Latest Threads
Greatest Threads
Home » Discuss » Journals » ellisonz Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
ellisonz's Journal
Posted by ellisonz in General Discussion: Presidency
Sat Dec 10th 2011, 11:42 PM
President Harry S Truman's Address before the NAACP at the Lincoln Memorial

Title: Truman speaking at NAACP Conference. Date: June 29, 1947 - Accession number: 59-1386-2 -

Full Official Text (Truman Public Papers) :

Audio can be found here:

NOTE: The President spoke at the Lincoln Memorial at 4:30 p.m. In his opening words he referred to Walter F. White, Executive Secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who served as chairman of the conference, and to Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Senator Wayne Morse who also spoke. The address was carried on a nationwide radio broadcast.

June 29, 1947

Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Roosevelt, Senator Morse, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

I am happy to be present at the closing session of the 38th Annual Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The occasion of meeting with you here at the Lincoln Memorial affords me the opportunity to congratulate the association upon its effective work for the improvement of our democratic processes.

I should like to talk to you briefly about civil rights and human freedom. It is my deep conviction that we have reached a turning point in the long history of our country's efforts to guarantee freedom and equality to all our citizens. Recent events in the United States and abroad have made us realize that it is more important today than ever before to insure that all Americans enjoy these rights.

When I say all Americans I mean all Americans.

The civil rights laws written in the early years of our Republic, and the traditions which have been built upon them, are precious to us. Those laws were drawn up with the memory still fresh in men's minds of the tyranny of an absentee government. They were written to protect the citizen against any possible tyrannical act by the new government in this country.

But we cannot be content with a civil liberties program which emphasizes only the need of protection against the possibility of tyranny by the Government. We cannot stop there.

We must keep moving forward, with new concepts of civil rights to safeguard our heritage. The extension of civil rights today means, not protection of the people against the Government, but protection of the people by the Government.

We must make the Federal Government a friendly, vigilant defender of the rights and equalities of all Americans. And again I mean all Americans.

As Americans, we believe that every man should be free to live his life as he wishes. He should be limited only by his responsibility to his fellow countrymen. If this freedom is to be more than a dream, each man must be guaranteed equality of opportunity. The only limit to an American's achievement should be his ability, his industry, and his character. These rewards for his effort should be determined only by those truly relevant qualifies.

Our immediate task is to remove the last remnants of the barriers which stand between millions of our citizens and their birthright. There is no justifiable reason for discrimination because of ancestry, or religion, or race, or color.

We must not tolerate such limitations on the freedom of any of our people and on their enjoyment of basic rights which every citizen in a truly democratic society must possess.

Every man should have the right to a decent home, the right to an education, the right to adequate medical care, the right to a worthwhile job, the right to an equal share in making the public decisions through the ballot, and the fight to a fair trial in a fair court.

We must insure that these rights--on equal terms--are enjoyed by every citizen.

To these principles I pledge my full and continued support.

Many of our people still suffer the indignity of insult, the narrowing fear of intimidation, and, I regret to say, the threat of physical injury and mob violence. Prejudice and intolerance in which these evils are rooted still exist. The conscience of our Nation, and the legal machinery which enforces it, have not yet secured to each citizen full freedom from fear.

We cannot wait another decade or another generation to remedy these evils. We must work, as never before, to cure them now. The aftermath of war and the desire to keep faith with our Nation's historic principles make the need a pressing one.

The support of desperate populations of battle-ravaged countries must be won for the free way of life. We must have them as allies in our continuing struggle for the peaceful solution of the world's problems. Freedom is not an easy lesson to teach, nor an easy cause to sell, to peoples beset by every kind of privation. They may surrender to the false security offered so temptingly by totalitarian regimes unless we can prove the superiority of democracy.

Our case for democracy should be as strong as we can make it. It should rest on practical evidence that we have been able to put our own house in order.

For these compelling reasons, we can no longer afford the luxury of a leisurely attack upon prejudice and discrimination. There is much that State and local governments can do in providing positive safeguards for civil rights. But we cannot, any longer, await the growth of a will to action in the slowest State or the most backward community.

Our National Government must show the way.

This is a difficult and complex undertaking. Federal laws and administrative machineries must be improved and expanded. We must provide the Government with better tools to do the job. As a first step, I appointed an Advisory Committee on Civil Rights last December. Its members, fifteen distinguished private citizens, have been surveying our civil rights difficulties and needs for several months. I am confident that the product of their work will be a sensible and vigorous program for action by all of us.

We must strive to advance civil rights wherever it lies within our power. For example, I have asked the Congress to pass legislation extending basic civil rights to the people of Guam and American Samoa so that these people can share our ideals of freedom and self-government. This step, with others which will follow, is evidence to the rest of the world of our confidence in the ability of all men to build free institutions.

The way ahead is not easy. We shall need all the wisdom, imagination and courage we can muster. We must and shall guarantee the civil rights of all our citizens. Never before has the need been so urgent for skillful and vigorous action to bring us closer to our ideal.

We can reach the goal. When past difficulties faced our Nation we met the challenge with inspiring charters of human rights-the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Emancipation Proclamation. Today our representatives, and those of other liberty-loving countries on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, are preparing an International Bill of Rights. We can be confident that it will be a great landmark in man's long search for freedom since its members consist of such distinguished citizens of the world as Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt.

With these noble charters to guide us, and with faith in our hearts, we shall make our land a happier home for our people, a symbol of hope for all men, and a rock of security in a troubled world.

Abraham Lincoln understood so well the ideal which you and I seek today. As this conference closes we would do well to keep in mind his words, when he said,

"... if it shall please the Divine Being who determines the destinies of nations, we shall remain a united people, and we will, humbly seeking the Divine Guidance, make their prolonged national existence a source of new benefits to themselves and their successors, and to all classes and conditions of mankind."
Read entry | Discuss (6 comments) | Recommend (+7 votes)
Posted by ellisonz in General Discussion: Presidency
Fri Dec 02nd 2011, 05:10 AM
...there are a couple truths about successful politics that most politicians don't want to admit. There are two things that work and two that don't work in winning elections with a broad mandate.

1. People don't want to be fed platitudes and provocations for the sake of those two things alone.
2. People don't want to be fed the impression that you're more interested in beating the other guy than you are in working for them.

1. You can only state on a principles stand and how your particular position on policy is derived from in your own experience.
2. Never dismiss any group of voters out of hand and discount their belief that they are genuine in their convictions.

Avoid these two wrongs and do the two rights and you stand a damn good chance of being elected.

Howard Dean and Barack Obama both followed these basic rules and both have achieved their objectives to a reasonable extent. Dean lost the primary but took back the Democratic party. Obama won the presidency and is now poised to win a second term. It's important to note that their fund raising models are almost identical. They have a lot in common and worked together beautifully in 2008 in wiping the floor with John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Here's an example of how correctly practicing these principles works rhetorically:


Governor Howard Dean Announces His Candidacy for President - Burlington, Vermont, June 23, 2003

This is a campaign to unite and empower people everywhere.

It is a call to every American, regardless of party, to join together in common purpose and for the common good to save and restore all that it means to be an American.

Over a year ago I began to travel the country in the usual way one does when seeking the Presidency.

I believed that, by running for President, I could raise the issues of health care for every American and the need to focus on early childhood development. I wanted to bring those issues to the forefront of the national debate. And I wanted to balance the budget to bring financial stability and jobs back to America.

Most importantly, I have wanted my party to stand up for what we believe in again.

But something changed along the way as I listened to Americans around this country. On my first trip to Iowa I heard people speak of a profound fear and distrust of multi-national corporations. From New Hampshire to Texas I met Americans doubting the words of our leaders and our government in Washington. Every where I go people are asking fundamental questions: Who can we trust? Is the media reporting the truth? What is happening to our country?

