Is it time for the democrats in the senate to levy the infamous "nuclear option," with regard to senate filibuster rules? As long as republicans continue to obstruct all legislation that democrats bring forth, congress will be in utter stalemate, at a time when the nation can ill afford it.
Personally, I don't like the idea of a nuclear option, because it turns over 200 years of senate rules on its head. However, I also do not like the idea of one party standing so staunchly in the way of all legislation, simply because they lack the basic skills required to compromise on anything. I predict it will cost them dearly in 2008, even more so than they paid in 2006.
To that end, I would like to see top democrats begin a public awareness campaign, to let the nation know exactly who is causing gridlock in congress, and what these republicans are standing in the way of. There's simply no valid justification for their continued obstructionism, particularly with regard to some of the legislation that they've been standing in the way of.
The nation needs an up or down vote on these bills. If republicans are unwilling to allow that simple process to take place, they need to be held accountable in the court of public opinion. Congress' approval ratings are now an abysmal 14%, and it's directly the result of the way that republicans have been behaving, in spending 6 years ramming unpopular legislation through, and now obstructing the will of the people.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 87
Will the campaign help bring about awareness? Perhaps. Will the white House give a damn and will anything come about it? I sincerely doubt it, the Democratic congress will remain ineffective, sadly I think, yes. But not due to them trying...
Giving you a ten because I can! Plus, I dig a man with glasses in a well-cut suit! ;0)
Uh-oh, I see a sexual harrassment flag!
Mike is right. When Democrats were running the filibuster parade regarding court appointments it was "good for America". Calling for up or down votes... the Republicans wanted to do this a few years ago and got shouted down. Now that the shoe is on the other foot I guess it's time to scrap the whole American system. You can't have it both ways.
The Republicans learned a few elections ago that just because you hold the majority doesn't mean you can always get your way... now the Democrats are finding that out. When the Dems were causing the gridlock it was... okay?Like a said you can't have it both ways... you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Your article sparks some questions:
1- When is being an American going to trump party affiliation?
2- Are we ever going to just gert along?
3- Or will we degenerate further into petty paritsan politics?
4- When will our two parties learn to work together to actually govern this great country of ours? Or does it need to take another terror attack to get us to be Americans again?
Democrats didn't filibuster legislation. They filibustered extremist, radical, right wing judge nominations.
"The Republicans learned a few elections ago that just because you hold the majority doesn't mean you can always get your way."
What are you talking about? Republicans completely dominated the entire government for 6 years, and got EVERYTHING that they wanted. That's sort of why we're currently in the messes we're in.
"1- When is being an American going to trump party affiliation?"
It already has for many. Unfortunately, very few politicians have accepted this ideal.
"2- Are we ever going to just gert along? "
Politics isn't about 100% agreement, 100% of the time.
"3- Or will we degenerate further into petty paritsan politics? "
As long as republicans continue to obstruct legislation that America is screaming for, and refuse to hold themselves accountable for anything, including rule of law, I suspect we'll continue to see partisan politics. In the past 6+ years, there is very, very little legislation of any kind that republicans have been willing to compromise with democrats on. It's either their way or no way, and they're showing that again and again.
"4- When will our two parties learn to work together to actually govern this great country of ours?"
Great question. When will the obstructionist republicans finally learn to compromise?
"Or does it need to take another terror attack to get us to be Americans again?"
I wouldn't call willingly handing over our civil liberties to a big daddy government, or calling anyone who doesn't worship the president "unpatriotic" to be signs of American ideals.
Like most tools it's, in itself, amoral. It's the people that use it that add the moral dimension.
That's true, but as the articles point out, this band of republicans is setting a record for filibustering. They're basically committed to stopping every single piece of legislation that democrats bring to the table. There is no attempt to compromise, and no attempt to do the will of the people. Their only goal seems to be to see to it that democrats can claim no victories, regardless of how much harm it causes the nation.
As we've seen over the past 6-1/2 years, this particular group of republicans is all about all-encompassing, abusive power, at any and all costs.
Rich Kaye, Jul 23, 2007, 5:30pm EDT"
So, you think that republicans flat out refusing to actually compromise in order to promote legislation for the benefit of the country, and standing firmly in the way of that critical legislation is a good thing, then. Duly noted. You're in favor of America suffering.
This proves my point succinctly. This perverse, twisted, ugly crop of neocons doesn't care about anything but all-encompassing power and control at any and all costs. This is why your party is fast withering away to the ash heap.
If I could sent the message to them it would be "pick an issue and solve a problem... then move on to the next." If this were a business I would fire them all. From the President all the way down to the lowest office clerk. Pelosi, Reid, Bush, Lott, Cheney... all of you.......shut the f--- up and listen to the people. The whole DC crowd is crooked and run by special interests and lobbys.
What did the guy in Kentucky Fried Movie say?
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.
Do we have issues with democrats? Absolutely. But, I think it's important to point out at this particular moment, that they are TRYING to get things done, but are being stymied at every opportunity by the party of failures, corruption, and incompetence.
That's what the game is for, and people don't understand how well it works when they don't take the time to look at the reason things aren't getting done. So of course, they do not realize that it is their very cries for everyone to get to work, which keeps work from bearing fruit.
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."
That was a line from the brilliant movie "Network," actually.
" Clark...don't you ever get tired of being the biggest fucking idiot on this website?"
Wow. That was sure an intelligent comment. You must be a genius. Care to comment on republican obstructionism, pro or con, or did you just stop by to show everybody how bright you are, and how well you carry out intelligent conversation?
You mean the GOP doing the exact same thing the Democrats did when they were the minority? Only a moron like you thinks it's a novel thing when politicians act like politicians Clark.
Democrats didn't obstruct meaningful legislation that would move the nation forward. They obstructed extremist, radical, highly partisan, highly dubious nominees for judge positions. Apples to bananas.
The nominees that Bush appointed were far more representative of mainstream America than you will ever be Clark. Nice try though. you're a leftist nutjob.
When Bush was nominating Alito and Roberts every single major public opinion poll showed that the American public believed both men to be competent, well grounded in terms of the law and it's application and generally well suited to become Supreme Court justices yet Clark referred to them as "extremist, radical, highly partisan, highly dubious nominees for judge positions."
It is obvious that it's Clark that is the one who is truly out of step with mainstream America as he is so far to the left that if I wanted to reach otu and smack his big fat dumb face I would have to use my right hand to do it.
Sad, sorry, pathetic GOP policy, which is by nature - win at all costs . . .
Hi Rich! Hi Dana!! Keep shaking them pom poms!!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Rich: Class . . . truly a credit to the GOP.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
What an idiotic statement. Here's some reality for you, republitards:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/13/americas_progressive_majority.php
Read and weep. Looks like you're going to be prancing around with those pretty little pom pons for quite some time to come.
"It seems a better startegy than: lose at all costs. Which, of course, is the dems mantra."
Uh...Mr. Wizard...democrats have the majority in both houses of congress. Somebody apparently forgot to tell you that it's REPUBLITARDS, NOT democrats, who're the losers.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bite that, beeeatches! HEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
LOSERS!!!!!!
HAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sorry...couldn't help but stoop to these moron's level, just to mash their ugly faces into harsh reality for a moment!
:o)
Clark.......linking to loony left wing websites proves nothing other than the fact that you're a deluded idiot. You still haven't told me about all the "meaningful legislation" tha the dems are trying to pass.
It's more liek the Dems blocking meaningful legislation as their recent opposition to the "John Doe" clause proves. Apprently Democrats would rather protect potential terrorists than US citizens who are interested in preventing further terrorist attacks.
That's some box you've got yourself locked in; Such a simple thing, one merely looks for any indication a person can be linked to any stereotypical grouping in your mind which would render their thinking or information "suspect", and Wallah!! What they say can be completely ignored.
Kinda limits your "reality" to just those with whom you feel comfortable "communing" with, but that would not bother some folks. They openly acknowledge that they only pay attention to the voices that reassure them. They actually believe that's what everyone does. Kinda like a racists sees themselves not as that at all, but as a "realist", while those that do not share their prejudice, are seen as dreamers and denialists.
Dude, it's been accepted by our civilization for like two thousand years that limiting one's thinking to one's previous conclusions is foolish. Are you proposing ALL the great thinkers of our culture have been delusional imbeciles, and they just didn't understand how to use their minds? Were they silly for attempting to see more than one point of view, and would have been made wiser by hunkering down with their favorite one endlessly?
"it explains why you are such an abysmal failure in life"
How appropo that you fancy yourself able to discern people's status in life as if psychic.. You actually believe the flickering little suspicions and inferences your imagination feeds back to your desires. Amazing.
You might've tried reading the actual report, rather than simply burying your head up your ass once again, and showing the world how proud your are to remain steadfastly ignorant of reality.
": Clark is a pure idiot. The sad part is that he THINKS he's smart. He doesnt even understand the outlandish bias of teh sources he uses.
Look at the website he just mentioned and you see in their about page how they parade teh fact that they are progressive."
Again, you might want to actually read the report that the articles linked were based upon, rather than show everyone what a dumbass, partisan hack you are.
If either of you delusional flying monkeys has the gonads, I double dog dare you to actually read the report that the article was based upon, rather than simply slamming your eyes and ears shut, and showing us all how blatantly foolish you are.
The simple fact is, whether you wish to believe it or not, that the American public is decidedly progressive on every single issue of the day. Sorry, but facts is facts. The public favors progressive ideals, not regressive. That your diseased party even has a presence in national politics at this point is nothing more than evidence of their massive, truly impressive propaganda capabilities.
As for white house "victories," let's not pretend that Bush won 2000 or 2004, shall we? We all know better than that. Gore convincingly won 2000, and would absolutely have won 2004 as well.
http://home.ourfuture.org/reports/20070612_theprogressivemajority/
"For anyone interested in where the American public really stands on the big issues that distinguish progressives from conservatives -- including the issues at the forefront of today's political debates -- "The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America Is a Myth" offers hard facts and analysis based on decades of data from some of the nation's most respected and nonpartisan public opinion researchers. This is the evidence that political leaders have a mandate to pursue bold, progressive policies.
This report by the Campaign for America's Future and Media Matters for America shows that in study after study, solid majorities of Americans take progressive stands on a full spectrum of issues, from bread-and-butter economics to the so-called "values" issues where conservatives claim preeminence."
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/13/americas_
progressive_majority.php
"Start with the economy. Polling by the Pew Research Center shows 84 percent support to increase the minimum wage. Gallup shows that more Americans sympathize with unions than with companies in labor disputes (52 to 34 percent). NBC News and the Wall Street Journal polls indicate that nearly twice as many people think the U.S. is more hurt than helped by the global economy (48 to 25 percent). Other polls open the door to increased labor and environmental standards as part of the solution."
"For people caught on the wrong side of the economy, research by the University of Michigan National Election Studies reveals that 69 percent of Americans believe government should care for those who can't care for themselves. Twice as many people want "government to provide many more services even if it means an increase in spending" (43 percent) as want government to provide fewer services "in order to reduce spending" (20 percent). Majorities say we need a bigger government "because the country's problems are bigger" (59 percent) and a "strong government to handle complex problems" (67 percent)."
