding the FISA bill a reading of the bill reveals quite clearly that much of the commentary quoted in posts here is uninformed or deliberately dishonest. Feeding that hysteria does no one any service except the republicans whose only chance now lies with the Dem's defeating themselves."

Think about it. You make me sound like I would be harmful to new people on DU. That is a crushing indictment of what I post, and I very much resent it. It is a personal attack on me and what I write.

The FISA bill was indefensible, and I will not be treated like a "child" because I see through the party rhetoric. Many people found Obama's comments on why he voted rather insulting...good people, intelligent people.

I did not mention his name in my post. I was quoting words of Howard Dean's that I respected from his book. He was right.

Our party has enabled Republican's extreme views over and over and over.

SO either you didn't really read my post, or you just assumed stuff.

[Egnever]

103. I read your post

and I agree with most of it but you start your post with the purist tripe and maybe thats what I took exception to that stated me on this sub thread.

Nothing you quoted points a finger at you other than the fact that you post quotes from others and present them as fact. They are not fact they are opinion and as Merhs posts have shown if anything there is plenty of opinion and not a lot of it informed. I have yet to see anyone in this board full of fisa haters post one thing to refute her pure recitation of the bill in response to the specious arguments being laid against it . Including you! who is one of its most vocal opponents. And no quoting others opinions on it does not refute it.

Take my posts however you want I have said in them again and again I think you do good work for the most part and I have much respect for you but if all you want to do is piss and moan about poor me, well have that conversation with someone else.

[madfloridian]

106. So now I am a "fisa hater"?

You said:

"Nothing you quoted points a finger at you other than the fact that you post quotes from others and present them as fact. They are not fact they are opinion and as Merhs posts have shown if anything there is plenty of opinion and not a lot of it informed. I have yet to see anyone in this board full of fisa haters post one thing to refute her pure recitation of the bill in response to the specious arguments being laid against it . Including you! who is one of its most vocal opponents. And no quoting others opinions on it does not refute it."

Good lord, during the past few months I have been called a "Hillary hater", an "Obama hater", and now a "fisa hater"?


:crazy: :crazy:

I have always posted quotes from others. Others I trust as sources. I am not a lawyer, I was only a lowly teacher. I never pretend to be what I am not...and what I need help on I read experts on.

There is nothing in God's world wrong with quoting sources.

Nearly every person in the political world I respect finds the fisa bill detestable.

Yet now I am a "fisa hater"

I have journals full of stuff. Do not accuse me any more.

[Egnever]

110. Do not accuse me any more.

or what? I never accused you in the first place. that's a chip on your shoulder screaming at you.

Quoting sources is great and I am not trying to discourage it . Why I am trying to discourage in you and others is making decisions based on what others say something is instead of looking for yourself to see what it is.

As far as FISA hater goes what would you call yourself in regards to FISA?

[madfloridian]

111. Hillary hater, Obama hater, Fisa hater....childish terms.

You have accused me of harming people who come here for truth.

You are getting away with it.

[Egnever]

113. Again what would you care to call your position on FISA

It aint supporter .. come up with a term more amenable to yourself and I will be happy to use it.

[madfloridian]

115. "Fisa hater" is just a term meant to be silly.

It implies I am not intelligent, and that I post stupid stuff.

[Egnever]

120. oy vey'

WTF do you want me to call it? Quit friggin crying about it and tell me what it is you want your position to be called so we can get past the perceived insults.

[madfloridian]

123. I'm done. You can read my post, read my journals....

which are well thought out and planned...or you can continue treating me like a fool. Up to you.

[Egnever]

126. ok

See ya later. You clearly just want to be a victim here so I will let you get on with it.

[1Hippiechick]

141. Interesting exchange....

I honestly don't know how you haven't had your messages deleted. Lesson learned: some people on here apparently LOVE attention any way they can get it and really aren't interested in an exchange of ideas. I posted something much tamer the other day on someone's thread and it got deleted. And all I did was respond with a viewpoint which was attacked. Sound familiar? So, I respond, telling the OP to look back up the thread, that it doesn't matter what anyone offers, the OP is going to refute it. I went on to say that I wasn't going to engage. And, poof! My post was deleted. So, you will learn whose posts to avoid. You will notice that some on here know how to stay just under the radar with their posts, but they interject throughout the thread, keeping it going. These same people will say "go back and read my posts" or "read my journal, I have over 50K posts on here." :puke: I think it's pretty transparent that they are trying to "run up their numbers" - it's an ego thing.

[1Hippiechick]

138. You're done? Promises, promises, promises......n/t

[pnwmom]

89. Ted Kennedy has a strongly different point of view from yours.

He believes in compromise, taking one step at a time.

And one of his favorite sayings is: "Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

[madfloridian]

91. You think Iraq was a compromise? You think FISA was a compromise.

Please read the rest of my post.

And I despise that enemy of the good statement....it covers up a multitude of sins.

It is Christmas at the WH...Bush has gotten everything he wanted while we still pretend it is compromise.

[pnwmom]

96. I know Iraq was a compromise.

Also, a betrayal by a lying President.

Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what. The Dems had a choice. They could vote against the IWR in October, but watch the Rethugs sweep into office with a new majority in January and then give Bush any IWR he wanted -- a blank check that Chuck Hagel and Biden say would have allowed Bush to attack not just Iraq, but Iran -- virtually anywhere.

Or they could vote yes on a COMPROMISE IWR which limited Bush to Iraq and had other provisions that attempted to constrain him. He ignored some of the other provisions, but he hasn't attacked Iran yet. If he had gotten his preferred IWR, he probably would have.

[dailykoff]

140. That doesn't mean he caves in, it means he takes what he can get.

Voting for this disgusting, anti-Constitutional and VERY anti-American surveillance license is caving in, big time.

[Lord Helmet]

92. it's not purism that is the problem, it's not enough reason in analyzing this

[Imagevision]

97. "We" aren't doing anything, those we elected did the bidding in our names though...

[madfloridian]

114. Wow.

A perfectly sensible post turned against me as an attack on my credibility.

I am amazed that I am still amazed.

I don't know which is worse, a "purist" with ideals or a "loyalist" that goes along with anything without speaking up.

I am really sad to see DU turn into a board of hate.

[wyldwolf]

117. 62 recs and you're claiming to be a victim

Repeat after me: DISAGREEING with you is not an attack....

[madfloridian]

119. We now sadly have a new term for those who speak out: "fisa haters"

I don't even know what to say to that.

:shrug:

[quaker bill]

128. On the larger concept

because we agree on virtually all the smaller ones:

I was with you in the trenches in 2003, right here.

I recall a wealth of posts that criticized Howard Dean as insufficiently liberal, many by nic's I still see hanging about. I recall how it was posted that Howard Dean, wanting to balance the budget, was too far to the right and would clearly sacrifice social programs to meet this goal. i recall how Dean "was not strong on the environment" like Kerry was. The list went on and on, but the consistent message was that he was not a "progressive" or "liberal" or at least not enough of one, because of this, that, or the other litmus test.

As I recall it, I had the notion that we should take on the big fish (Bush and his illegal war) with the strongest uncompromised candidate (no yes vote on IWR), win the election, and move on from there. Dean was the one candidate that might have been able to do this effectively, at least as those of us on his side saw it.

Now I hear that Barack Obama is not "progressive" or "liberal" enough, and in all honesty, I find that "wolf" has been called once too often.

That being said, criticism of candidates for public office is an American tradition. There is no reason not to ask for what one desires of them.

That being said, there will be but one choice come November 4. Elect the sane.

We have tried leadership by the insane for 8 long years. Sanity in the Whitehouse is change enough for me.

I would urge folks to consider this, carefully. As best as I can tell at this point, there will be many names, but only one sane choice on the ballot. This might seem like setting the bar rather low, but we have failed to clear it now twice in a row, and at least one insane option is running fairly well in the polls.

I will say it again, because it bears repeating, Elect the Sane.

[madfloridian]

129. My post made you think I did not support Obama?

Really?

To say there is to be no criticism....

The comments here have stunned me until I am speechless.

[quaker bill]

142. As I stated

"That being said, criticism of candidates for public office is an American tradition. There is no reason not to ask for what one desires of them."

From this statement you infer that I call for no criticism?

My point is that in 2003, many of the same things were said of Howard Dean. Dean was not seen as sufficiently "liberal" or "progressive" by a great many at this site. Those who said these things of Dean were often termed "purists" by others.

While FISA brings me little comfort, the issues at hand are so large and all encompassing as to utterly dwarf it in significance. I tend to focus first on getting our government to just stop killing people and committing war crimes. Once we have done that, it will be time to take a good look at the 4th ammendment.

Remember, it is still unproven that Bush will comply with this FISA law anymore than he did the previous one. To the extent that any provision of it is even modestly in his way, experience suggests he will ignore it and continue what he has been doing all along.

This is why we need to elect the sane.

[madfloridian]

143. "Never chewing what's not fed us... By the suited men"

Somehow today I was thinking of the odd little poem written by Stan Cox in 2004 when Dean dropped out of the race.

Things should be so different now as the country is coming out of the dark...but they are no different.

"February 14/15, 2004
Cattle in a Pen
(Goodbye Howard Dean)
By STAN COX

with apologies to Bernie Taupin and Elton John

Goodbye Howard Dean.
Though I never backed you at all,
You could glimpse reality,
And make those around you bawl.
You said Don't take sides with Israel,
And they made you feel the pain.
You questioned 9/11,
And they made you slink in shame.

And it seems to me we live our lives
Like some cattle in a pen,
Never knowing who to vote for
Till the returns are in.
Our eyes are on November
Where the treasure's hid.
The ideas burned out long before
The losers ever did.

As the dentist checked Saddam,
You said We are no more secure.
And your fellow Democrats?
They buried you in deep manure.
Even as you faded,
Oh the press still hounded you.
All the papers had to say
Was that Howard always flubs his cue.

And it seems to me we live our lives
Like some cattle in a pen,
Never chewing what's not fed us
By the suited men.
From now until November
They're keeping on the lid.
The ideas burned out long before
The losers ever did."

[Runcible Spoon]

145. Proud to KnR this Mad. Thanks for all your hard work and energy!

I am proud of you and you're an asset to the Dems! :hug: :yourock: