What is an Independent?

Independent = the silent majority.

30 million voters in a country with 300 million people.

Kinda makes you wonder what all those other 270 million people are thinking.

I am not an Independent in that I can not vote for a Republican because they are in the party of the Bush Administration. As a Democrat, I can not vote "straight ticket" any more if there are people like Lieberman on the ballot (had he not switched to "Independent"). I would consider voting for an Independent candidate but not if it was a close election and he or she would push out a Democrat in favor of a Republican yet still lose. That would be someone like Nader, a "spoiler."

Ross Perot was a viable candidate and did well and there were less independents then than there are now. An Independent candidate with broad appeal could be formidable right now. There was a surge in voting by Independents in the late 1970s and early 1980s and I think it had something to do with the way Reagan was marketed. I had also heard that alot of Dems switched to Independent after the Clinton scandal and if so, it's possible to get at least some of them back (or to vote Dem-leaning), which seems to already have happened in 2008.

Notice that Independents didn't overwhelmingly like Hillary Clinton but went toward Edwards or Obama. Throw someone like Bloomberg in the mix to pull them away and things could get interesting.

One promising thing is that Republicans are the smallest group. How in the world did they win elections? Minority disenfranchisement. Redistricting. Big money & promises. Propaganda and negative campaigns. Diebold. Coalitions (such as religious right + traditional conservatives + neocon hawks + conservative libertarians).

I am telling you now, if our party can pull Edwards into the slot, he will sweep the entire nation, even the Deep South.

He is a cross party phenomenon. Obama can settle for VP.

Hillary just needs to be ignored until she can figure out how to quit waffling and vying for position on EVERY major issue.

I do like Hillary, I just won't vote for her.

Are yall ready to Rumble?

Conyers said the White House had failed to communicate with him about its intent to defy Congress. “Well, I’m glad The Post finds out about what the president plans to do before anybody just gives us a call. We’re going to pursue our legal remedies to press forward with the subpoenas.”

Asked by host George Stephanopoulos if “that means holding the White House in contempt of Congress?” “Well, yes,” Conyers responded. “It means moving forward in the process that would require him to comply with the subpoenas like most other people.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/08/conyers-libby-hearing/#comments

I will vote for Hillary if she takes the nomination. So far I have not made a selection and I will not do so until I have heard all of the candidates in person and reviewed their records, which I don't feel like doing for quite awhile.

The Road Home
It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

•

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.

A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

***********

[snip]

["In observing the 'fair use' of copyright material, please use excerpts when posting information that is not your own work if you do not have permission from the owner."]

***********

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08sun1.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=print

Notice how they never once mentioned their role in letting georgies TREASON play out on their pages?

The Blame Georgie For EVERYTHING game has began.

Oh goodie!

I will not vote for Hillary. Period.

OMG!!!!

HAHAHAHAHA!!

Schumer: I’ve spoken to Sen. Leahy about this and what we’re thinking of doing is calling Patrick Fitzgerald—the prosecutor before us….and he might have some very interesting things to say.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

Oh MY! HAHAHAHAHAHA.

This is really getting fun now.

One promising thing is that Republicans are the smallest group. How in the world did they win elections? Minority disenfranchisement. Redistricting. Big money & promises. Propaganda and negative campaigns. Diebold. Coalitions (such as religious right + traditional conservatives + neocon hawks + conservative libertarians).

Posted by: not my president at July 8, 2007 11:07 AM

The Republicans are indeed very good at coalition building. Even on the subject of immigration, they are selling themselves as pro-nativist (through all the tough enforcement talk) AND pro-immigrant (through all the pro-entrepreneurship talk) at the same time. (Letting in only Republican leaning demographics into the country in the first place, helps them even further.)

The Democrats are barely playing catch-up.

I'm currently registered as a nonpartisan voter (in CA, Independent = usually American Independent, the state-level organization of the reactionary Constitution Party) due to the state-level Dems' inability to matter to the average California voter. I still lean Democratic, and would like to see a decent Democrat win the White House, but pathetic campaigners, like the last gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides, do not deserve my vote.

I am, however, considering re-joining the Dems when I move and re-register. (1) The Dems will have at least some presence in my new neighborhood, versus none here, and (2) I may want to vote in the presidential primary.

Kinda makes you wonder what all those other 270 million people are thinking.

Posted by: Christy at July 8, 2007 10:54 AM

A good number are children/teens, and can't vote.

Many are foreigners, including legal and illegal immigrants. They can't vote either.

But that still leaves up to 200 million Americans of the voting age.

As for John Edwards, he couldn't win his home state in 2004, and that counts against him. But with the changing winds, he may be in a much stronger position next year. I like him. I also like Obama and Richardson.

I actually think Richardson is OVER qualified to be President. His talents have a better use anyway.

He should be Secretary of State.

If I were president, he would be my first choice.

Christy
I agree about Richardson. Gary Hart was a possibilty for head of Intelligence had Kerry gotten into office. Americans apparently don't pay much attention to qualifications. An actor or wrestler maybe.

I would vote for Hillary but would plug my nose. I did that for Clinton and Gore. Now I realize that this country is very conservative and voting for lesser of two evils was a good strategy. Unfortunately, my luck didn't hold out. When I voted out of conscience in the past, my candidate lost. What does that tell us about ethics?

HILLARY: CLOSET CONSERVATIVE

From Code Pink:

In November 2005 Hillary Rodham Clinton sent out a fundraising letter to her constituents. “Part of my job is being a good listener,” she wrote, going on to describe all the good listening she does as the junior senator from New York. She concluded, “Now I’d like to listen to you.”

In the envelope with the letter was a three-page, 18-question “2005 Critical National Issues Survey” addressing a range of topics from jobs to homeland security to separation of church and state. Not one question in the survey mentioned the war in Iraq—an omission that came as no surprise to those of us at the New York chapter of CODEPINK Women for Peace.

At the time Hillary prepared her “questionnaire,” close to 2,300 U.S. troops and more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died, and polls showed that most Americans were worried about the war and its ill effects, including rising prices at the gas pump. But somehow, Hillary and her handlers thought that ignoring the war was the strategically smart thing to do. And they were right.

It turns out that Hillary has done a tremendous job—of getting New York Democrats to assume that because right-wing Republicans hate her she must oppose the war. Most New York Democratic voters also don’t realize that she co-sponsored an amendment to ban flag-burning, is against marriage equality for gays and lesbians, supports the death penalty, votes consistently for Star Wars appropriations and has served on the board of Wal-Mart for six years. Yet, she is consistently touted as the “liberal Democrat from New York.”

