Carl Bernstein says "Congress is no longer representative of the citizens

[DemBones DemBones]

of the country because it responds really only to money."

This was in an interview on last night's Colbert Report -- I often TiVo that and TDS and watch them the next day. No doubt a lot of you saw it but I thought it was worth posting for anyone who missed it. Of course, this isn't news to anybody here, but it is interesting to hear it from someone like Bernstein.

Colbert asked Bernstein if the culture of Washington had changed much over the past 35 years (i.e., since he reported on the Watergate break-in, leading to the end of the Nixon presidency.)

He replied "The system doesn't work," went on with the above quote and talked about there no longer being a system of checks and balances, no response to needs of citizens but rather to needs of contributors.

:cry: for America

[zoeb]

1. Bernstein is right, it hasn't represented citizens for years

we need major reform in campaign contributions and doing away with K-street folks would be a great first step in taking back the government. Then we should give IQ tests to all the yahoos that want to
run for office. If they didn't score at least 100 above Commander Cuckoobananas, they can't run for office.

[hopeisaplace]

2. Saw this show too..It was good to hear straight truth

for a change..as hard as it is to hear...it was so refreshing to
hear it straight up

[DemBones DemBones]

4. I'm not sure I've heard a mainstream reporter of his stature

make such a statement before. It was rather sobering to hear it from him.

[hopeisaplace]

6. Yes it sure was

[XOKCowboy]

3. Watching it now...

He also said that the American people are realizing the president and vice president have lied and don't like it. I think that's kind of naive. Hopeful but naive.

[upi402]

5. hasn't for decades

thank you, it needs to be said out-loud.

[1932]

7. Jared Diamond's book Collapse argues that one of the indicators of a

society in trouble is when the elite become so much wealthier and so insulated from the problems they cause that they lose connection with the people whose lives they are ruining.

Gated communities, oil millions, bribes from lobbyists, married to billionairesses -- our political leaders are becoming isolated in the same way the Mayan kings were isolated from the consequences of the destruction of their natural resources and the misery it was causing people far down the ladder. Why care about problems when they doesn't affect you, or, Frisk-, Cheney- and Bush-style, you actually make quite a bit of money off the misery you're causing through, for example, fossil fuel addictions and crappy health care systems?

[upi402]

8. excellent points

...and I have said as much for a while now.
I have a fine collection of tinfoil hats to show from most who I've said it to, too!

[1932]

13. Read Collapse. Also read The Health of Nations.

Diamond's second major indicator of a society headed towards collapse is over-consumption.

The Health of Nations ties together an argument about wealth polarization and an argument about over-consumption that very neatly fits those two pieces together in a way that Diamond doesn't.

[hopeisaplace]

14. that is so true isn't it

scary..but very very true

[Cleita]

9. I never thought they really were, but there was a time when we

raised our concerns en masse that they would listen and change their tune. However, this changed when they ignored wholesale the anti-war marches that were the largest in our history before the invasion of Iraq. Then I knew that they didn't give a shit. It has taken me awhile to figure out why.

[StellaBlue]

10. Ever seen 'Mr Smith Goes to Washington'?

It was like this in the 30s, too. And my guess would be, in 1776. Read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States".

[DemBones DemBones]

18. Yes, I've seen it, and yes, I've read Howard Zinn.

You apparently think things have always been this bad but I know better.

In the 30's FDR did get Congress to enact laws to help the American people, including the establishment of Social Security and providing government jobs with WPA, CCC, TVA, for the many unemployed. Truman ordered the desegregation of the armed forces and enacted the G.I. Bill, which enabled thousands of men to get a college education. Within my memory, Eisenhower sent troops in to forcibly integrate schools following Brown v. Board of Education in 1954; JFK also sent troops in to continue establishing the rights of black children and college students to equal educations, JFK also established the Peace Corps; LBJ established Medicare and passed civil rights and voting acts.

Since then, we've been going downhill, beginning with Nixon and really picking up speed with Reagan and George I. Clinton, a "Democratic" president sold American workers out to NAFTA and worked to "end welfare as we know it." I suspect a lot of people formerly on welfare are now living in poverty but, hey, the welfare rolls are down. It's the same as the government saying "unemployment is down" when they simply don't count all the thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, who no longer receive unemployment benefits but are still unemployed. And have you noticed George II hasn't established any government programs to employ those whose jobs have been outsourced? Noticed how many companies have stopped offering pensions and other employee benefits?

And I haven't even mentioned the unionbusting that's been going on for decades. When unions were strong, wages for non-union workers were also higher, as you should know from reading Howard Zinn.

[StellaBlue]

21. Oh, yeah I agree it's the worst ever.

What I meant was this this isn't some kind of time-is-nigh situation. This is just human history. And now it's our turn to watch Rome fall, that's all. We'll be replaced by China, which will continue exploiting its own people, and on and on and on through the centuries.

And yet I wouldn't want to live in any other time. But probably because I am a woman, and I would be stoned to death or burned at the stake or married off to have 15 chlidren against my will.

[antonialee839]

11. I knew that.

[moondust]

12. Saw it.

Borrowed a scrap for my sig.

Agree completely. In more ways than mentioned it doesn't work. Naturally I blame Republicans for most of the money corruption. They always had the money advantage and whenever possible pushed plutocratic ideas/attitudes/policies that would make their money all-powerful.