"
Return to: Opinions
America's Progressive Majority
Eric Lotke
June 13, 2007
Eric Lotke is research director for the Campaign for America's Future.
The façade of conservative political dominance is crumbling. The disintegration runs deeper than public disaffection with the Bush administration's catastrophic failures and is more fundamental than the political realignment of the 2006 election. The notion of America as a "conservative nation" was always more fiction than fact, but the nation's rejection of President Bush's brand of "you're-on-your-own" conservatism and wedge-issue divisiveness is so broad that today the façade is simply unsustainable.
An exhaustive review released today of decades of public opinion research by the Campaign for America's Future and Media Matters for America, using the most reputable, nonpartisan sources, leads to a simple conclusion: America is more progressive Common Sense Conversation than people think—or, more precisely, than the conventional wisdom would lead them to believe. From the economy to social issues, terrorism to trade, Americans want politicians who recognize that we're all in it together.
Start with the economy. Polling by the Pew Research Center shows 84 percent support to increase the minimum wage. Gallup shows that more Americans sympathize with unions than with companies in labor disputes (52 to 34 percent). NBC News and the Wall Street Journal polls indicate that nearly twice as many people think the U.S. is more hurt than helped by the global economy (48 to 25 percent). Other polls open the door to increased labor and environmental standards as part of the solution.
For people caught on the wrong side of the economy, research by the University of Michigan National Election Studies reveals that 69 percent of Americans believe government should care for those who can't care for themselves. Twice as many people want "government to provide many more services even if it means an increase in spending" (43 percent) as want government to provide fewer services "in order to reduce spending" (20 percent). Majorities say we need a bigger government "because the country's problems are bigger" (59 percent) and a "strong government to handle complex problems" (67 percent).
These Americans are challenging a central plank of modern conservatism. They don't always want government to leave them alone. They want government to help hold us together.
On social issues too, Americans are more progressive than they are typically credited.
First, they are progressive in their priorities. The percentage of Americans who consider abortion the "most important" issue ranks in the single digits in poll after poll. When an election forces them to pay attention to it, Pew research shows a 56 percent majority oppose making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion, a proportion that has hardly changed in the past 20 years. Only 29 percent want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. And 67 percent, according to polls by Kaiser and Harvard, want sex education in schools to include information about contraception, not just abstinence. Yet conservatives continually push these subjects to the fore and stand on the wrong side of them. It's time for mainstream media to question whether movement conservatives, not coastal liberals, are out of the mainstream."
And on, and on, and on, and on, and on. On one subject after another, the myth of our being a "conservative America" is shattered to oblivion by poll after poll after poll.
Sorry, but facts is facts, children. Ignore them as you wish, but don't expect a grand turnaround for your party's abysmal failures and slide to minority status, nor tell anyone that nobody told you so.
Can you please do so? Otherwsie you might run the risk of people thinking you're a full of shit moron who can't back anything up that he says.
You should've read the report. It would've spared you from making such a foolish statement, and continuing to cling to absurd mythical fantasy.
"Really? The public is pro amnesty for illegals? Its for open borders? Its for gay marriage?"
Amnesty was Bush's proposal. Open borders is Bush's game, and in fact, the number of illegals has dramatically increased under his watch. The overwhelming majority of Americans support gay unions. If you'd have read the report, you'd have known this.
"The public outcry stopped the amnesty. Dont come back with "bush wanted it" thats irrelevent because it is a LIBERAL ideal."
It's hardly irrelavent that the "conservative" president was the biggest backer of amnesty. How convenient that you can simply brush aside unpopular policies by your boys, and lay them all onto the feet of your political opponents. In the real world, it doesn't work that way. Sorry.
"Dont tell me about civil unions. Civil unions is not a progressive stance."
Again, convenient. The majority of the public is overwhelmingly in favor of gay unions. The radical rightwing is staunchly opposed to it. Gay unions are a PROGRESSIVE ideal, not conservative. See how you move the target around, to fit your twisted viewpoint? Stop being such a tool. You're making a fool of yourself again.
"Sorry that you dont like our electoral college, but Bush won."
Sorry, but he only "won" because a corrupt, partisan supreme court overstepped its constitutional boundaries and stopped the recount. Had the full statewide recount, which was MANDATED by state law, been allowed to continue, Gore would've absolutely won the electoral vote as well as the popular vote. This is a fact that the supreme court knew all too well, which is why they stated that "to continue the recount would cause irreparable harm to George W. Bush." No shit.
"Really? So you know how Gore would have performed, campaigned, who he woudl have run against?"
The nation was coming off 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clinton. Gore had no dramatic changes in mind, therefore, he'd have undoubtedly continued that. We already know that Clinton/Gore was "literally obsessed" with the threat of terrorism, so it's highly unlikely that 9/11 would've happened, and we thus would not have embarked upon an unimaginably costly, illegal war of aggression in Iraq.
"Now that we are getting back to polls - where you dont know the actual questions, the sample polled, or the motivation of the pollsters - lets add a little logic, shall we"
Do you ever find it odd that you republitards embarce polls that favor your opinions, yet reject them at all costs when they do not? Whenever you disagree with polling results, there were defective questions, right? Unfortunately for you this time, this report was written after a study of numerous polls, not just one. You should've read the report.
"Do you really believe that the 85% of teh country that does have health coverage wants to change that"
Let's see...my coverage costs $1000/month...the offer is for it to cost little or nothing....gee...I just can't imagine ANYONE not wanting to continue to fork over the $1k per month for something that they could get for free. I guess you got me there. You're right. I think EVERYBODY would rather pay massive amounts out of pocket, instead of have that coverage provided for by the government. I mean, nobody really has any need for an extra $1,000 per month anyway, right?
Yeah, I can see why you'd reject the polls on that question. No doubt about it, the massive majority of the nation would rather flush hundreds and hundreds of dollars down the insurance toilet every month than to have that money to spend or invest in their futures.
"Do you really think that those people that can get chemotherapy, heart surgery, organ transplants, etc for a$10 copay want to CHANGE that system?"
You mean one of those systems where "big brother" tells you who you can see, what type of treatment you can get, and when you can get it? Let's see...when I was in an HMO, my company was forced to pay nearly $700/month, I paid nearly $500/month...let me think...would my company and I have preferred to pay nothing, and get access to treatment without even a $10 co-pay? Let me think....nah. I can't imagine my former company or myself ever wanting anything to do with a system that wouldn't allow us to flush $1200/month down the insurance toilet. You're right again. You clearly know far more than those silly, ridiculous polls.
"The system may be broken - badly - but to think that 85% of americans want to scrap it at their own peril is stupid."
Ok. You've said this three times now. I've shown you that the fact is quite the opposite. Surely, you must have some set of facts that you can present to support your belief, right? You wouldn't just be blowing air out your ass, just for the sake of blowing air out your ass, would you? Let's see your proof, please. It looks to me like it's just your opinion, and nothing more, and as we already know, your opinion is just a teensy bit tainted with partisan ideological beliefs.
"So, stop citing polls and look around."
Yes, because polls off inconvenient truths, don't they? Actually, when I look around, I see a very clear progressive majority as well. Sorry. Name an issue, and the American public sides with progressive ideals on it. Facts is facts, honey buns.
"In fact, I have read virtually every link Clark has directed me to in the the last few weeks alone which includes articles, full websites, and videos. "
First, I highly doubt this to be the case. I highly doubt that you'd remain as steadfastly ignorant as you are, had you actually read and viewed information presented to you. My belief is that you clicked on a link or two, perceived a "liberal bias," and clicked away, rather than expose yourself to an alternative set of truths.
"Admittedly, I didnt, and wont, read this one because after all of the other info - whichis SO BLATANTLY biased, Ive learned to not waste too much time with something he points out."
The report,which is in PDF form, was based upon independent polling that has been conducted and compiled from several polling sources. Would you care to point out how multiple sources of polling could all be biased, simply because they don't happen to have found results that you wish to accept? Burying your head in the sand may make you immune from reality, but it doesn't make reality disappear.
I'm awfully glad that you stepped to the plate to prove my point once again. When presented with simple facts, you reject them, if they do not fit into your rigid little ideological world view.
Thanks for playing along, and showing everybody exactly what I knew you'd show them.
Yes, you certainly are within your rights to believe in fairy tales and pixie dust. In your mind, the nation is "conservative." You hold onto that. In reality land, however, the nation is decidedly progressive. Again, facts is facts, whether or not you happen to agree with them.
The end result is that you will continue to see republicans rejected in election after election, and you'll be left scratching your head, trying to make sense of it all. "Why," you'll say "does a public that clearly favors conservative ideals, reject conservative politicians?"
The rest of us will KNOW why. The nation is progressive, not conservative. Poll after poll after poll shows it. The only reason that republicans have had a voice at all in politics is because of brilliant, though devious marketing, and widescale election fraud.
Perhaps, someone should step out and remind you that, prior to 1994, democrats held at least one house of congress for 40 years, and that they held both for much of that time. So much for your mythical fantasy, huh?
"If you open your eyes, youll see that the country likes conservatism - not fanatasicm from teh FAR right - but to the right of moderate."
Ah, therein lies your problem. The GOP is controlled by fanatical extremists, and has been for some time. True conservatism does not exist in the party. The GOP is now the party of religious intolerance and extremism, reckless mismanagement of national treasury funds, massive expansion of big government, illegal wars of aggression, rampant corruption, disastrous incompetence, corporate cronyism, and of course, sexual deviance. Your party simply holds no values that America is the least bit interested in at this point.
See, this is where your "thinking" has gone astray. You're under the mistaken belief that the GOP is a rational party of principles and values. It is not, and the public has seen this. Your party has bled off massive support over the past couple years, and will only continue to do so, as you continue to embrace the radical extremism of the far religious right and corporatists.
Good point. Never mind the fact that you and your blathering idiot butt buddy Rich cannot seem to ever produce a single link of factual documentation to support your idiotic nonsense. I sure as hell never want to find myself lumped into the same pathetic group that you two slither around in.
http://www.thudfactor.com/wordpress/2007/07/22/
how-bad-is-republican-obstructionism/
Thank you for attempting to maintain a civil dialogue on this topic. I can't say I always agree with your views, but discourse helps us to explore our opinions, educate ourselves to the facts, and understand our differences in interpretation. And there will be differences in interpretation. One man's "meaningful legislation" is another man's "extremist agenda." At least you make the effort to present your views and understanding of the facts in a rational manner for debate. Too bad some of the commenters think that profanity, personal attack, and dismissiveness of any view that doesn't reflect their own counts as intelligent discourse.
As has been said, there has been political gamesmanship since the beginning of our political process here in the US (and elsewhere before and since). The rules that allow obstructionism were put into place to prevent the majority from running roughshod over the views of the minority. It was supposed to encourage compromise to allow legislation that takes into account multiple views on issues. Perhaps we have gotten away from that in recent years/decades. In any case, it really is up to us, the people, to expect more from our representatives, which means educating ourselves (including on opinions different from our own) and communicating rationale views through letters, emails, action, debate (such as on Gather), and voting less for a predetermined agenda but for people willing to listen and act in the best interest of the people.
Here's a perfect example of blinding ignorance and outright deception. Over the past 50 years, democrats have held the majority in congress for 40. In the past 28 years, while it's true that democrats have only had one president, it's also true that republiCONs have only had 3, and, with both of the last 2 presidential elections being stolen through widescale election fraud, it's safe to say that both parties would likely have had 2 at this point over that period of time, had it not been for that massive election fraud.
As for the supreme court, that has little to do with who is president, other than that the president nominates judges for the positions that open up during their term. The senate approves them. Historically, judges have been selected based upon their abilities, and their past decisions, and whether or not those decisions have abided by constitutional law. However, recent republiCON nominations, including Roberts, Alito, and Thomas, were purely partisan nominations that were rammed through solely for the purpose of foisting an extremist rightwing agenda, rather than a desire to place the most competent, most constitutionally aware justice possible.
If you look at some of the higher profile, most controversial cases over the past couple of decades, you'll find that, more often than not, republican-nominated justices have sided in ways that have angered the republiCON base, not because they were "liberal" justices, but rather, because they applied strict interpretation of constitutional laws. We're beginning to see how drastically that will change now. Beginning in 2000, with the landmark, fraudulant case in which the corrupt, partisan SCOTUS selected our 43rd president, in direct violation of the constitution, we're going to see a continual erosion of civil rights and liberties, as these extremist, radical, rightwing, activist judges begin to pervert and twist the constitution to suit their anti-American agenda. It's not likely to be pretty.
So, here we get to see a clear example of how dishonest the rightwing is, in perpetrating the myth that the nation is a "conservative nation." It is simply not, and recent polls, the past election, and this compelling report, as well as a casual observance of basic facts at hand, all prove this to be the case.
The right wing agenda has been built entirely upon deception like this, ever since Limbaugh first hit the airwaves, and the talking points from the right wing think tanks began to filter into the mainstream media. The myth has been shattered. The Rich's and Dana's may not wish to accept reality at this point, but they will eventually. The nation is decidedly progressive, and coming elections will prove that out definitively, assuming that steps are taken to prevent additional election thefts, particularly at the presidential level. If we can eliminate having 5,000 people vote for a republiCON candidate, in precincts in which there are only a few hundred registered voters, avoid having an entire precinct's democratic votes mysteriously "flip" to the republiCON candidate, avoid the illegal disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of legal, mostly democratic voters, and prevent the heads of republiCON candidate's state election committee from having control of that state's elections, we'll begin to see the true extent of the progressive majority in this nation.
Thanks. I don't always succeed, and honestly, I don't even always try, but usually, I do at least make an attempt.
"One man's "meaningful legislation" is another man's "extremist agenda.""
Democratic proposals haven't been anywhere near "extremist," and, as I've pointed out, reflect the wishes of the majority of America. That includes their efforts to bring an end to the disastrous debacle in Iraq.
"It was supposed to encourage compromise to allow legislation that takes into account multiple views on issues."
Absolutely. That's what disturbs me the most about the republican obstructionism. Just as they did over the past 6 years, they're attempting to strong arm democrats and shut down discussion and compromise. One party rule isn't healthy for this nation's "democracy."
"and voting less for a predetermined agenda but for people willing to listen and act in the best interest of the people."
I couldn't agree more. This is where the GOP has gotten far off track. Instead of paying attention to their constituents, they've been ramrodding unpopular, radical legislation since 2000, and it's cost them the majority in congress, and will continue to cost them support.
Of course, they're goal at this point is no longer to ramrod their unpopular agenda, since they no longer hold the majority in congress, but rather, to do everything possible to make congress appear to be ineffective. At any and all costs, they're willing to do anything to stop democratic legislation from moving forward, rather than allow democrats to claim success in any area. The tactic will backfire on them.
I hope you're around in 2008 Clark because I intend on rubbing it in when the GOP keeps the white house because the Dems insisted on nominating Hillary.
How anyone can take such a leftist moron like you seriiously is beyond me. You are completely capable of being objective at all. All you do is post leftist talking points and rhetoric and blame everything wrong with this nation on the right.
You're a joke and apprently I'm not the only one on this site that knows it.
Nice try, but it's republiCONs, not democrats, who've been obstructing legislation to institute the recommendations of the 911 commission. The "John Doe" amendment was killed because it was seen as an open door to racial profiling.
"I hope you're around in 2008 Clark because I intend on rubbing it in when the GOP keeps the white house because the Dems insisted on nominating Hillary."
First, democrats haven't nominated anyone yet. Secondly, ANY of the democratic contenders could easily defeat ANY of the pathetic GOP crowd. Sorry, but the GOP crop of candidates is a laughing stock. A recent poll of registered republicans found that 23% of them would choose "none of the above." I hope YOU'RE around in November 2008.
"How anyone can take such a leftist moron like you seriiously is beyond me."
I'm a "moron," yet neither you nor your little butt pal, Rich here, can provide a single shred of documentation to refute a single thing that this "moron" has said. Weird.
"All you do is post leftist talking points and rhetoric and blame everything wrong with this nation on the right."
Uh...sparky...the nation has been under the complete control of the "right" for most of the past 6 years. Who would YOU blame for what's gone wrong? Your boys have gotten EVERYTHING that they've wanted since 2001, while democrats have gotten virtually nothing. Welcome to reality.
"You're a joke and apprently I'm not the only one on this site that knows it."
That comment alone speaks volumes about the state of utter delusion that you live in. Yes, bubble boy, it's the ENTIRE WORLD who's wrong, not you. You just keep running with that one. Seems to be working real well for you thus far.
IF. It's yet to be seen whether the election fraud apparatus put into place by the GOP can overcome massive democratic voter turnout, and in fact, based upon 2006, evidence at hand that it cannot. It appears quite likely that democratic voter turnout for 2008 will be quite high, if not historically high, while on the other hand, GOP voter turnout could be the lowest in many years. The ugly, harsh fact is, there is simply no GOP candidate that the party can support in unison. The religious freaks will only support their fellow freaks, who haven't got a rat's chance in hell of becoming nominated.
That leaves pro-choicers, pro-gay rights-ers, cheaters, womanizers, and habitual divorceaholics, none of whom the religious freaks will cast a vote for, I assure you. Aside from that, the candidates most likely to receive the nod from the GOP are those that are most like this disastrously failed president, who's currently languishing at a monumental 65% DISapproval rating.
The nation is completely sick and tired of Bush politics. We're seeing the building of a perfect storm, that could very easily bring us the most overwhelming trouncing that any party has suffered in a presidential election. Sorry, but it appears that your party is in for a very hard fall, unless they can get their buddy Osama to hit us again. Keep praying...it might happen.
"And Clark, if a civil union is progressive, what is gay marriage?"
A non-starter. Marriage is a religious term, and there are very few religions that are tolerant enough to embrace the thought of traditional marriage for gay couples. The issue is for equal civil rights for gay couples, not mandating religious acceptance. Those who advocate for gay "marriage" are being entirely unrealistic and absurd.
"So again, if a civil union is progressive, what is gay marriage?"
Read above.
"And just because Bush wanted amnesty doesnt make it a republican/conservataive ideal."
Sorry, but he's your boy, whether you want him or not. And, let's not forget that the number of illegal aliens entering the country has literally exploded under his watch. It's not as if he or the republican congress did a damn thing to put an end to it.
"So, when teh GOP keeps the white house , what will be the excuse?"
I highly doubt it'll happen, frankly, but if it does, I strongly suspect we'll see a continuation of the same election fraud that brought us the last previous disastrous 8 years of hell.
For what it's worth, I'd be much more at ease in knowing that republicans actually WON, fair and square, than to see a repeat performance of the fraud that's created the past two republican "victories." Put it on a level playing field, remove the illegal voter disenfranchisement, remove the ballot flipping, remove the computer rigging and tampering, remove GOP state campaign managers from positions of controlling state elections, and lawful and accountable. It's not democrats and republicans who're pulling the strings right now, anyway.
Only those with significant amounts of evidence to back them up, such as the conspiracy theories that led us into the Spanish-American War, Vietnam, Iraq, and the GOP election fraud since 2000.
Gridlock is a taxpayers best friend.
I am sure that Clark will explain to all of us how this is not actually a reflection of how the American people feel about the Democratic leadership in congress but is yet another right wing conspiracy.
Gee...republican obstructionism...low congressional approval ratings. I wonder if that's just a remarkable coincidence? Yeah, must be. I'm sure the republicans wouldn't intentionally jam things up just to keep dems from having any legislative successes, would they? Nah. Not possible.
See ya in '08, Dana. Don't disappoint. I'm publicly predicting a fairly sound republican ass whopping.
If Hillary wins the Dem nomination the GOP is garenteed at least 4 more years in the White House.
You can take that one to the bank.
Gee, a wee bit of a "conspiracy theory" obsession ya think ?
The one has done his homework and speaks the truth ... the other(s) just react(s) with ideological party talking points, having heard and used them so many times he/they may even believe them ... shows just how discerning he/they is/are when it comes to real truth.
The one looks at the whole picture in order to find the whole truth and makes his mind up with all of that information. The other(s) watch FOX, listen to right wing radio shows and repeat each other, then accuse the one of only using far left info as if it were biased and a lie.
Conservative stands for conservative for the honest ones, for the neoCONservatives, it stands for CONserve(jail time)ative, IF it were not for hand picked crooked judges that let them off. Conservatives have a narrow regressive view about the 'good ole days', they are very fearful of the future and want very badly to control it to their standards (satisfactions) so their self defined worst enemy the liberal cannot take away from them what they have worked so hard to keep only for themselves. They do not believe their 'leaders' should be taxed because they want those leaders to have more money so they can get some of it when it 'trickles down' to them. They believe only in THAT kind of generosity.
Liberals on the other hand are truly just anyone at all to the left of the mentioned conservatives, at least as far as the conservative is concerned. That includes progressives of course, even though they are rather centered and balanced and also even include conservatives, but the kind not allowed by the first mentioned.
Liberals are called that because they are that. They are more open minded about things, recommend and enjoy freedom of choice more, even think it would be a good thing for a whole nation. They even love and respect our troops enough to want to bring them home soon ... having a very nasty trait though of caring also for other peoples of other countries, according to the conservatives that means they want our country to lose the 'war' and are thus traitors to this great nation which stands only for conservative values of 'winning' at any cost, according to them. All of their leaders wear little flags on their suit lapels to 'prove' that they are patriotic, probably thinking that those who don't wear such are not.
So in short, if you are a conservative of the first order like Rich and Dana, you hate all to your left (remember, hate results from fear) and insist upon calling them 'derogatory' names such as 'liberal' ... (what could be worse other than 'liberal lefty' ?) Oh, I forgot, 'progressive' ?
Then we have the Liberals that fear and hate no one, yet are concerned and compassionate enough to attempt to teach the others a better way, using higher truths, more love and peaceful means ... sort of like that other misunderstood Liberal did, His name initials were J.C. ... But then only the 'worst' examples of the lot, those in the farthest outward fringe, are used as the example for all.
I COULD go on and on, there are more than enough facts and truths to do so ... IMnsHO.
What you really ought to be "sorry" for, is failing to realize (or at least certainly, mention), that there are most assuredly a good many "liberals" who, like the phony conservatives you dwell on, are not really "open-minded" or "caring" at all. They simply like to think of themselves that way, and mouth "liberal" or "progressive" talking points in a similar way.
Yes, you are being overly "dualistic", in the sense that you are not being concominant with your view of one form of general ideology, as with another. When you slid the more sensible members of one general group over, into an entirely different class which based it's reasoning on sensible things, you forgot to do the same with the other general group. The "left" too is predominantly composed of rather selfish people, who accept ideas and policies which serve their interests. Their interests just happen to be rather different than those left after excluding the better folks associated with that other general "side".
There are "liberal" concepts which I am appalled at, and you see Clark get a bit testy with some at times as well. I don't see him as nearly the "liberal" that his "enemies" do, nor many of his supposed cheerleaders. He is what you tried to describe as a progressive, and favors neither abandoning what works toward the good of society, nor adopting what would harm it, based on how it advances or retards some idealistic dreamed of fate. I believe he, like I, tends to think in terms of doing the best one can, to facilitate others doing the best they can, when their time comes. Progress-ive. And he don't like obstructionists.
That is just plain distortionist. You took a carefully selected segment of election results to make a rather sweeping claim about the "true" nature of America. But ya kinda forgot that in the last two Presidential elections the votes of Americans were split fifty fifty. And you exclude the most recent elections, which were a decisive victory for the Dems, as well as a decisive rejection of the current "CONservative" crowd. Further, as Clark noted, if one wanders beyond a mere dozen or so years back in looking at voting results, and considers the last fifty years, the inclinations of Americans appears profoundly more progressive.
If you think people can't see that you are being myopic in the "facts" you present here, you are rather naive. What your behaviour clearly demonstrates is a bias of significant proportions.
I further fail to see the real significance of what you're trying to do with this, as only a child would find it somehow vindicating that someone got people to vote for a certain party or person at other times, or even in this time. Since when has the American public become the foolproof measure of who is right? Won't you turn right around tomorrow, or even in the very same comment, and claim "polls" can't be trusted? What the hell do you think an election is? You can't possibly think the "questions" asked in elections are clear or untainted. The results can just as easily be telling us who looked best, or tricked the voters into believing they would do what they had no intention of doing.
You're grasping at straws for yourself, not persuading reasonable people.
Ya know, this may sound harsh to you, but I think you really would be wise to quit claiming victory in some sort of dueling with Clark. He makes you look like a radical zealot on a routine basis. Just coming into a thread calling people wacko cause they support something you see as "liberal", is not truly an effective way to get folks to listen to you. Not if they don't already agree with you at least. I don't know what purpose you think you're serving by "preaching to your choir" like this, but you would serve your party better by picking your spots more carefully, and coming in with a lot less unexplained cockiness, and off hand dismissal of others views. People actually look for reasoning and evidence and such, not how certain one feels about their opinions.
You can take that one to the bank."
This is funny shit, dude! Your pathetic crop of religio-freaks, hypocrites, flip-floppers, and corporate lobbyists haven't got a prayer against a Clinton. Like them or not, they are some of the most powerful campaigners to ever don a political hat. You're a fool, but of course, you already know that.
You're throwing around ridiculous statements like this because you know, yet lack the courage or integrity to admit, that your party is in very serious trouble, and there is an overwhelming likelihood that they will not only lose the white house in '08, but will lose additional seats in both houses as well. The writing is very much on the walls, all around you.
The thing that sucks is that, you being the shameless coward that you are, you'll be nowhere in sight for me to rub your pathetic face into your idiotic comments here, come election time. As soon as you finally gather up the honesty and courage to admit that your party is going to flame out in a huge way, you'll be gone. I'll still have the satisfaction of imagining your sour puss as reality sets in, though.
"The "other guy" uses far left websites (proven - just check them out), ie: biased and cites polls. "
Isn't it weird that you can't refute those polls? The polling sources are rock solid, the results are rock solid, and all you can say is "yeah, but in the past 30 years..."
Guess what, genius? Your party only took control of congress in 1994. Prior to that, democrats held one or both houses for 40 previous years. Stick that in your crack pipe and puff on it.
As for presidential elections, we've already covered that, haven't we? In the past 26 years, there have been 4 presidents, 1 of which was only put into office through massive election fraud and a corrupt, partisan supreme court. Aside from that, the democrat won the popular vote overwhelmingly. So, over the course of these 4 presidencies, we have 2 legitimate republicans, 2 legitimate democrats, one of which was not allowed to take the office that he won, and 1 illegitimate neocon Hardly an overwhelming mandate for republicanism.
But, as is the case with your butt buddy Dana, you're simply too terrified to admit the reality that has crashed down upon you. That's fine. You continue walking through life with your delusional head buried up your gooey ass. After 2008, when republicans have lost MORE congressional seats AND the white house, you can keep walking around, telling everybody that the nation is "conservative." You won't have any more people believing you then than you do now, of course, but I'm sure it'll pacify you somehow.
Reality? Pick an issue of the day, I don't care which one. Pick ANY issue, and, consistent polling results have shown, the nation is firmly aligned with democratic ideals. Sorry. Again, facts is facts. I realize that you have an aversion to them, but that doesn't make them any less what they are.
Iraq
"war on terror"
Social Security
Fiscal responsibility
Smaller government
National security
Civil rights
Environment
Education
Health care
Accountability
Honest government
Competent governance
Strong middle class
Republicans are not favored by the majority of the nation on a single one of these issues. Not one. On every single issue on the minds of the public, the public is aligned with democratic ideals. Your party stands for nothing but corruption, incompetence, deception, greed, and absurdities.
The GOP sold its soul to the devil, for the chance at unstoppable, permanent power. In doing so, they lost all sense of values and principles, and have become a hollow shell of a party, not knowing whether to continue being led around by the religio-freaks or the neocons, and not knowing that BOTH of those groups are what has destroyed the GOP.
The GOP will languish for many years, possibly decades, trying to re-invent itself. You will not win power by catering to the relgio-freaks or the neocons anymore, yet these groups still control the party.
Unless/until some REAL conservatives, many of whom have abandoned the party at this point, begin to assert themselves and wrestle power and control of the party away from the freaks and CONs, your party is doomed to minority status. This is the bitter, harsh reality.
The republican party can no more hope to win back majority status by allowing their most radical extremists to control them than democrats could ever hope to grow their majority status, or even maintain it, by allowing their furthest radical extreme to govern the agenda of the party.
Over the past year, many in your party have figured this out. You've lost the Reagan democrats, many libertarians, and many true conservatives. Your party will only continue bleeding off support as long as they're controlled by the radical extremists. THAT is something that YOU can take to the bank.
It's only a matter of time, though, before the majority of Bush's congressional supporters jump the sinking ship.
She will not be president.
End of story.
Oh and I WILL be posting on here with a big fat I told you so for all of you ignorant motherfuckers who deny it.
Your seething hatred of all things Clinton is not shared by the majority of the nation, believe it or not. Polling indicates that ANY of the democrats would pummel ANY of the hopeless republiCONs, but Hillary, in particular, would be the most likely to bludgeon and humiliate. You keep running with that mythical fantasy of yours, though.
"She will not be president."
She might well be, whether you want her to or not. Just think, though, you can carry on your blame-everything-bad-on-Clinton obsession and not look like such an idiot while doing it, since there will actually be a Clinton in office for you to hate.
You know what's sort of funny about your idiotic, hate-filled rants? If you were REALLY so convinced that Hillary could never win, you'd be cheering her on, wouldn't you? The simple fact is, you're terrified of her winning the nomination.
"Oh and I WILL be posting on here with a big fat I told you so for all of you ignorant motherfuckers who deny it."
No, you won't. You're gone the moment the harsh realization of the GOP's impending clobbering sinks into your thick-skulled, disease-ridden, putrid head. You're a coward, just like every other bush worshipping neocon.
I think Clark got a bit carried away there with his characterizations of you at the end, but not terribly. When you indicate you feel "seething hatred" for someone you don't even know, and can't actually have a factual understanding of, you pretty much open the door real wide for such conclusions. And you also demonstrate quite effectively why many of your stripe assume all criticism of Mr, Bush is based on personal "hatred" of the man, and not the blatant catastrophic impact his policies and activities have had on America. This is called "projection", and it is caused by a failure to realize one is not actually seeing real human beings when they look at their imaginary versions of them in their head. Pretty much the same apparent source for your hatred of Ms. Clinton.
The cure? Accept that there are no people in your head, just you.
Ummmm no.
Typical idiot response froma typical idiot leftist.
I didn't vote for Kerry in 2004. Does that mean I feel threatened by a man being in charge Katie you fucking mental midget?
The reason I would never vote for Hillary has nothing to do with her plumbing and everything to do with her being an insincere, self serving, callous, corrupt, whacked out socialist.
I know that you're a brain dead leftist incapable of actually debating what a candidate stands for so you have to reduce it to "oh he hates women and that's all there is to it."
I am amazed that people like you can even tie your own shoes in the morning let alone use a computer.
Let's face it...." if intelligence and comprehension were chocolate you'd be incapable of filling an M & M Katie.
Ahhh . . . now there you go again, jumping to conclusions based on some imaginary capability you believe you have to see into the hearts and minds of people you know virtually nothing about. You're never going to get away from that seething hatred stuff till you realize it's based on your own imagination.
This is tinfoil hat style behaviour. It makes you look like an gullible kid. Quit with the crystal ball routine already, it's just silly. And it really puts a repulsive coating on your political views, people will naturally be inclined think that's how you came to have them.
Sadly though since there is no way in hell that anyone from the GOP will get elected, then she probably will get in.
----------
On another note. The GOP is running all these guys who are bald. It was a long time since we had any bald presidents elected. Ther was Gerry Ford- but he wasn't elected. You have to go way back to Eisenhower and Truman.
No. It means that you hate decorated American war heroes and worship AWOL chickenhawk deserters. In a nutshell, it means that you hate America.
"but her leftist views really are not in line with the majority of America. "
What "leftist views?" She's a corporatist, just like her husband. She's also rather hawkish. I'm baffled whenever somebody calls her a "leftist," frankly.
"Sadly though since there is no way in hell that anyone from the GOP will get elected"
Very few in this country would consider it "sad" that the GOP will not be in the white house in 2009. Most of the country is pretty damn sick and tired of GOP failures.
"The GOP is running all these guys who are bald. "
There's only one that's truly folically challenged. McCain and Paul both have a few remaining tufts. Thompson hasn't even jumped in.