GM Stamping Plant Local 23 workers have a contract which says they keep their wages at the same level if the plant is sold. They've voted overwhelmingly not to reopen their contract. The UAW bureaucracy went ahead and renegotiated their contract, and then called a meeting at Local 23's hall. This is what happened.
The US had chosen who to back in Pakistan, and that was Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Not surprisingly, it's blown up in our faces. We have no idea where things will lead, but the world is an ever more dangerous place tonight. With an unstable Afghanistan on one border, Iran on another, longtime rivals India on another and China on the fourth, the instability that this adds could lead to a regional war involving the world's two most populace countries (and Pakistan is no slouch at over 164 million people).
And so comes the voice of Dennis Kucinich:
MANCHESTER, NH - Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich issued the following statement this morning after hearing the news of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto:
"This is a very dangerous moment for the world. Prime Minister Bhutto represented the forces of reform and the hope for an end to repression in a troubled region, and her death is a major loss to those efforts."
"This terrible tragedy also underscores the need for the United States to adopt a new foreign policy toward the entire region because our current policy is all wrong. Our interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan has opened wide the doors of repression and violence. At this very moment, we should be working with leaders of the region to convene a meeting at the highest levels to begin a new effort towards stabilization and peace."
"The United States must take a new direction in Pakistan and throughout the region. I met her several times, both in Washington and New York. She was deeply and genuinely dedicated to Pakistan. This is a tragic loss."
The question, I suppose, is would the leaders in the volatile region be willing to meet, and if so would they be willing to work toward finding an agreement that meets the needs of all of their people, reguardless of how it relates to the US's involvement in the region. My guess is that it will be best for the US to stand aside.
Dec. 11, 2007 | He may be eating the front-runners' dust in the polls, but among deep green voters, Dennis Kucinich is considered a trailblazer. A Democratic U.S. representative from Cleveland, Kucinich is calling for a radical overhaul of the U.S. government and economy -- one that would infuse every agency in the executive branch with a sustainability agenda, phase out coal and nuclear power entirely, and call on every American to ratchet down their resource consumption and participate in a national conservation program.
It's a good article and gives us even more reason to support Dennis!
Although he's still unhappy with a children's health insurance plan adopted by Congress, Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich said today that he's planning to vote to override President Bush's veto of the bill "because I think that the president has to be held to an accounting." http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/10/...
Dennis had voted for the original House version of the SCHIP renewal. He voted against the compromise bill because it removed coverage for legal immigrant children.
"What do you do when a child is sick?" Kucinich said. "Do you ask the child for their papers, for their documentation? What's happening to America when we take that kind of approach?"
With Kucinich's decision, the House leadership needs to find roughly 14 votes to override the veto from President Bush.
The magic number of votes Pelosi will need is a bit of a moving target at this point, depending on how many lawmakers are present for the vote. There are currently two open seats vacated by a death and a retirement, meaning if all 433 current members voted Democrats need 289 votes to win.
During the vote on final passage last week, the House voted 265-159 in favor of the legislation, with one "present" vote and eight lawmakers absent. At least two of those eight -- GOP Reps. Jo Ann Davis (Va.) and Barbara Cubin (Wyo.) -- have been ill and have not attended votes in quite a while, making it likely they won't be on hand for the SCHIP override vote. That would lower the override threshold to 287 votes in favor, out of 431 total lawmakers voting. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-bri...
Asoka (c. 300-232 BCE) was born into the Mauryan royal family. After his father’s death, he became in 270 BCE the ruler of an empire extending from Afghanistan to Bengal, and covering the Ganges plain and the Deccan plateau. He pushed out the boundaries of his empire during the next decade, conquering Kalinga in 262 BCE. In this way he unified nearly all of India under his rule. He converted to Buddhism in 260 BCE and thenceforth propagated ideals of tolerance, equality, and public service.
Kalinga was conquered by King Asoka after he had been crowned for eight years. One hundred and fifty thousand persons were thence carried away captive, one hundred thousand were there slain, and many times that number perished.
Directly after the annexation of Kalinga, began King Asoka’s zealous protection of the Dharma , his love of that law, and his giving instruction in that law. Thus arose King Asoka’s remorse for having conquered Kalinga, because the conquest of a country previously unconquered involves the slaughter, death and carrying away of people as captives. This is a matter of profound sorrow and regret to his majesty.
