DARFUR! Is this one area where we DEMS can work with the GOP?

[RiverStone]

On Darfur, just maybe we can find some bi-partisan effort and support? What do you think? Can DEMS and rethugs lay down the weapons on this particular issue and work together? :shrug:

Example (or not) below:

http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/2006/11/bush-pelosi-talk-darfur-crisis-in-oval.html

Either way, Darfur needs to be an agenda items during our first 100 days leading Congress.

Overview Darfur crisis:

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/sdn-301006-action-eng

[meti57b]

1. I would hope we can all work together for a solution.

[RiverStone]

3. Thanks for your optimism! Yea, it may be more fun to diss the rethugs, and...

I have (and still do) on most things. Though if there is one issue where compassion for the human condition takes precedent - regardless of party affiliation, this may be it! Gawd, we gotta be able to work together on something!!!! Darfur is such a compelling and tragic situation; and its off many folks radar.

[Uncle Joe]

2. I believe we should.

Kicked and recommended

[lapfog_1]

4. We might be able to work together on this...

but other than a tsk-tsk... I've never heard ONE proposal from the repukes as to what to do about it or even that it's something we need be concerned about. Sad to say, we don't hear enough from our own Dems about what to do either.

Also sadly, aid will not work without some sort of military presence to ensure the safety of the aid workers and that the aid is getting through. And our military is occupied elsewhere...

[RiverStone]

7. You said: Sad to say, we don't hear enough from our own Dems about what to do either.

Ummmm. Wonder why? This seems to be a cause in line with so much of what our party values???

Why is Darfur so far from the center of the conversation?

[katty]

8. same as the Rwanda massacre-why didn't US - UN care?

white developed world, power structures really don't care and now they are scrambling to hold onto to their more than ever.

[lapfog_1]

10. Partly, it's because we are so controlled by the corporate media

the media still picks the agenda. Our Dems, when they get on MSM, have do deal with the agenda items that the MSM puts on the table. You'd THINK that with 4 national networks, a dozen still relevant newspapers, and a gaggle of cable news, that we'd have an INCREASE in the number of issues addressed in the media. In truth, we have reduced the number of "issue of the day" short-attention-span theater McMedia things. Only about 3 or maybe 4 issues get addressed on any given news cycle. Darfur only appears when there is a new outrage and dozens or hundreds are raped or killed. Other than that, it's not good news. Also, because it may be the one place even more dangerous for a journalist than Iraq, there isn't a regular feed of footage to carry the story forward.

And, sadly for all of us, the people of the developed western world don't care that much about people in other countries with different skin color.

So, our politicians don't lead on this. They follow and only address the questions thrown at them.

[RiverStone]

12. Thanks Lap for the thoughtful response. So sad that the tail...

...wags the dog. Maybe a few generations down the road, people will "get it".

In the mean time, all we can do is keep it (Darfur) in the light of day.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Not with Bush unfortunately

Bush will order Shock And Awe to help them like he did the Iraqis.

It won't help them either.

Don

[etherealtruth]

6. That is one place that I'd be willing to work with Ann Coulter if it would...

...end the horrific suffering.

[Alexander]

9. Yes, it would help this country atone for Rwanda.

However, I think Republicans might have a difficult time concerning themselves with Sudan and Chad unless they see some kind of strategic value involved.

[Kelly Rupert]

11. Yes, I strongly believe that both parties will come together and

look the other way for the next three years, after which they'll again come together for the twice-annual "NEVER AGAIN" fundraiser.