The Americans I have met love their country. They believe deeply in its promise, our values and our principles. But they know something is wrong and they want to take action. They want to do something to right our path. But they feel Washington isn't listening. And as individuals, they lack the power to change the course those in Washington have put us on.

And Obama:

Obama Presidential Announcement - February 10, 2007 - Springfield, Illinois

Finally, there is one other thing that is not too late to get right about this war - and that is the homecoming of the men and women - our veterans - who have sacrificed the most. Let us honor their valor by providing the care they need and rebuilding the military they love. Let us be the generation that begins this work.

I know there are those who don't believe we can do all these things. I understand the skepticism. After all, every four years, candidates from both parties make similar promises, and I expect this year will be no different. All of us running for president will travel around the country offering ten-point plans and making grand speeches; all of us will trumpet those qualities we believe make us uniquely qualified to lead the country. But too many times, after the election is over, and the confetti is swept away, all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and the special interests move in, and people turn away, disappointed as before, left to struggle on their own.

That is why this campaign can't only be about me. It must be about us - it must be about what we can do together. This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams. It will take your time, your energy, and your advice - to push us forward when we're doing right, and to let us know when we're not. This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.

By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail.

Two different politicians, two different styles, but the substance of the speech is the same: we must unite to change the politics of our country because we ought to, because its the right thing to do, and I'm not going to do that by wavering in my fundamental personal principles or by making political calculations; this is destiny.

Of course they both had and still have no end of naysayers who think they didn't play the political game correctly because they transcended their political competition.

Now here are two unnamed examples of political rhetoric that doesn't work because they we're consistent in projecting the two aforementioned (I tried to pick one's people wouldn't recognize and I will post a link to the full texts if requested.)


1. People don't want to be fed platitudes and provocations for the sake of those two things alone.
2. People don't want to be fed the impression that you're more interested in beating the other guy than you are in working for them.

1. You can only state on a principles stand and how your particular position on policy is derived from in your own experience.
2. Never dismiss any group of voters out of hand and discount their belief that they are genuine.

We, the American people, must assert ourselves. In times of stress and peril in this country’s history, including world wars, a great depression, assassinations and attacks, other generations have put their differences aside, remembered their common beliefs and overcame great obstacles. And we've come out stronger and wiser for it. Now it’s our turn. No one person, including the President, has the ability or wisdom to singlehandedly solve these problems; nor does one Party. But together the American people do. These problems will be dealt with when our leaders come together, as adults, and honestly seek solutions that extend past the next election cycle. That will happen when -- and only when -- the American people demand it. Now you can do that at the ballot box and no election is more important than the one for President. And it demands a leader who understands this country, our people, and what America’s priorities ought to be.

Recently, I talked to a young Marine at Walter Reed Hospital. He had lost both legs in Iraq but was looking to the future. I asked him what he planned to do? He said he wanted to work with a nonprofit organization that was doing a lot to help people. Then he looked at me and said “I just thought it was time I gave something back.”

That young man, who's given so much for America, and yet still asks to give more, is typical of the men and women of the United States armed forces. Our country has shed more blood for the freedom of other people than all the other countries in the world combined. We are steeped in the tradition of honor and sacrifice for the greater good. We are proud of this heritage. I believe that Americans are once again ready to achieve this greater good: which is nothing less than the security, prosperity, and unity of our country.

That’s the belief that this campaign is based upon. I appreciate your support of this cause and any contribution you’re able to give. I’ll try to make you proud that you did it.

And another:

"I thank God for my mother's savings, the church scholarship, and the government loans that were the only way this Teamster's son could go to college. I want every child to have the chances I had, to go as far as their dreams and hard work can carry them.

"I'm not going to say what's fashionable in our politics -- that I'm a Washington outsider, that I couldn't find the nation's capitol on a map, that I have no experience in the highest levels of government. I do, and I think experience matters. It's what our nation needs right now.

"I'm not the political flavor of the month. I'm not the flashiest candidate around. But the fight for working families is in my bones. It's where I come from; it's been my life's work.