Rock Edict XIII
Asoka, grandson of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_... Chandragupta Maurya, chose to forsake war after his conquest of the Kalinga. On the battlefield, 100,000 men laid dead and 150,000 were led away captive. Thik of it. Over 250,000 soldiers had their lives ruined in one battle. I think most of us would shatter at the result. Asoka forsook war and instead took up the teachings of dharma and instituted one of the most humane kingships in the history of mankind.
King Asoka, the third monarch of the Indian Mauryan dynasty, has come to be regarded as one of the most exemplary rulers in world history. The British historian H.G. Wells has written: "Amidst the tens of thousands of names of monarchs that crowd the columns of history ... the name of Asoka shines, and shines almost alone, a star." Although Buddhist literature preserved the legend of this ruler -- the story of a cruel and ruthless king who converted to Buddhism and thereafter established a reign of virtue -- definitive historical records of his reign were lacking. Then in the nineteenth century there came to light a large number of edicts, in India, Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan. These edicts, inscribed on rocks and pillars, proclaim Asoka's reforms and policies and promulgate his advice to his subjects. The present rendering of these edicts, based on earlier translations, offers us insights into a powerful and capable ruler's attempt to establish an empire on the foundation of righteousness, a reign which makes the moral and spiritual welfare of his subjects its primary concern. The Australian bhikkhu Ven. S. Dhammika, the compiler of the present work, is the spiritual director of the Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society in Singapore.
In our day, we can look to Asoka and see someone who rejected warfare as a way to advance policy. We know that Dick and W haven't, and I can only imagine that if they looked upon a battlefield with 100,000 dead (or more) they would see only success. To be honest, the http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll513.xm... 411 House members (minus DK and RP) and the http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/relea... 97 Senate members who haven't received the memo on we the people wanting peace would probably see the same.
Today, we do have a peace candidate for President. His name is Dennis Kucinich. He's the man who's offered us the promise of a http://www.thepeacealliance.org / US Department of Peace and Nonviolence through http://www.thepeacealliance.org/files/outr... H R 808. Those of us who have read the postings in the 'progressive' blogosphere know that this idea has been pilloried by many members of this community, including http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/2... our Great Orange Overlord.
To my mind, there is no greater search than the search for peace. It is why I support Dennis Kucinich and not the other candidates. I know that Dennis will work for peace with every fiber of his being. I don't know that of the other candidates. When asked at one of the debates if they would attack Bin Laden if there were to be innocents killed. Here's the answer:
Yesterday, there was a post asking Hillary supporters to justify their support of her. I followed that up with a posting asking the same of Kucinich supporters. Now, since someone suggested it in a comment in the Kucinich posting, I'm asking Edwards supporters to give their reasons for supporting John!
Since there's a recent post by someone asking for Hillary supporters to explain their support, I thought it might be a good idea to have one with Dennis!
So, why do you support Dennis?
Here're some of my reasons:
Right on Iraq and has never voted to fund the Iraq War! Right on Impeachment! Right on Universal Single Payer Not for Profit Health Care! Right on the Green Economy! Right on Infrastructure Repair! Right on Worker's Rights! Right on the Department of Peace and Nonviolence! Right on a new WPA and the WGA! Right on Free Education from K - University! Right on International Relations! Right on pulling out of NAFTA! Right on pulling out of the WTO! Right on not being fooled by Dick and W!
There are many other reasons, but these are the beginnings of why I support Dennis Kucinich for president!
We hear of many plans to get out of Iraq, with some leaving many of our soldiers still in Iraq. For me, the best plan that I have seen is http://www2.kucinich.us/iraqplan HR 1234, Dennis Kucinich's 12 point plan to end the war and occupation in Iraq.
In case any of you didn't know, Dennis was one of the leaders in fighting against our going to war against Iraq. Here's a video to give you an idea of his leadership on the issue:
(1) The insurgency in Iraq has been fueled by the United States occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent United States military bases.
2) A United States declaration of an intention to withdraw United States troops and close military bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight aggressors and those who have supported United States policy.
(3) A United States declaration of an intention to withdraw United States troops and close military bases will provide an opening in which parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations toward a peaceful settlement in Iraq.
(4) The cost of withdrawing United States troops from Iraq could be as low as $10 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office.
(5) A United States shift in policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the situation in Iraq.
(6) The United Nations is best equipped to build a political consensus in Iraq through the crafting of a political agreement.
(7) The end of the occupation of Iraq creates a political environment that enables the world community to assist the United States in an orderly transition.
(8) The United Nations is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize peacekeeping troops.
(9) The United Nations can implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation of Iraq and begin the transition to international peacekeepers.
(10) The United Nations can field an international security and peacekeeping mission, but such a mission cannot take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties.
(11) Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi Government, with the assistance of the international community.
(12) Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the United States occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution.
(13) There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq.
(14) A reconciliation process that brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences.
(15) It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds.
(16) The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the United Nations and with the participation of parties that can create, participate in, and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances.
(17) The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process.
(18) All factions and all insurgents not associated with al-Qaeda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks, Syrians, and Iranians.
(19) Achieving peace requires a process of international truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq.
(20) A reparations program to assist Iraqis is essential to enable reconciliation.
The goals, or the 12 steps are (with quotes directly from the plan page in blockquotes):
1) The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw.
This will have the effect of telling the Iraqis we are leaving, and that they will actually need to come to some sort of workable government. It will, hopefully, encourage the three main factions to work for a stable government once we leave.
2)US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home.
The Congress has appropriated enough money to bring the troops home. The announcement will tell the war supporters that it's time to give up their hopes of our domination of Iraq and it's oil.
3) Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government.
The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.
Both Iraqis and Americans should be glad to hear this. Iraqi money will go toward the reconstruction of Iraq, while Americans will, hopefully, no longer need to worry about the corruption which has been inherrent in the reconstruction process so far.
It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in Baghdad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.
4) Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq.
It is in the interests of Iraq's neighbors that Iraq be stable. The regional conference will help to plan Iraq's transition to stability. This should not be a conference where the US trys to dictate the outcome.
The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.
5) According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home.
As our forces leave, an international force (probably mainly Arab) will come in to replace us. The US will help to fund the peacekeeping force.
According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops.
6) Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation.
This is one of the keys to the whole process. If Iraqis are reconciled with each other, then a viable Iraqi state is possible. Kurds and Shia had a great deal of repression during the Saddam era. Sunnis have had many killed during the insurgency. Reconcilliation gives each side a chance to mend the fences. Forgiveness may be impossible, but for people to know what happened and why will go a great way toward allowing the Iraqi peoples to live together in peace.
7) Reconstruction and Jobs.
Need any more be said?
8) Reparations.
The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.
9) Political Sovereignty.
Any attempt to impose any sort of outside control on the Iraqis is bound to fail. Iraq must have control of it's own destiny, and not be a vassal state for any of the regional powers.
10) Iraq Economy.
Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.
11) Economic Sovereignty.
This means helping to keep Iraq from falling prey to the neoliberal concensus and the stictures of the World Bank or the IMF. Iraq has great wealth, particularly in oil, and that wealth should be used to help rebuild the Iraqi state and Iraqi society.
12) International Truth and Reconciliation.
Iraq and the United States and it's allies must work to allow the world to know what led to this tragedy. International truth and reconcilliation will work to help us all come to terms with what we were a part of, whether under the umbrella of the United States or Iraq.
We have the power to end the occupation of Iraq by saying to the Bush administration that there will be no more funding for the occupation. The time to end the debacle is now, and HR 1234 presents a strong basis to end the war and help Iraq stabilize and become a citizen of the world community again.
As many of you know, Dennis Kucinich is campaigning, in part, upon a platform to add a cabinet level US Department of Peace. What exactly is Dennis getting at, and why would he make this a centerpiece of his campaign for Strength Through Peace?
First off, here's a short list of what a US Department of Peace will work toward:
A Department of Peace will work to:
-- Provide much-needed assistance to efforts by city, county, and state governments in coordinating existing programs; as well as develop new programs based on best practices nationally
-- Teach violence prevention and mediation to America's school children
-- Effectively treat and dismantle gang psychology
-- Rehabilitate the prison population
-- Build peace-making efforts among conflicting cultures both here and abroad
-- Support our military with complementary approaches to peace-building.
-- Create and administer a U.S. Peace Academy, acting as a sister organization to the U.S. Military Academy.
The Peace Alliance page makes other good points, including
The problem of violence is a many layered one, and its solution will be, as well. While no one action -- governmental or otherwise -- will provide a single solution to such an entrenched and deeply rooted problem, we must treat the problem itself as an all-systems breakdown requiring an all-systems response.