But it is her position—or, rather, her exquisitely-phrased, calculatedly imprecise non-position—on the Iraq War, accompanied by her consistent voting record in support of the Bush administration on Iraq, that had our local CODEPINK chapter trying for weeks before she sent out her “I’m a listener” mailer, to meet with Hillary or someone on her New York City staff.

When the topic turns to Iraq, Hillary repeats the same garbled message in various locutions: We shouldn’t stay, but we shouldn’t not stay; while before we go we should get a job done, we shouldn’t be doing the job we’re doing. If you parse her carefully worded speeches and statements, the only significant differences between Hillary and Bush are that she thinks we need more troops on the ground in Iraq so the war can be better prosecuted—and that she is furiously trying to hide that position from her constituency.

http://www.listenhillary.org/article.php?id=1193

I will not vote for Hillary. Period.

Posted by: madame defarge at July 8, 2007 01:03 PM

@@@@@

To Hillary:

from me:

no money

no volunteer

no blogging

no LTTE

no vote

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/08/conyers-brings-up-the-impeachment-polls/
Conyers brings up the Impeachment polls

CHEERS: Someone FINALLY mentioned the percentage of people who favor impeachment.... One step forward for Conyers who formerly had my favor for drawing up articles of impeachment against DimWit....

JEERS: To Conyers for saying: "No, I didn’t put impeachment on the table. I was just telling you that 46 percent of the American people polled want Bush impeached, and 58 percent want Cheney impeached."

{{{Read full transcript or view video for context....}}}

"It turns out that Hillary has done a tremendous job—of getting New York Democrats to assume that because right-wing Republicans hate her she must oppose the war."

Well, I think it is unanimous then.

We won't vote for Hillary and if we DID we would have to hold our nose to do so.

High-tech snarkasm alert (warning: may not be SFW in some office environments):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/05/opinion/main3017289.shtml

Sounds like it is a plan now.

"Today on CNN’s Late Edition, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Arlen Specter (R-PA), the committee’s top Republican, announced that they were interested in calling Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to testify about the CIA leak investigation."

http://thinkprogress.org/

HAHA!

I just took an interesting poll.

"In Nov. '08 Republicans will lose/gain how many seats in the Senate? "

The options ranged from gain or lose up to 4 or more.

77% said republicans will lose 4 or more seats.

The nation is about to reject the Republican Party on a massive scale, and they still have a year of simmering resentment, investigations, and mounting death tolls to get through.

Posted by: Christy at July 8, 2007 08:24 PM

Further proof that we should be calling the Republicans and demanding impeachment and not just complaining or nagging the Democratic leadership.

The Republicans are at a precipitace. The longer they hang on to Bush and Cheney the longer their fall.

Posted by Christy at July 8, 2007 08:24 PM

Christy, I hope that's right. Here, the only people who vote at the ageonline are people more concerned about social justice, climate change, health, education and job safety and security are those who spend most of their time in the wings of the political stage. We know the polls aren't reliable or valid. But it's nice when you've been in the wilderness for 10 years, to find that 76% or 94% of Age readers are like-minded. The Huff-n-Puff-Howard voters read the Australian - totally unbalanced news. We have to wait until the disgust spills over about all kinds of things like national security now that our leaders have unleashed a massive disaster upon us in Iraq. I must admit to feeling afraid that Howard will pull a rabbit out of a hat. He began issuing bribes months ago. Bribes up to $4000 one off cash to sectors of the community. Never me! So, I call upon the universal energy to put things into a little more order and balance.

And right now we have the alternate view of Climate Change. A "documentary" with selective facts exposes Climate Change as the greatest hoax in human history. It will be on tv Thursday and you can bet Huff-n-Puff will be watching and agreeing heartily. My view is that irrespective of this producer's stance on the issue, we can't continue to rape the land that sustains a few of us. We need to begin nurturing it in order that it becomes able to sustain us all.

Posted by: sparrow at July 8, 2007 09:04 PM

Sparrow, I agree. I often write to the Liberal Dictators here. I keep asking them when my bribe will appear in my bank account but they never answer me. Or, in case they've overlooked it I give them details of the account in which it should be deposited. Don't panic - the government has had most of our bank details for many years. In order to reach their voters I write letters to their newspapers that I never buy, look up or read. I have no idea whether the letters are published.

If push comes to shove, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. My vote has already been taken away twice, but I must try to vote against the Republican party again. That is all the principles I can muster as I still pay war taxes and drive a car. I am not a vegan.

On the 2008 election: I will vote for whomever wins the nom.

However, remember that church in Nova Scotia? It's still available...

nmp

I don't understand the vegan reference. Is it vegans who are saving the planet? I thought their stance was one of Animal Liberty.

karen - there's a church down here in Tasmania that's available also.

I think she is saying she is not a hypocrit with the vegan refrence.

I, too, will vote to take down republicans, I just feel that also includes Hillary Clinton.

That thing about her being a closet conservative hits the mark.

That is all the principles I can muster as I still pay war taxes and drive a car. I am not a vegan.

Posted by: not my president at July 8, 2007 10:16 PM

I'm with you there. Hillary, despite all her faults, is a better choice than Rudy the Murderer.

And contrary to what my state Dems believe, the average Democrat/Dem-leaning voter indeed pays war taxes, drives, and eats meat.

Woz
The thing about vegans is taking to extreme a vow not to kill. I was making a point about ethics and I was exaggerating slightly. We do tend to eat at the top of the food pyramid (or near it), in terms of energy consumption. & part of our energy units are paid for in the blood of those on other continents, even if indirectly. If I were a purist, I would not be able to ethically pay war taxes. I would also examine my retirement mutual funds more closely and withdraw from some of them. To have high standards for a Democrat is honorable but I believe that sometimes I am willing to compromise when the stakes are high.

This is not the first time I've voted for whomever takes the nom.

I don't think Hillary will get the nomination.

On paper, Hillary looks real good. But the people she actually needs to pull it off would rather have an Edwards or Obama or Richardson.

I really, really hope those are the top three in line after the election. Between the three of them there is enough expertise and sober maturity and charm to start rebuilding allies.

Hillary does not have a chance in hell of actually taking it. I doubt she could even buy it.

Thanks nmp. I think it's a confusion to me because, although we are also English speaking - we often come to different conclusions. Words have different nuances in each country.

And, like you Christy, I hope that Hillary doesn't get there. But it's ok because I don't vote anyway. I just feel that we've already had the Clintons, it's time for an entirely new path to be set.

Russia accuses US of building 'new Berlin wall'
MOSCOW 08/07/2007 14:29

A senior Russian government minister accused the United States on Sunday of building a "new Berlin wall" with its plans for a missile defence system in Central Europe that have infuriated Moscow.

http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=39398

'Cloture' is a confusing concept. This AP article helps make it clearer:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070708/D8Q8H7HG0.html

Grim and grimmer:

-------------

BAGHDAD (AP) - Prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians called on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves after a weekend of violence that claimed more than 220 lives, including 60 who died Sunday in a surge of bombings and shootings around Baghdad.

The calls reflect growing frustration with the inability of Iraqi security forces to prevent extremist attacks.

The weekend deaths included two American soldiers - one killed Sunday in a suicide bombing on the western outskirts of Baghdad and another who died in combat Saturday in Salahuddin province north of the capital, the U.S. command said. Three soldiers were wounded in the Sunday blast.

[snip]

The call for civilians to take up arms in their own defense was echoed Sunday by the country's Sunni Arab vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, who said all Iraqis must "pay the price" for terrorism.

"People have a right to expect from the government and security agencies protection for their lives, land, honor and property," al-Hashemi said in a statement. "But in the case of (their) inability, the people have no choice but to take up their own defense."

He said the government should provide communities with money, weapons and training and "regulate their use by rules of behavior."

Another prominent Sunni lawmaker, Adnan al-Dulaimi, said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had failed to provide services and security but he stopped short of saying his followers would seek to topple the Shiite-led government in a no-confidence vote.

The CBS Evening News reported Saturday that a large block of Sunni Iraqi politicians will ask for a parliamentary vote of no-confidence against al-Maliki's government on July 15.

"The situation has become terribly bad," al-Dulaimi told The Associated Press. "All options are open for us. We are going to study the situation thoroughly, and we are going to look into the possible measures which go with the interests of the Iraqi people. We will also consider whether to keep on with the government or not."

But Iraq's national security adviser, a Shiite, insisted that the government still enjoyed broad support and he warned against any effort to replace al-Maliki.

"I can tell you one thing that after Maliki, there is going to be the hurricane in Iraq," Mouwaffak al-Rubaie told CNN's 'Late Edition.' "This is an extremely important point to make across and to the Western audience and to the Arab audience as well as the larger Muslim audience."

[snip]

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070709/D8Q90RC80.html

---------------

please tell me again how lucky they are that we invaded their country and disbanded their army & police forces because I keep forgetting somehow,
Otter

(CNN) — Despite swearing off public life earlier this year, peace activist Cindy Sheehan would run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as an independent in 2008 unless the speaker moves to impeach President Bush, a Sheehan spokeswoman said Sunday.

Sheehan, a northern California resident, is taking part in a protest caravan from President Bush’s home in Crawford, Texas, to Washington, which is scheduled to arrive July 23. Spokeswoman Tiffany Burns told CNN that Sheehan would challenge the speaker, who has held her San Francisco-area seat since 1987, unless Pelosi introduces articles of impeachment before then.

more...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/08/cindy-sheehan-considering-run-against-pelosi/

Table for two...

Congress returns, ready to battle Bush
Independence Day break fails to cool anger over Libby, executive privilege

Updated: 2 hours, 4 minutes ago
AP

WASHINGTON - Congressmen returning from their Independence Day break are ready for battle with the White House, with Democrats decrying President Bush’s commutation of former aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence and fighting Bush’s latest claim of executive privilege.

Both events occurred around Congress’ vacation, inflaming an intense battle between Democrats and Bush over his use of executive power.

Several Democrat-led investigations are playing out this week as they head toward contempt of Congress citations and, if neither side yields, federal court:

*Monday is the deadline for the White House to explain why Bush is refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for e-mails and other documents on his aides’ involvement in the firings of eight federal prosecutors last winter. The White House is not expected to comply with the deadline.

*In a pair of hearings Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee will look at Bush’s commutation last week of Libby’s prison sentence for obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case.

*The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to hear from former White House political director Sara Taylor about the prosecutor firings, according to Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

*The next day, the House panel is expected to turn to the prosecutor firings and has scheduled testimony from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. It’s unclear whether she will appear.

Break fails to cool disputes
The weeklong summertime break did not cool the disputes. In fact, Bush’s commutation of Libby’s prison sentence teed up a new project for Democratic investigators.

Leahy and others said they suspect that Bush commuted Libby’s sentence to keep Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff from revealing internal White House discussions.

So they are talking to the prosecutor in the CIA case, Patrick Fitzgerald, about testifying before Congress, several senators said Sunday.

“I think you may very well see Mr. Fitzgerald before the Senate Judiciary Committee,” Leahy said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

Through White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Bush declared executive privilege on the documents subpoenaed by the committees. He argued that releasing them would damage the confidential nature of advice given the president. The Judiciary Committee chairmen demanded that the White House explain the decision more fully by Monday.

The Washington Post, citing unidentified sources, reported Sunday that Fielding was expected to tell lawmakers that he already has provided the legal basis for the executive privilege claims and does not intend to hand over the documentation sought.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19672349/

Posted by: mokey at July 9, 2007 07:22 AM

Golly gee...

Is my memory faulty? But didn't the Republicans quash executive privilege when they demanded Clinton's staff testify about Monica and the President's activities with her?

Lawyer: Bush told ex-staff to ignore subpoena
Says it would be 'unfair' for former director to testify on fired U.S. attorneys

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is urging a former White House political director to ignore a subpoena and not testify before Congress about the firings of federal prosecutors, her lawyer says.

The Senate Judiciary Committee wants to hear from Sara Taylor at its hearing Wednesday and she is willing to talk. Testifying, however, would defy the wishes of the president, “a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years,” lawyer W. Neil Eggleston said.

Eggleston stated, in a letter this weekend to committee leaders and White House counsel Fred Fielding, that Taylor expects a letter from Fielding asking her not to comply with the subpoena.

“In our view, it is unfair to Ms. Taylor that this constitutional struggle might be played out with her as the object of an unseemly tug of war,” Eggleston wrote.

He added, “Absent the direction from the White House, Ms. Taylor would testify without hesitation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She has committed no wrongdoing. She will assert no personal privileges.”

The committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, said he expects Taylor to testify.

“It is unfortunate that the White House is trying to interfere with Ms. Taylor’s testimony before the Senate and with Congress’ responsibility to get to the truth behind the unprecedented firings of several U.S. attorneys,” Leahy, D-Vt., said in a statement.

more asskissing here...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19662270/from/RS.3/

Lawlessness in the W.H.

He's all but challenging them to impeach him!

Posted by: sparrow at July 9, 2007 07:57 AM

Bring it on...

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on Leahy's committee, defended the White House.

"There comes a point where the White House has to say, 'Hey, look there are certain confidential things in the White House that we're not going to share with Congress, just like there are certain confidential things in Congress that we're not going to share with the White House,"' Hatch, R-Utah, said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/09/congress.bush.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush accused Democratic lawmakers on Saturday of being unable to live up to their duties, citing Congress' inability to pass legislation to fund the federal government.

"Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "This moment is a test."

The White House has said the failure of a broad immigration overhaul was proof that Democratic-controlled Capitol Hill cannot take on major issues. "We saw this with immigration, and we're seeing it with some other issues where Congress is having an inability to take on major challenges," said spokesman Tony Fratto.

The main reason the immigration measure died, however, was staunch opposition from Bush's own base -- conservatives. The president could not turn around members of his own party despite weeks of intense effort.

The immigration bill was the top item on Bush's domestic agenda. With its demise, Bush was left to focus on the annual appropriations process and reining in federal spending.

Twelve annual spending bills dole out about one-third of the federal budget. They must be passed each year by Congress, before the October 1 start of the new fiscal year, but lawmakers began considering this year's batch just in mid-June. The House has passed half and the full Senate has not yet taken up any.

"Democrats have a chance to prove they are for open and transparent government by working to complete each spending bill independently and on time," Bush said. "I urge Democrats in Congress to step forward now and pass these bills one at a time. "

Democratic leaders say they are behind because an emergency spending measure funding the war in Iraq came first. They also had to pass an omnibus measure cleaning up last year's appropriations mess.

Then, the Republicans who then controlled Congress failed to pass into law a single spending bill for domestic agencies save the Homeland Security Department -- a situation that brought little complaint from Bush.

more...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/07/bush.radio.ap/index.html

Oh, go f*** yourself.

Posted by: monkey at July 9, 2007 08:20 AM

President Bush is like a 3 year old. Always pointing the finger at someone else but still thinking the world is all about him.

I saw an interview tonight on the 7:30 report. A former CIA chief analyses global terrorism. I was surprised and on the whole, pleased.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/

Personality Disorders

Definition

Personality disorders are a group of mental disturbances defined by the fourth (1994) edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) as "enduring pattern[s] of inner experience and behavior" that are sufficiently rigid and deep-seated to bring a person into repeated conflicts with his or her social and occupational environment. DSM-IV specifies that these dysfunctional patterns must be regarded as non-conforming or deviant by the person's culture, and cause significant emotional pain and/or difficulties in relationships and occupational performance. In addition, the patient usually sees the disorder as being consistent with his or her self image (ego-syntonic) and may blame others.

Description

To meet the diagnosis of personality disorder, which is sometimes called character disorder, the patient's problematic behaviors must appear in two or more of the following areas:

* perception and interpretation of the self and other people
* intensity and duration of feelings and their appropriateness to situations
* relationships with others
* ability to control impulses

http://www.answers.com/topic/personality-disorder?cat=health

Additional arguments:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/4706

Any questions?

The problem is, there are no solutions either.

I got a letter from Senator Murray saying Congress is too busy with important work to impeach Bush.

To all those who won't vote for H Clinton:
She has a commanding lead in all the polls, though it's still early. Kerry was lagging at this point and he took the nomination but he says he "comes from behind" and he did. The outcome is completely unpredictable though there may be speculation, hunches, intuitions, etc. about who can or cannot win and why.

Then there is the second issue of taking the primary nomination vs winning the general election. A strong candidate during the primary season may not prove to be "electable." People on the blogosphere prefer Obama or Edwards or Other but people on the street may not even know much about who is running yet. It's still up for grabs. & I will not take a position til after I hear all the candidates speak and review their records. That will be awhile.

It also matters what is happening with the Republicans, because of all the Independents, who outnumber Democrats and Republicans alike. Now here is where Hillary C could be knocked out in favor of another candidate. The problem is the mainstream moderate Dems, who need to be pulled further left still. Thompson has apparently cooked his goose with some conservatives because of former stance re NGOs that allowed abortion tied in with foreign aid. He was the new kid. Giuliani is leading in all the polls.

This leads to the question of how reliable the polls are. These are not internet polls but samples selected according to conventional statistical procedures to represent the voting population. By the way, this is the first time this season that I have looked at the polls. Last election by this time I was looking at them daily and Dean had a strong lead.

If we want some "new blood" in the party then we need to get out the vote and get those people to vote that way.
http://www.pollingreport.com

Monkey
Much as I like Sheehan I doubt she could take Pelosi. She would need more backing than just "the people" because of the reality of how American politics works.

The older I get, the more I think the peace movement I have belonged to for 40 years is largely symbolic. We are a force over time and I think were a factor in de-escalation of nuclear weapons in the 80s and even fall of the Berlin wall (I'm talking globally). Over time, we recruited enough of the mainstream public to help take us out of Vietnam. Before the war, we pulled into our ranks alot of middle class, busy people into the street but they seemed to give up once we went to war. Now even more people are disillusioned but I don't see them taking the time to pull together with "one voice," sadly, on either antiwar or antiglobal warming efforts.

We are still too "comfortable" as a country, even with subprime lenders, terrorist cells, and pollution. Our tv sets are too big and our trucks have too much horsepower (I'm talking collectively).

There is NO REASON the Democrats should have lost the last two election if the people really had a brain. Gore won the popular vote and Kerry may have as well and there was cheating. Yet there are fewer Republicans and they were able to sway the Independents with their bullshit alliance of fiscal and moral conservatives when they were deficit spenders and morally bankrupt.

What is the damn problem?! Why haven't we done something about the electoral college system or some really meaningful campaign finance reform? I'm sorry - I am just really frustrated at not seeing some real changes in this country. The Gore concerts were great, Moore's movie is out, the minimum wage was raised. Yet we are building 14 Halliburton permanent bases in Iraq and yesterday I heard of 150 people being blown up at once. & it just goes on & on & on.

See why Murray doesn't favor impeachment? She has been good for our state and considered liberal. She has been an advocate for the vets. Yet she is not capable of turning down Boeing military-related contracts for this state. Even antiwar Robert Byrd has to suck up to subsidizing the filthy coal mines of West Virginia. Howard Dean said he'd do it without "special interest" money and wasn't able.

The other reason Thompson is having trouble is that is on the record as favoring Campaign Finance Reform. McCain also. The Republicans don't want it and so the Democrats can't want it either. Why is American the only country in the world where elections run into the billions of dollars? Meanwhile our dollar and our credibility shrink in the world. Does it even matter any more who is president or what party when they are all sucking up to lobbyists.

I guess Nader had it right before he went over to the darkside.

Posted by: not my president at July 9, 2007 11:28 AM

Unfortunately, it's Reagan and his "peace through firepower" that claims all credit for the end of the Cold War.

And we certainly are too comfortable - despite our messed-up immigration policy, one that completely ignores the demands of the labor market and is only a payback for pro-Reagan and pro-W nationalities.

I will join certain Republicans in demanding a total moratorium on immigration, as targeting specific sweetheart nationalities is no longer possible.

May a Higher Power please help Congress accomplish something this week.

Posted by: Ally McRepuke at July 9, 2007 11:45 AM

That jackass Reagan had Alzheimers by then. I would credit Nancy's astrology for end of the Cold War moreso than any policy of his.

Ally
I also beg to disagree on immigration, as we need at least two workers for every one of us to pay for Social Security.

What we need to end is the selective admittance of those who favor the Administration's policies.

By the way, did you catch that Roh was in Seattle last week?

Of course, I need to also clarify my remarks by saying that I absolutely love the thought of helping Republicans slaughter their goose that lays the golden egg (AKA conservative Third World immigrants).

Interesting blog entry on Iraq, with links at http://www.democracyarsenal.org/ (3rd entry):

There is a huge story in Iraq that is getting little to no attention in the American press. The Iraqi government is essentially breaking apart at the seams and nobody is covering it. The largest Sunni bloc in the government has been boycotting the cabinet and parliament for about a week now. Meanwhile, Sadr, who holds the single largest bloc in parliament, pulled his cabinet ministers out of the government a couple of months ago. Right now only 24 out of 37 members are showing up for cabinet meetings. The situation is so bad that the BBC’s Jim Muir, in Baghdad, says that “Iraqi politics is in greater disarray than at any time since the 2003 invasion.” Yikes.

Why is this important? President Bush’s entire “surge” strategy is based on the premise that by improving security we can give the Iraqi government the political space it needs to make tough compromises and bring about reconciliation. I don’t see how this happens when one third of the government is boycotting, one of Iraq’s two vice President’s is threatening to resign, and the other Vice President is arguing that:

Iraq no longer had a government of national unity comprised of Shi'ites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds… We haven't achieved anything after a year of participating in the government. We are depressed and sidelined, especially in terms of decision-making

On a side note, this also means that the much hailed “progress” on the Iraqi oil law is essentially meaningless. The whole point of this law is to facilitate political reconciliation among Iraq’s ethnic factions. It is the Sunnis who are most concerned that they aren’t going to get a fair share of the oil revenues because they live in resource poor parts of the country. So the fact that they were conveniently boycotting the government when the law was “unanimously” agreed to by the cabinet is hugely problematic. Naturally, Sunni lawmakers are now objecting to the law with Ali Baban a member of the Sunni bloc stating that “We greatly object to this law and I did not attend the cabinet meeting today.” As far as I can tell, reconciliation does not mean waiting until the other guy storms out of the room in anger so that you can push your own agenda.

This whole situation becomes even more absurd when you realize why the Sunni boycott started in the first place. Turns out there was an arrest warrant issued for a Sunni cabinet minister for his role in an assassination attempt of another Sunni politician in 2005 (Two of the target’s sons were killed but he escaped). The Sunnis are protesting the arrest warrant by leaving government.

What we need to end is the selective admittance of those who favor the Administration's policies.

By the way, did you catch that Roh was in Seattle last week?

Posted by: not my president at July 9, 2007 11:49 AM

NMP, to make up for selective admittance, we have to selectively exclude to even things out. That can't be done, between the conservatives who need the selective admittance, and the liberals who will parrot "racism" without knowing what's going on.

Congress couldn't do a thing about our broken immigration system. And the status quo will only worsen things.

You won't believe the amount of flak I've gotten from places like DU over telling the truth about conservative immigrants.

You mentioned Roh's visit to Seattle, yes. I bet you had to put up with the Korean McCarthyists' protests all over the streets. My sympathies. When Vietnam recently sent its leader to the US, the Little Saigons across the country had similar protests.

May a Higher Power please help Congress accomplish something this week.

Posted by: not my president at July 9, 2007 11:46 AM

May a higher power take em all out in one fell swoop... something with a scope would do, the usless pieces of shit.

Fed the FuQ Up.

Hmm. Okay, sooner or later it has to be said, so I guess I'll go ahead and say it.

I saw the latest Cindy Sheehan news item yesterday and thought about bringing it up in here on more than one occasion. I didn't, though. Why not? Because I knew that if I told people what I thought about it, I'd get shouted down and ranted at for daring to disagree with the default assumptions of the more prevalent posters here.

I've made the same decision before -- don't discuss this item or that opinion on the DCP website, because you'll just draw rants and get shouted down for it.

And that is, frankly, very disappointing. I don't like what it says about the nature of this community as it exists nowadays. And it's not like I'm the only one who feels that way.

Over the last year or two, a lot of the old regulars have either drifted off or specifically abandoned this online community because they believed it had become too polarized, too angry, too sharply critical of anyone who didn't share the same views as the more prolific commenters here.

I'm not just assuming that to be the case, either. Some of them have said so in as many words in the comments threads here, while others have made the same points in emails or IRC chat sessions explaining why they no longer feel comfortable participating in conversations on the DCP blog.

Reasons cited for turning away from the DCP include a perceived communal bias against Christians, centrists, moderates, and/or those who live outside of the major East and West coast population centers;

Constantly repeated rants and angry screeds against particular politicians, public figures, mainstream media sources, and/or institutions;

A steady flow of bigoted hate speech directed at particular ethnic, religious, and/or sociocultural groups;

And, in general, an atmosphere of intolerance for feelings and beliefs that are not associated with the farthest-left wings of the democratic and independent political parties.

The DCP community has shrunk significantly over time. A relatively small number of regulars dominate the conversations here, and the overall tone is one of anger and intolerance rather than the sense of coming together to achieve positive social change that we were originally chartered to encourage.

I've not only heard this from a number of other people, but I also feel the same way myself. I see examples of all those things every day when I read the ongoing comments here. It's not that there aren't exceptions to these arguments, but the evidence for them is ubiquitous. Most times, the negativity and intellectual bias is tolerated; in many cases, it's encouraged.

This systemic negativity permeates the blog conversations now more than ever, and it's driven a lot of valuable community members away from the DCP. The more we lose other voices, the more we devolve into a small niche group of marginalized bloggers preaching to their own choir.

When even I, who's been here since day one, feel like I can't post what I think on this blog because I'm not willing to deal with the rants and outcry that is sure to come back at me in return, then I think it's safe to say we have a real problem here if we expect this community to continue.

I've wanted to bring this up for quite some time now. I haven't, because quite frankly I expect that I'll get ranted at and shouted down for saying it now, too.

But sooner or later, this has to be addressed by the DCP community, or there won't be any DCP community left to address it at all.

So, then... now what?

Posted by: Ally McRepuke at July 9, 2007 11:56 AM

They kept Roh's visit so secret that those bigshots from the Korean community who were invited to greet him didn't even know what the event was going to be. They were just told to come. He was on his way to a free trade thing elsewhere and had a layover here. They had genuine Korean food. I've taken to reading the free periodicals in Chinatown if they are in English. I find out alot I don't hear elsewhere. Most of the rest was about beauty queens. Next weekend is the big Chinatown parade and all the rest so I'll see it from my son's place there. Koreans mostly live in the N end or S end of Seattle but that's not those with money. There are 47,000 and I don't know the socioeconomic breakdown or political bias. I would assume the most conservative and rich live across the lake with Bill Gates. I hope there are at least some Margaret Chos! LOL

Otter
Can you be more specific?

I hope there are at least some Margaret Chos! LOL

Posted by: not my president at July 9, 2007 12:24 PM

There better be.

The Korean community in Los Angeles likes to claim Margaret Cho as one of their own - but discussion of her sexuality is completely taboo.

Roh was in Costa Rica to try to win the 2014 Winter Olympics for his country. He was hanging out with Vladimir Putin there, who ended up with the prize for his country.

Otter
Can you be more specific?

Posted by: not my president at July 9, 2007 12:26 PM

------------

Of course I can. But I'd prefer not to. And I'm not willing to list the specific complaints that were directed to me in private emails and IRC messages because it's not my place to reveal the names of those who felt like they couldn't safely address these issues publicly here on the blog.

So the question isn't whether or not I can be more specific. I can, and if necessary I will (at least as far as my own observations are concerned). The real question, though, is: do I need to? Or, for that matter, *should* I need to?

I saw the latest Cindy Sheehan news item yesterday and thought about bringing it up in here on more than one occasion. I didn't, though. Why not? Because I knew that if I told people what I thought about it, I'd get shouted down and ranted at for daring to disagree with the default assumptions of the more prevalent posters here.

@@@@@

And the Bill Moyer's thing??? You know, "Buying the War" documentary with the two clips of two very prominent Democrats supporting the war?? or do you want to push that under the rug?

Over the last year or two, a lot of the old regulars have either drifted off or specifically abandoned this online community because they believed it had become too polarized, too angry, too sharply critical of anyone who didn't share the same views as the more prolific commenters here.

I'm not just assuming that to be the case, either. Some of them have said so in as many words in the comments threads here, while others have made the same points in emails or IRC chat sessions explaining why they no longer feel comfortable participating in conversations on the DCP blog.

@@@@@

Well, Otter,

Guess what? the entire nation is angry and polarized!!!! IMAGINE THAT!!! How did that happen?? How could it possibly happen, in this great country of ours???

Could it be that two elections were probably stolen - 2000 and 2004???

Or that the Bush administration lies to us on a daily basis???

Could it be that the rightwing media noise machine is successfully selling and spreading hatred and misinformation??

Posted by: Ralpheh at July 9, 2007 01:45 PM

Ralph,

It's not about shoving things under the rug. It's about talking to each other and about others with respect and tolerance.

It's about working together, as you do when you post links to various actions, but also encouraging all of us to get along and to work together towards progressive goals.

What the post says is the anger and the attacks are driving people away and that will in the end leave but a lonely few here at this site.

This is an essay the "Clinton restoration" and Hillary running for prez (and yes, it is critical)

THE HILLARY DILEMMA
What Should Democrats--and the Country--Do?

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball
/article.php?id=LJS2007062101

NB: Essay on pros and cons of Hillary for prez. Ending paragraphs (you'll have to go to the web site to see where Sabato has highlighted some sentences in bold print):
A much more reasonable criticism is directly related to the dominating presence of Hillary Clinton in this election cycle. The population of the United States now exceeds 300 million, and the talent pool of the world's only superpower is deep and rich. How is it that the country is on the verge of filling its highest office for the sixth consecutive term from one of two families? That every President from 1989 to 2017 may be a Bush or a Clinton is a national disgrace. What has happened to the American Republic? How does it differ from a banana republic--where a couple of dominant families often run everything for generations? Have we driven the vast majority of the potentially best Presidents out of the contest because of the high personal and professional costs of running for office? Are we the voters responsible because we are too lazy to go beyond the simplistic attractions of familiarity and high name identification? Or, most disturbing of all, has our political system become ossified, so that we are too fearful of change to seek out the most outstanding leaders among us for the toughest job in the world?

We don't pretend to have the answers. But we are shocked and dismayed that more people aren't even bothering to ask the questions.

When Otter attacked me for a snarky comment I made to no one about nothing the other day, was that not in effect the very thing he is preaching against now?

Just wondering.

Posted by: sparrow at July 9, 2007 01:59 PM

I am including myself in my comment there. I know sometimes, when I go back and re-read a thread, I see where my snark just sounded mean.

Or I know my frustration with my inlaws causes me to call people like them names.

I've been pretty vocal about the Asian and Asian-American contribution to American reactionary politics. I know it, because I've been expected to be part of that yellow conservative wave myself.

I understand if some here think it's racism or self-hate I am directing at the various Koreatowns, Little Saigons, and nouveaux-riches.

But the fact remains that if Ford were the one who bought now-Chief Justice John Roberts to screw over its workers, there would today be a huge uproar over the liberal community, and a boycott would be underway. But since it was Toyota, an Asian man's company that also happens to make the fuel-efficient Prius, it's eerily quiet. This is double-standard, and the whites' own self-hatred.

Anyone can be a conservative monster. And anyone can be a blind liberal ideologue. It doesn't matter who you are, what your skin color is, what your creed/background is.

At least I've been thankful for DCP's relative lack of PERSONAL attacks (at least until recently). If we start resorting to personal attacks on other members, we might as well close up the shop - and save Dick and Karen their web-hosting money.

I know sometimes, when I go back and re-read a thread, I see where my snark just sounded mean.

Posted by: sparrow at July 9, 2007 02:06 PM

I know the feeling.

I sometimes wish for a chance to edit our blog comments... Forums (including our own) have that ability, but blog comments are set in stone the moment you press "Post."

The whole idea of being free is defeated if you are not willing to just say whatever you want to say. It has always been the nature of this group to deeply examine each others words and respond. Freedom is not a place, it is a state of mind. It can never be legislatively granted. If you can not say what you want, to whom you want, when you want, then no one can break the chains you bind yourself in.

All editing will do is erase the evidence, it will not stop the impact of what has already been said.

??

Is there a specific question attached to those ??

?

"Tolerance" doesn't mean never getting angry. "Understanding" doesn't mean quenching the fire. And "Inclusion" doesn't mean holding your tongue.

What it does entail, IMHO, is a healthy dose of the respect so sorely lacking in political and social discourse today. Separating the individual from the stereotype, the actions from the rhetoric, the reality from the media portrayal.

Are we all culpable, to some degree, in the crimes and mismanagement that is so rampant around us? Yes, and I think this was DiAnne's point earlier, when she said that she drives cars and eats meat. (Not that either is, per se, a crime, of course...) So if we all bear a blemish of that beastly mark, then it is only natural that our righteous indignation against such horrendous permutation of our sense of rightness should, perhaps, find as its target the nearest blemish-bearer. But that is what civility is about, the ability to rise above that. Not to dispose of or erase or censor your anger, but to channel and direct it in, dare I say, productive directions.

That being said, sometimes all the well-meaning actions and fiery rhetoric necessarily take a back seat to frustrated venting, and in a two-dimensional electronic community, venting may easily find targets it was never meant to hit. So we must also develop a bit of a thicker skin and not always assume (as Christy pointed out) that every angry word is spoken against us, personally.

And Otter, I think the only appropriate answer to the question you posed is a query of my own: if an otter barks in the vacuum of cyberspace, and nobody logs on, can he be "heard"?

"Understanding" doesn't mean quenching the fire.

I swear V, you just inspire me sometimes.

Wow. Interesting thoughts!

Ever since the JK blog, we have been discussing the specifics of civil discourse, and what constitutes a public conversation about democracy that does not kill democracy.

To a certain extent, the DCP blog has been like a town meeting. Some weeks hardly anyone shows up and then those who do get to dominate. At times (fewer and fewer lately, admittedly) the noise level is high and the conversations a little more heated and raucous.

It is also true, as Otter points out, that folks leave the room when it gets too tense. But I would also submit that all of us have witnessed or been directly part of those moments when one of us has called another one out on something we wrote. By name.

We have resisted making specific rules for what one can and cannot do on this blog. We have asked for mature considerate voices, although each of us has moments when we feel pretty angry and lash out. The question to ask is, always, am I blaming someone else for having those questions, those feelings, or those concerns?

Let's take Ally, for example (and I hope she does not mind. If so, I apologize.) References are made above to anti-Christian comments. I don't know for sure, but I do occasionally see Ally rant a little about Christian immigrants who are also right-wing and who unequivocally support Bush.

I have never taken any of her remarks, no matter how personally and deeply felt they are, to be condemning of all Asian immigrants, or even all Korean immigrants, and certainly not condemning of all Christians. She makes it clear she is referring to a specific sub-set; one she knows well, and one she resists cooperating with.

I don't feel entirely comfortable with every characterization; however, I defend her right to state her case.

If people want to question someone's statements further, to ask for more specific evidence for a statement made, or to express an emotional response here, I would hope that that could happen. That is what civil discourse is.

I have disagreed with the content of just about everyone's posts here at one time or another (Well, maybe not monkey's...I'm too busy laughing usually). But I have also had to think harder.

The only time there has been editing is when the thread was taken over by petty bickering and name-calling that had nothing to do with the learning that was trying to happen. It was the equivalent of breaking up a fight in the bathroom and sending everyone back to class, except for those at the center, whose privileges to post were removed until they cooled down and apologized. Those who never did are no longer here and that's fine. We are sure they are fine too.

Otherwise, we pretty much let the chips fall where they may and trust that adults can clean up their own messes.

No fair throwing a stink bomb in and running away though.

I am sure everyone here can take care of him/herself and continue to have the quality conversations that do occasionally happen in here. I like learning from all of you and I hope we continue to share insights.

Posted by: Ally McRepuke at July 9, 2007 02:09 PM

Posted by: V at July 9, 2007 02:36 PM

Posted by: Christy at July 9, 2007 02:42 PM

I am sensing some consensus...

There are some damn good writers on this blog. It is a great pleasure sometimes to come here. I daresay people drop off because they get busy and because there are millions of blogs to choose from. So many blogs, so little time. Traffic picks up at times of major happenings when people turn to something they know. It would be very hard for me to imagine that people who have posted here would lack skills of logical and verbal self defense. There are times when I have been almost scared away on this blog and on its predecessor but the right to free speech, coupled with curiosity, always brought me back.

I will try not to rant with negativity but Ralpheh made a good point that the whole country is polarized. I would love to come on and we'd all join together with workable action plans that would stop the killing and misery cold. Sometimes we also need a reality health shake though. I can not even characterize myself politically. Progressive? No. Moderate? No. Liberal? Probably.
Democrat? Yes, but with close friends quitting the party.

Moderate on some issues? Yes. Which? Impeachment. Abortion. Immigration. Religion. Surprised? I waver. I don't go to church and I am not a Christian and I don't watch television but I do not by expressing these values attack those of others who differ from me UNLESS they go on the attack against others I feel in my heart I should defend. The neocons and fanatics would be attacked, definitely NOT include those on this blog.

I can remember posting things that people didn't like and I can remember hitting the delete button before the post button as well. I can remember accidentally offending people when I did not know what their trigger buttons were and they mistook my intention. I can count those incidences on my ten fingers over a period that extends several years.

People need to continue (myself included) to learn to productively argue and debate. It's a great skill to have. We can use facts and logic. We can use passion and our hearts. If one of us gets up on the wrong side of the bed or has a few too many, so be it. Maybe sometimes it's good to take a BREAK from posting, but I am glad for the consistent, the lurkers and the drive-bys.

Peace.

I will be hateful tommorrow, for now I love you guys.

Even Otter.

I'm ok. I hope yall are too.

BTW, if we are going to have a REAL conversation about DCP attendance levels, can we start that now?

In the spirit of wide open and robust debate can I dare say it is an age issue....?

Age and marketing.

And no, it is not a personal thing for anyone sensitive to the issues of time.

We could, however, have that conversation simultainiously if it is required, but it still it would miss the point.

Christy,
You are NOT saying I am OLD, ARE YOU??????????????

(hahahahahahah)

Christy
Age and marketing. That would definitely be a factor with the millions of competing blogs and all the new technologies. Are you saying this is a "boomer blog"? LOL I know you are younger, and Ally and maybe others. I love the diversity. Oh and V. I know what you mean though. Glad you guys are here.

Now in the off-blog world, I am thrilled to say that alot of younger people I encounter can discuss things with "my generation" without alot of friction or the "generation gap" that we used to talk about, back in the day. Would love to see more younger people and also those not living on the coasts.

As for offending people, believe me, I've had a couple of people email me directly and complain. I said a bad word. I posted something tacky. I wasn't nice in the area of values. I thanked them. For those who did not confront me, on line, in person or via email, I am a little too socially clueless to just read their minds, no matter how diplomatic I try to be.

Not at all darlin.

I prefer the company of my elders.

However, my elders rarely are the group I interact with.

Otter I agree with you that many DCP originals here have left. My theory is boredom, seeing the same people, same comments over and over when we have pressing matters in our personal lives. I ignore the shouting and what you call negativity here.
As for Sheehan running against Pelosi I will say it since you didn't. Its about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Nancy if you don't introduce impeachment I will run against you, I am sure she is shaking in her boots. Actually it might help position her more towards the middle by comparison. Why does the left constantly have to eats its young, destroy those political leaders who are working hard to bring about those policies we agree with, simply b/c they don't toe the line 100%. That makes the left as irresponsible as those on the right who demand that same political purity. And I don't really care who that ticks off. Our leaders were elected to promote legislation that serves their community and the nation, not to just make political points. Impeachment may in fact be on the table at some point but that certainly should not be Speaker Pelosi's focus. Wasn't that what we were ticked off about the Republican Congress's obsession with Bill Clinton. Personally I am more interested in their attaching healthcare and stem cell research to appropriation bills than wasting time on an impeachment hearing where Bush will simply run out the clock, and I think most of us, except for maybe Ms. Sheehan understand that.

I am sensing some consensus...

Posted by: karen at July 9, 2007 03:02 PM

Hey! What about me?

(There Christy...that ought to take care of the age thing. I just acted like a 3 year old just so we could have that set covered too!)

The Senate is debating the Iraq war and the appropriations:

See the video at C-Span

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

Senator Jim Webb (veteran, son in Iraq) is offering an amendment to the appropriations bill..

So if we all bear a blemish of that beastly mark, then it is only natural that our righteous indignation against such horrendous permutation of our sense of rightness should, perhaps, find as its target the nearest blemish-bearer. But that is what civility is about, the ability to rise above that. Not to dispose of or erase or censor your anger, but to channel and direct it in, dare I say, productive directions.

Posted by: V at July 9, 2007 02:36 PM

I almost said that.

I would like to be blunt for a moment, no, not about age, about what I see as the .... potential .. of this group.

When I look around me I am afraid.

What is happening in this world is not something I ever had to encounter before in my life. All my friends and aquaintences too. Everyone is afraid, unsure.

History of man kind eh? No one knows what to do.

Except that is not exactly true, is it?

Yall do. Karen does. Sparrow does. V does.

You do know what to do. You've lived it before.

I consider myself a self taught protester. No one taught me how, I learned from people like you because I sought out that knowledge, but no one helped me. No one TAUGHT ME HOW to dissent.

Learning how is a very lonely nighmare, stumbling around alone in the dark. I imitated what I saw around me, or from movies about the 60s. I know there are so many others out there like me, stumbling around in that same dark.

To me, that is what DCP should be for. Teaching an entire new generation HOW to dissent. HOW to remain hopeful, what tools we have and how to use them.

Not just A generation, several generations behind you can be reached instantly. But like with another demographic I can think of, you can not touch what you do not reach for.

There are many many many younger people who are so anxious to have an honest and mature conversation about the worlds events. They are in fact desperate. No one knows WHAT to do.

That is what I see the DCP as, a place where I can be taught to dissent. A place where that dissent is not judged as radical or shameful.

Marketing to younger people can be a shot in the dark, but I think it would hit its mark.

You have what people need. Answers. And the resources to impliment them.

Right now there are several generations that need those answers. Reach out to them and I think the fresh voices you need will reply.

Wasn't that what we were ticked off about the Republican Congress's obsession with Bill Clinton. Personally I am more interested in their attaching healthcare and stem cell research to appropriation bills than wasting'

@@@@@@

A government healthcare program is a pipe dream as long as we are involved in the two wars raging in Iraq and Afghanistan.... There is simply not enough money. And, frankly, the U.S. government cannot sustain and afford the present healthcare programs - Medicare, Medicaid, precription drug - which are already on the books.

An independant is someone who thinks for him or her self. Is that a bad thing? I can make the argument that the biggest problem in America today is "ignorance." Whether it is the result of poor education, extreme political bias, economic repression, or just plain lazziness - the results are the same - the inability to learn, integrate, and intelligently act on information.

It should be obvious that both major U.S. parties prey on this ignorance to must activism and votes for their party. What most fail to realize, however, is that we are all in this together, and that we will succeed, meander, or fail together.

I summed up the platforms of the two main parties in a parity discussion I authored 18 months ago, titled: "What'll You Have, Sex or Oil?"

Stephen

Posted by: Bubba at July 9, 2007 03:28 PM

I respectfully disagree Bubba. I don't believe we should 'let the clock run out'.

Frankly, Bush will NEVER let the Democrats pass real legislation. The Republicans have already put invisible holds on numerous bills in progress. That means both the W.H. and the Republican Party is happy to run out the clock while making the Democrats look inefficient.

AND the W.H. has broken too many laws to let things slide. He's not just incompetent; he's corrupt! (Both Cheney and Bush!) They BOTH need to be impeached NOW.

I do not believe it is a waste of time. I believe it is MANDATORY for the future of our country to make sure that actions like theirs do not have the Congress's stamp of approval.

Even the officer who spoke to me agreed that by commuting Libby's sentence, Bush is participating in furthering the cover-up of some crime. It would not be tolerated by me; thus it shouldn't be tolerated by him.

Given the obstruction of bills, and the obstruction of criminal activities stemming in the W.H. (executive branch, there will never be a more important time to impeach.

That's my opinion said to you passionately, adamantly, and respectfully.

Synchronicity
by The Police

With one breath, with one flow
You will know,
Synchronicity

A sleep trance, a dream dance,
A shared romance,
Synchronicity

A connecting principle,
Linked to the invisible
Almost imperceptible
Something inexpressible.
Science insusceptible
Logic so inflexible
Causally connectible
Yet nothing is invincible.

If we share, this nightmare
Then we can dream
Spiritus mundi.

If you act, as you think,
The missing link,
Synchronicity.

We know you, they know me,
Extrasensory,
Synchronicity.

A star fall, a phone call,
It joins all,
Synchronicity.

It's so deep, it's so wide
Your inside
Synchronicity.

Effect without a cause
Sub-atomic laws, scientific pause
Synchronicity

Posted by: Stephen at July 9, 2007 03:47 PM

Stephen,

Some independants are people who are ashamed to admit which party they lean towards. Others are not sure where they fit in because they don't understand the basic tenets of each party.

Ralpheh: I just came back from vacation in Canada and frankly they laugh at us when we asked why Canada can afford healthcare and we can't. Certainly a large part of our budget goes into our military that other countries don't have to deal with but that bottom line is that this country needs to set priorities, do we want tax cuts tilted towards the wealthy or a stronger middle class. I was amazed that waiters were making $11 per hour and they were begging to find workers at those wages. We can afford it here, we just choose to protect the profits of the healthcare industry over the general welfare of the country. We also are intimitidated when those that seek to stop national healthcare use the phrase socialism. The rest of the world just can't understand how we have a struggling middle class and 45 million without healthcare. Heck we supposedly didn't