"With your help, we can take that fight to the most powerful office in the history of humankind. We can build an America where we grow together, instead of being pulled apart - where our economy's strong, because all our families are secure - where nobody's left out or left behind."

Most politicians say essentially the same things and it's really not so much what you say, but how you say it that determines whether or not you pass the authenticity test and are able to build a political movement to propel you to victory. People have to believe that you really mean what your saying. Following the contrived model of running a campaign like a Broadway theater production can only take you so far. The people want Shakespeare.

I hope you enjoyed my thoughts on political rhetoric and why Dean and Obama were so successful in achieving their goals.

Maybe I'll make this its own thread and see if people can guess the two anonymous speeches without cheating. Do you know who they are?
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by ellisonz in General Discussion
Fri Nov 18th 2011, 02:57 AM
And the best for Judith!

True Story: I was in Portland,OR sometime after the 2004 primaries for a lecture by the Doctor. He arrived late and at the end of it he was swarmed by people - with a Green Party member trying to engage him in debate over the usual nonsense as he tried to exit. I blurted out that I had volunteered for him. He stopped and made his way through the gaggle shook my hand and thanked me for my effort.

Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by ellisonz in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Feb 28th 2008, 03:56 PM
Not to start a mad dash to discredit who I am and what I stand for (please don't):

But I thought it was pretty cool (bragging rights):

I found out yesterday morning the second time they called (computer glitch).

to People Power!
Read entry | Discuss (163 comments) | Recommend (+83 votes)
Posted by ellisonz in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Feb 20th 2008, 06:01 AM
Preliminary final result for Hawai'i's Presidential Preference Poll

With 100% of all precincts reporting:

Congressional District One: total votes: 15,550

Barack Obama 11,536 74.19%
Hillary Clinton 3,925 25.24%

Congressional District Two: total votes: 21,876

Barack Obama 16,811 76.85%
Hillary Clinton 4,910 22.44%

Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards received an insufficient number of votes to qualify for a delegate.

This report is the final report of the evening.
Read entry | Discuss (31 comments) | Recommend (+7 votes)
Posted by ellisonz in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sun Feb 17th 2008, 09:38 PM
We got there around 930 AM and wait.

Strange Signs

The Hope fumes got to me quickly and I accidentally erased the close-up picture of tent sign: HOT OBAMAsadas


Cultists Waiting for Hope flavored OBAMAsadas

Congresscritter Neil Abercrombie begins the brainwashing

Biased Media Fawns

American Samoa Delegate Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin Faleomavaega, Jr. in strange (Indonesian) garb .

Maya Soetoro-Ng (Barack's half-sister) speaks in "deep, hearty voice" to the Obamabots.

The Obamaniacs swoon

No Hope For You?

Mt. Changehope

Kapio'lani Park - Est. Crowd Size - 200-250

Organized by "Obama 'Ohana" (community-family)

Read entry | Discuss (52 comments) | Recommend (+26 votes)
Posted by ellisonz in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Fri Feb 15th 2008, 06:54 PM
Posted on: Friday, February 15, 2008
Obama will break through gridlock
By U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie

I first met Sen. Barack Obama's father at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa campus soon after my arrival there following statehood in 1959. Barack Sr. had just arrived from a newly independent nation — Kenya. Everyone was drawn to his dynamic, energetic manner. His intellect was as brilliant as his smile; his personality was every bit as magnetic and charismatic as is his son's.

Shortly thereafter, Sen. Obama's mother appeared, scarcely 18, quiet yet intense in her demeanor, outwardly calm but possessed of an adventurous spirit and openness of heart toward everyone. They met and married, and in time, little Barry, as we knew him then, was born, perhaps destined to become president of the United States.

Barack Obama's story could not have started anywhere else in the world but Hawai'i. The values of the Sen. Obama we consider for the presidency this coming Tuesday are grounded in the aloha spirit. The foundation of his character was shaped by Hawai'i's multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society informed by the meaning of aloha. Above all, Sen. Obama embodies the message of Hawai'i to the world: Our diversity defines us rather than divides us.

That message is electrifying voters all across the nation. It is a message of unity, hope, optimism and promise. It accounts for the tidal wave of support Sen. Obama is building, which I trust will crest in Hawai'i.

Read entry | Discuss (25 comments) | Recommend (+12 votes)
Posted by ellisonz in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Tue Jan 22nd 2008, 06:54 AM
CLINTON: Well, you know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern.

Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote
'How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath?'

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 Posted: 10:10 AM EDT (1410 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

"How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?" the New York Democrat asked Tuesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen."


"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." /

But clearly it was a vote for if not war, the immenent threat of war...


(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

But I guess it is too tough to own up to the fact that your vote was tragically flawed and that is your responsibility alone given that 23 Senators disagreed with your vote (this was no Patriot Act):

MR. RUSSERT: Let me bring you back to October 10 of 2002, when the Senate had to vote on the authorization to go to war. This was Senator Clinton on the floor of the Senate.

(Videotape, October 10, 2002):

SEN. CLINTON: So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein, this is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Casting your vote for conviction for the authorization for use of military force against Iraq resolution. That same week Senator Obama gave a speech, and this is what he said: "I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors. ... I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that" "invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale" "without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

Who had the better judgment at that time?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, let's put this in context. You didn't show my entire speech--of course, you don't have time to do that--because I made it very clear that my vote was not a vote for preemptive war. I said that on the floor, I said it consistently after that. It was a vote to put inspectors back in to determine what threat Saddam Hussein did in fact pose. And in Senator Obama's recent book, he clearly says he thought that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and that he still coveted nuclear weapons. His judgment was that, at the time in 2002, we didn't need to make any efforts. My belief was we did need to pin Saddam down, put inspectors in. But I said I was against preemptive war, I spoke out against it.


MR. RUSSERT: Viewers can read the transcript from November 11 when I did talk to Senator Obama about this. He also added that from his vantage point, the administration had not made the case, but let people read it and make up their own minds.

I want to stay with your vote because that same day, Senator Levin offered an amendment, the Levin amendment, and this is how the New York Times reported it. "The amendment called ... for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed." ... Senator Levin said, "Allow Congress to vote only after exhausting all options with the United States." You did not participate in that vote. You voted against Carl Levin, who was saying give diplomacy a chance and yet you said no. You voted to authorize war. The resolution you voted for, Robert Byrd said was a blank check for George Bush. Ted Kennedy says it was a vote for war. James Carville and Paul Begala said anyone who says that vote wasn't a vote for war is bunk.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, if I had a lot of paper in front of me, I could quote people who say something very differently, so I know you're very good at this and I respect it, but let's look at the context here. Number one, the Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don't believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president.


MR. RUSSERT: Did he have better judgment in October of 2002?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, look, judgment is not a single snapshot. Judgment is what you do across the course of your life and your career.

MR. RUSSERT: A vote for war is a very important vote.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, we can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. You know, when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war, when I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, "if you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job," I was told that's exactly what we intended to do. Now, I think it's important to take a look at the entire context here. If Senator Obama's going to get credit for his speech and his position against the war, then he deserves to be asked what happened in '03, '04, '05, '06 and '07. I voted for the authorization...

MR. RUSSERT: I asked him those very questions...

SEN. CLINTON: And his answer was very political.

MR. RUSSERT: November.

SEN. CLINTON: I mean, his whole point is that he doesn't make political decisions.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me, let me ask you this way. Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian, I talked to her and she's been on MEET THE PRESS, talked about the qualities in a president. And she said one of the most important is that you learn from mistakes. Looking back on your vote in October of 2002, what can you learn from that mistake, the way you'll make decisions in the future?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I have said that obviously, I would never do again what George Bush did with that vote. He misused and abused the authority that was given to him, in my opinion. And we can't turn the clock back. I've taken responsibility for it. It was a sincere vote at the time, based on my assessment of, number one, what the potential, you know, risks might be if left unchecked, given the problems that we were facing in the world with global terrorism, and the hope that we would get inspectors back in to figure out what had been going on since '98. We hadn't had inspectors since '98. I, I would not have given President Bush the authority if I knew he would deliberately misuse and abuse it. And as I said, I was told by the White House personally that the point of the authority was to send a very clear message to Saddam Hussein that he was going to have to be held accountable finally, that we would know once and for all what he had there that could be used as he had used it in the past.

But you know, Tim, I think that it's only fair to look at the entire context, because, you know,I was against a preemptive war. I said at the time that would be a mistake. Obviously, President Bush doesn't listen to me or a lot of other people,and unfortunately, we're in the situation we are now, and we're going to have to have very careful and steady leadership to get us out with the least amount of damage.

Dear Hillary,

It is not a Jesuitical argument to debate the merits of the ability to make the correct decision on whether or not to support unlimited military intervention in a hostile foreign nation. Why can't you own up to the fact that it was a vote for war and that even Chuck Hagel, who you try to hide behind, realized it was a vote for war. In his floor speech of October 9th, 2002 he states very clearly that this was most likely not a vote for diplomacy but a vote for war:

However, Iraq, because of its resources, geography, capabilities, history, and people, offers even more complications and greater peril and, yes, greater opportunities and greater promise. This is the vast unknown, the heavy burden that lies ahead.

The Senate should not cast a vote in the hopes of putting Iraq behind us so we can get back to our campaigns or move on to other issues next year. The decision to possibly commit a nation to war cannot and should not ever be considered in the context of either party loyalty or campaign politics. I regret that this vote will take place under the cloud and pressure of elections next month. Some are already using the Iraq issue to gain advantage in political campaigns. It might have been better for our vote to have been delayed until after the elections, as it was in 1990. Authorizing the use of force against Iraq or any country for any purpose should always be weighed on its own merits, not with an eye on the politics of the vote or campaign TV spots. War is too serious, the human price too high, and the implications unforeseen.

While I cannot predict the future, I believe that what we decide in this Chamber this week will influence America's security and role in the world for the coming decades. It will serve as the framework, both intentionally and unintentionally, for the future. It will set in motion a series of actions and events that we cannot now understand or control.

In authorizing the use of force against Iraq, we are at the beginning of a road that has no clear end. The votes in Congress this week are votes for an intensification of engagement with Iraq and the Middle East, a world of which we know very little and whose destiny will now be directly tied to ours.

The Iraq War Resolution was not a vote for war? Give me a break! It might be politically easier for you then to actually accept responsibility for your vote and not just habitually lie about what most of us know to be truly false. John Edwards has apologized. John Kerry has apologized. Chuck Hagel has said that Iraq is "an absolute replay of Vietnam" and that "we have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion." I presume that includes the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.


Read entry | Discuss (32 comments) | Recommend (+11 votes)
Posted by ellisonz in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Thu Oct 25th 2007, 04:05 AM
Steve Lopez:
He won't say 'I told you so . . .'
October 24, 2007

Former San Diego fire Chief Jeff Bowman, who repeatedly warned that his city wasn't prepared to handle major fires, is out back of his house near Escondido at 7 a.m., watching the smoke come over a ridge and wondering if he'll lose everything he's got.


There's no way to adequately staff for fires of this magnitude, Bowman says, and he doesn't want to turn so much scorched earth and misery into an I-told-you-so speech. But as we drive to get his mother, he can't help but go over some of the facts.

Although the city of San Diego has a fire department, the county doesn't, leaving many suburban and rural areas to rely on volunteer departments. The city has but one firefighting helicopter and just 975 firefighters for 330 square miles and 1.3 million residents.

Compare that, he says, with San Francisco, which has 1,600 firefighters for 60 square miles and 850,000 people.


Read entry | Discuss (5 comments) | Recommend (+2 votes)
Posted by ellisonz in Political Videos
Sat Jul 07th 2007, 07:26 AM

1. I do not consent to ANY searches.
2. Am I free to go?
3. I have nothing to say until I speak with my lawyer.

Be courteous. Do not lie. Do not violently resist.
Read entry | Discuss (11 comments) | Recommend (+9 votes)
Posted by ellisonz in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sat Jun 30th 2007, 04:46 AM
The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. in St. Louis on April 10, 1957:

There are three basic attitudes that one can take toward the question of progress in the area of race relations. And the first attitude that can be taken is that of extreme optimism. Now the extreme optimist would argue that we have come a long, long way in the area of race relations. He would point proudly to the marvelous strides that have been made in the area of civil rights over the last few decades. From this he would conclude that the problem is just about solved, and that we can sit comfortably by the wayside and wait on the coming of the inevitable.

The second attitude that one can take toward the question of progress in the area of race relations is that of extreme pessimism. The extreme pessimist would argue that we have made only minor strides in the area of race relations. He would argue that the rhythmic beat of the deep rumblings of discontent that we hear from the Southland today is indicative of the fact that we have created more problems than we have solved. He would say that we are retrogressing instead of progressing. He might even turn to the realms of an orthodox theology and argue that hovering over every man is the tragic taint of original sin and that at bottom human nature can not be changed. He might even turn to the realms of modern psychology and seek to show the determinative effects of habit structures and the inflexibility of certain attitudes that once become molded in one's being. (Yes) From all of this he would conclude that there can be no progress in the area of race relations. (Alright, Alright)

Now you will notice that the extreme optimist and the extreme pessimist have at least one thing in common: they both agree that we must sit down and do nothing in the area of race relations. (Yes) The extreme optimist says do nothing because integration is inevitable. The extreme pessimist says do nothing because integration is impossible. But there is a third position that is another attitude that can be taken, and it is what I would like to call the realistic position. The realist in the area of race relations seeks to reconcile the truths of two opposites while avoiding the extremes of both. (Yeah) So the realist would agree with the optimist that we have come a long, long way. But, he would go on to balance that by agreeing with the pessimist that we have a long, long way to go. (Amen) And it is this basic theme that I would like to set forth this evening. We have come a long, long way (Yes) but we have a long, long way to go. (Amen)

Now let us notice first that we've come a long, long way. You will remember that it is was in the year of 1619 that the Negro slaves first landed on the shores of this nation. They were brought here from the shores of Africa. Unlike the Pilgrim fathers who landed at Plymouth a year later, they were brought here against their wills. Throughout slavery the Negro was treated in a very inhuman fashion. He was a thing to be used, not a person to be respected. (Yeah, That's Right) He was merely, he was merely a depersonalized cog in a vast plantation machine. (Yeah) The famous Dred Scott decision of 1857 well illustrates the status of the Negro during slavery. For it was in this decision that the Supreme Court of the nation said, in substance, that the Negro is not a citizen of this nation. He is merely property subject to the dictates of his owner. Living under these conditions many Negroes lost faith in themselves. Many came to feel that perhaps they were less than human. So long as the Negro accepted this place assigned to him, so long as the Negro patiently accepted injustice and exploitation, a sort of racial peace was maintained.

But it was an uneasy peace. (Yeah) It was a negative peace in which the Negro was forced patiently to accept injustice and exploitation. For you see, true peace is not merely the absence of some negative force, but it is a presence of some positive force. (Amen) I think that is what Jesus meant when one day his disciples stood before him with their glittering eyes, wanting to hear something good, and Jesus looked at them and said, in no uncertain terms, "Brethren, I come not to bring peace, but a sword." He didn't mean, "I come to bring a physical sword. He didn't mean, "I come not to bring positive peace." What Jesus is saying, "I come not to bring this old negative peace which makes for deadening passivity and stagnant complacently. And whenever I come a conflict is precipitated between the old and the new. (Yes) Whenever I come, (Yes) there is a lashing out between justice and injustice. (Yes) Whenever I come, (Yes) there is a division between the forces of light and the forces of darkness." (Yes) Peace is not merely the absence of tension, but it is the presence of justice. (Yes) And the peace which existed at that time was a negative, obnoxious peace devoid of any positive meaning.

Read entry | Discuss (2 comments) | Recommend (+1 votes)
Posted by ellisonz in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat Jun 23rd 2007, 02:40 AM
"America" itself is an imperialist crusade and from there on it's been straight down hill in terms of humanism.

D.W. Griffith - The Clansman - "Birth of a Nation" - 1915.

William Howard Taft on a Water Buffalo - Philippines - 1904.

Basically: Conquest > Colonialism > "Manifest Destiny" > Consumption > Imperialism > Fascism

Bury My Heart at

Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by ellisonz in Political Videos
Thu Jun 21st 2007, 06:55 AM

Read entry | Discuss (1 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by ellisonz in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Mon Jun 18th 2007, 06:55 AM

By Tom Oliphant

"Richard Nixon is a no good , lying bastard.
He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the
same time, and if he ever caught himself
telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in."

-Harry S Truman

"Richard Nixon has never been one of my favorite people anyway. For years I've regarded his existence as a monument to all the rancid genes and broken chromosomes that corrupt the possibilities of the American Dream; he was a foul caricature of himself, a man with no soul, no inner convictions, with the integrity of a hyena and the style of a poison toad. The Nixon I remembered was absolutely humorless; I couldn't imagine him laughing at anything except maybe a paraplegic who wanted to vote Democratic but couldn't quite reach the lever on the voting machine."

-Hunter S. Thompson, Pageant (July 1968)

Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by ellisonz in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sun Jun 17th 2007, 06:30 PM
But I will say, like Bernie Sander's I've simply stopped identifying as a liberal because of so much of this and self-identify as a Socialist in Democratic Party clothing. I don't think there's that much per say wrong with a well-of liberal party. The problem becomes when that perception of "elitism" forces us away from our core principles, for example the recent immigration debate i.e. the New Southern Strategy. What exactly is Tabbibi's solution? A label change to progressive?

I will say though that Tabbibi clearly does not know his history and is making a largely rhetorical argument. The claim: "They haven’t yet come up with something to replace the synergy of patrician and middle-class interests that the New Deal represented," completely misrepresents the genesis of the New Deal in the face of the "the business of America is business" crowd of the GOP. The Roosevelt's although the Right-wing has always tried to portray them as hypocrites, did an enormous amount that truly did benefit all Americans. So although I advocate revolutionary tactics in some instances, I believe that this country can change, because it has changed both in favor of racial pluralism on some level and in favor of social mobility on some level. Ultimately, this disconnect between the understanding of the history of this country and the conditions of the present public discursive corrupts the basic premise of the article i.e. that something is wrong with the label of "liberalism."

Consider the following passage: "That, in sum, is why I don’t call myself a liberal. To me the word “liberalism” describes an era whose time is past, a time when a liberal was defined more by who he was fighting against – the Man – than what he was fighting for. A liberal wielding power is always going to seem a bit strange because a liberal always imagines himself in an intrepid fight against power, not holding it. I therefore prefer the word “progressive,” which describes in a neutral way a set of political values without having these class or aesthetic connotations. To me a progressive is not fighting Mom and Dad, Nixon, Bush or really any people at all, but things – political corruption, commercialism, pollution, etc. It doesn’t have that same Marxian us-versus-them connotation that liberalism still has, sometimes ridiculously. It’s about goals, not people."

Matt Tabbibi this is not about goals or perceptions, this is about people, and liberalism throughout it's history has always been about people. Matt Tabbibi exemplifies exactly what he is railing against, and that is just sad. Cho Seung-Hui and Matt Tabbibi have one key thing in common. As much as they rail against their own "victim-complex" (shades of Larry Elder), they are perfectly willing to play it out as they have concieved it; everyone is a victim.

I frankly believe this book should be the "official" book of DU:

If you're still reading this,
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
Random Journal
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.