The campaign to establish a U.S. Department of Peace is only one aspect of a fundamental response to the problem of violence, but it is critical. It represents an important collective effort, as American citizens, to do everything we possibly can to save the world for our children's children.
www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/278/... H. R. 808, to establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence, is the current bill in the House to create the US Department of Peace and Nonviolence. The bill itself has the following findings as it framework:
(1) On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress unanimously declared the independence of the 13 colonies, and the achievement of peace was recognized as one of the highest duties of the new organization of free and independent States.
(2) In declaring, `We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness', the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World, derived the creative cause of nationhood from `the Laws of Nature' and the entitlements of `Nature's God', such literal referrals in the Declaration of Independence thereby serving to celebrate the unity of human thought, natural law, and spiritual causation.
(3) The architects of the Declaration of Independence `with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence' spoke to the connection between the original work infusing principle into the structure of a democratic government seeking to elevate the condition of humanity, and the activity of a higher power which moves to guide the Nation's fortune.
(4) The Constitution of the United States of America, in its Preamble, further sets forth the insurance of the cause of peace in stating: `We the People of the United States, in Order to Form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.'
(5) The Founders of this country gave America a vision of freedom for the ages and provided people with a document which gave this Nation the ability to adapt to an undreamed of future.
(6) It is the sacred duty of the people of the United States to receive the living truths of our founding documents and to think anew to develop institutions that permit the unfolding of the highest moral principles in this Nation and around the world.
(7) During the course of the 20th century, more than 100,000,000 people perished in wars, and now, at the dawn of the 21st century, violence seems to be an overarching theme in the world, encompassing personal, group, national, and international conflict, extending to the production of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction which have been developed for use on land, air, sea, and in space.
(8) Such conflict is often taken as a reflection of the human condition without questioning whether the structures of thought, word, and deed which the people of the United States have inherited are any longer sufficient for the maintenance, growth, and survival of the United States and the world.
(9) Promoting a culture of peace has been recognized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) through passage of a resolution declaring an International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children 2001-2010. The objective is to further strengthen the global movement for a culture of peace following the observance of the International Year for the Culture of Peace in 2000.
(10) We are in a new millennium, and the time has come to review age-old challenges with new thinking wherein we can conceive of peace as not simply being the absence of violence, but the active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of the human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity; wherein we all may tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions which impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward developing a new understanding of, and a commitment to, compassion and love, in order to create a `shining city on a hill', the light of which is the light of nations.
For each of us, US Department of Peace and Nonviolence offers a chance for us to strive for the betterment of mankind. While the Deparment of State allows us to negotiate with other countries, and the Defense Department oversees our military power, we do not have a specific department to seek out peaceful resolutions to the problems of violence in the world and in our country. The US Department of Peace and Nonviolence will work toward stopping violence before it becomes an international problem. It will also work to help the citizens of this country find the answers to the violence that in many cases is wrecking our country. Here are some of the www.thepeacealliance.org/content/blogcateg... Solutions at Work which a US Department of Peace and Nonviolence may follow and encourage once it is in place.
If you need any encouragement, or need an idea as to why we might need such a Department, watch this video:
They're coming to you blog, to your diary, to your comment section. That's right! It's the Invasion of the Kossack Snatchers. They're here to take away your vote! They're the Memeiban!
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - meme –noun a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes. Meme from Dictionary.com
We've all read them, haven't we? They're the ones who tell you that your vote doesn't count unless you vote the conventional wisdom. Just when you think it's going to be ok, suddenly they strike and try to ruin everything. They're at their worst when they try to be smooth in they're demand that you don't vote you conscience. You know what it's like:
It's impossible that the candidate that best fits your beliefs can win. Come and be unified with us! It's not that I don't agree with his/her positions, it's just that there's no chance for him to win. Come and be unified with us! Your candidate is batshit insane. Come and be unified with us! Your candidate is too short. Come and be unified with us! Your candidate talks about strange things like love! Love doesn't belong in politics. Come and be unified with us (no love allowed)! And they try to pull you toward the right, toward the mushy middle. And it looks so inviting there in the center of the great Bell Curve. There are so many pod...ummm...I mean people there, aren't there? And their mantra is so inviting: Come and be unified with us! COME and be UNIFIED with US! COME AND BE UNIFIED WITH US!
But you're strong enough to fight them (unless, of course, you've joined their sameness)! And when you look into the pit of the Bell Curve, you realize that there seem to be differences in the Memeiban members! You listen to them and it comes to you in a flash. There are two types of people in that group:
A) The Pod People! That's right, Pod People. They're the ones who aren't truely the Memeiban, but good people like you. They may even have fought not to become a Memeiban member, but they weren't strong enough, or they ran with the wrong crowd and weren't able to extract themselves quickly enough. Is there hope for the Pod People? Yes! But only if you help the resistance to the real Memeiban!
B) The Adherents! These dastardly villans want only to have you join with them and be unified! They think that they know the true path to electoral satisfaction: Joining them and being unified! Adherents are notorious for grunting "Ugh" whenever faced with a true progressive candidate! It's a way to single them out from the Pod People. They're notorious pack members, for why else would they want you to join them and be unified? They used to hide under the banner DLC, but they have found that their tactics have soured most good progressives and so they have abandoned that tactic. Now they have infiltrated the progressive community and demand that you join them and be unified!
The only way to defeat the Memeiban is to ignore their siren call!
The only hope against the Memeiban is to resist them. Their power is in their unity! The only hope for the Pod People is to break their unity! The only way to break their unity is to vote your conscience! It's either that or be assimilated!
From Dictionary.com, here's some definitions for capitulation:
1. the act of capitulating.
2. the document containing the terms of a surrender.
3. a list of the headings or main divisions of a subject; a summary or enumeration.
4. Often, capitulations. a treaty or agreement by which subjects of one country residing or traveling in another are extended extraterritorial rights or special privileges, esp. such a treaty between a European country and the former Ottoman rulers of Turkey.
These are the 16 senators who chose to capitulate on the FISA bill last night.
Of the 233 Democratic members of the House, only 181 members voted against the FISA capitulation bill. That means that there were 52 Democrats who either voted for the capitulation bill or chose not to vote.
For those who voted for this bill, I personally will give no support for them. As far as I'm concerned:
1) They are Democrats in name only. They should be thrown out of the party. This isn't purity, this is about allowing the government to spy on it's own people. Period. If they choose to let this corrupt and criminal administration spy on us, they should join the party that supports such actions.
2) We don't have a majority in either house of Congress. We should start today by running Democrats and progressives against each person calling themselves Democrats in the primaries, and as independents as the case may be (I think some congressional candidates are still selected by convention rather than primaries in some states).
3) We shouldn't support the national Democratic fundraising organizations. We have ActBlue and similar ways of supporting true Democrats. Supporting the national Democratic organizations allows some of our monies to go to people who are Democrats in name only. If the Democratic Progessive Caucus wishes to set up a fundraising arm in lieu of the general national party fundraising apparatus, and it pledges not to dontate to Democrats in name only, then I would support such a fundraising arm.
4) We need to realize that a D next to a person's name doesn't automatically make them progressive or make them fit for support from progressives. I support the Democratic Party being a progressive party, I'll even support moderate Democrats. I will not support Democrats in name only that choose to support the current administration. It looks like none of our presidential candidates supported this capitulation, so I'll be able to support whoever wins in the current nominating cycle.
The fun from the 2006 elections was an illusion. We've seen it before and hoped it wasn't true, but the last two days should shatter any illusions we had. It's time to work for a Democratic Party that stands for the people of this country. I think we've had a good start, but we're not nearly as far along as we thought we were.
Update: Changed 178 to 181 Dems voting against the bill.
These are the Democratic ( 'cause they're Dems in name only) Senators who voted for the FISA capitulation. As I write, it looks as if the House is about to take up the bill. Perhaps they will show the spine that would have taken only one of those senators, and defeat the bill. I have my doubts, but I'll hope untill it passes.
Even so, perhaps it is time that progressives stop looking at the D next to a candidate's name. We clearly can't trust the Senate to pursue progressive goals. The Dems who voted for the capitulation deserve neither our votes or our money, and I for one will not support Evan Bayh (my senator) in any attempt to be re-elected. I would suggest that we as progressives should look to support those progressives who run for office, reguardless of if they are Dems or not. Now, I do intend to support Dems where I can in the upcoming electoral cycle. I will not support the senators or house members who support the FISA capitulation (Sylvester Reyes should be ashamed of himself). I will not support those members of congress who will not support the impeachment of Dick Cheney and then George W. Bush. Each time the Democrats captiulate to the administration they lose more of my support.
I'll support Dennis Kucinich and true progressives who run to move our country forward.
'cause they're Dems in name only) Senators who voted for the FISA capitulation. As I write, it looks as if the House is about to take up the bill. Perhaps they will show the spine that would have taken only one of those senators, and defeat the bill. I have my doubts, but I'll hope untill it passes.