[Peace Patriot]

15. Well, Bushites have taken greed and political crimes to depths unknown

in this country and probably in the history of the civilized world. But I started noticing some probs with the Dems, too, way back when Geraldine Ferraro ran for VP. First woman ever to be a candidate for VP, so I was very excited and made a special effort to see her first debate, which was against Daddy Bush. (I didn't have TV, so had to make special arrangements.) The most telling moment in the debate--the one that sticks with me--is when Ferraro made some crack about her stockbroker calling his (Daddy Bush's) stockbroker about something or other--some disagreement these two Mandarins were having. Don't remember what it was; just that she used HER stockbroker in her reply. I realized that our Dem candidates are millionaires. They don't have any concept of how ordinary people live. And what Ferraro wanted out of that moment--her establishment that she, too, had a stockbroker--was to be one of the "big boys," to be equivalent to Daddy Bush.

It really bummed me out. This woman was not MY representative, any more than Daddy Bush was. Well, maybe it's not that extreme. But it really struck me. And I began noticing it a lot--in Dem politicians, noticing how they reeked of money, in their clothes, in their pampered faces and hair, in who they hung out with, in their jet set life, flying above all the rest of us. When I discovered Paul Wellstone in late summer 2002, I thought, "At last! A real populist Democrat!" Extremely impressive guy, Wellstone. He would never, never, never have played "my stockbroker" vs. "your stockbroker" games with anybody, least of all a Bush. He exuded humanness and real down to earthness, and was, at the same time, very intelligent and savvy, and set to lead the fight against the Iraq war.

"Bang, bang. Shoot, shoot."

Ah, me.

Anyway, the first thing we have to do to make things better--Priority #1--is to get back public control over our election system, and restore transparent, verifiable elections. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, I had vowed that I was going to commit all my political energies to a Constitutional Amendment banning all private money in political campaigns. Enough! Fini!

But the Iraq war derailed that goal. We first had to get rid of the Bush Cartel. Then Nov. 2, 2004, happened, and that goal was also derailed, and I realized that we have much, much bigger problem than I realized. They haven't just corrupted our political representatives; they haven't just turn political campaigns into hogfests for corporations and the rich; they have actually taken away our right to vote! We're back at Square One. We have to start over. We now have Bushite corporations controlling the tabulation of our votes with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code and virtually no audit/recount controls! And that didn't happen without the complicity of some Democratic Party leaders.

There is almost nothing we can do about any other problem--and no reform is possible--without the right to vote. It is the very mechanism of our sovereignty as a people. We MUST get it back. We must make it Priority #1. THEN we'll see about that Constitutional Amendment.

[DemBones DemBones]

16. Excellent points. This has been a problem for many years and

will likely always be a problem, given what it costs to run a campaign today. But there should be a way to change it, starting with outlawing lobbying and outlawing corporate contributions to political campaigns, having the FCC require television networks (the commercial ones and the cable news networks) to run political ads at no cost -- and reinstating the Fairness Doctrine as well. First, though, we have to have fair elections. I frankly wonder when the last honest presidential election occurred. December 12, 2000 was a major wake-up call for me but since then I've wondered exactly which presidents were legitimately elected to office. Have the two parties, which are really one party, the Wealth Party, just been taking turns? Will a Dem "win" in 2008 because it's "our turn" again?

[moondust]

20. True.

The Dems have had some problems of their own. Biased as I am, though, I think to a great extent they were sucked into the Republican culture of greed in the 80s (not to be outdone and "if that's what the public wants") when Reaganism cut the beast loose and suddenly money was everything, greed was good. Up until then I think private greed had been tempered to some degree by public scorn of selfishness.

"In fact, in the midst of the '80s bull market, there were few films that didn't play up the money-happiness connection. One of the few that went against the grain was Oliver Stone's "Wall Street" (1987), which placed Charlie Sheen's low-level stock trader in the world of avaricious tycoon Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas).

Thanks to Douglas' magnetic Oscar-winning performance, however, Gekko became the character everyone remembered, and his "Greed is good" speech -- "Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit" -- was quoted endlessly, and sometimes seriously."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/06/16/reagan.80s/

You're right, the integrity of the electoral system is the place to start as all else follows. I often wish the Dems would have enacted your suggestions back when they had control of the gov't. Perhaps they didn't foresee how bad it would get. As for HAVA, it's unbelievable that Congress didn't fully investigate electronic voting before providing grants for states to adopt it. There need to be some federal standards for federal elections.

[0rganism]

17. Carl needs to have a talk with Bob

The butt-kissing from formerly respectable journalists is getting... well, frankly, it's disturbing, and Mr. Woodward can just stop sucking bush's bunghole already.

[DemBones DemBones]

19. Exactly. Someone suggested Bob just rode on Carl's coattails and

since then has been nothing but a brown-noser to anyone with power.

[theophilus]

22. I always enjoy hearing Bernstein. I wish he was MORE vocal and on more of

the time. Why ARE he and Woodward so different? I wouldn't walk across the street to hear Woodward. In fact, I usually turn off the tube if his ghastly face appears.

I thought Bernstein's point about our government not working was excellent. Wasn't this the way things were back in the "Gilded Age"? The Progressive movement was generated and we sorely need another one--today!

Kudos to Colbert. I have noted that some don't seem to "get it", but I find Colbert's show very refreshing and enjoyable. Yes, the sarcasm is thick but where else can we see the "flaring nostrils of Justice" ask, "Are you mocking me? You're mocking me." And then crack up when Colbert remarks that the President is the only one who needs to be interpreting the laws and not judges. Go Truthiness!

[long_green]

23. Bob Woodward says, "Yes it is! Not that that is very

important when you have a strong leader in the White House in a time of war."
:patriot: