Democrats: either lead the opposition against Bush or get out of the way

[Q]

Bush believes he's on a mission from God. His mission is to oppose tyranny and bring his version of democracy to every corner of the planet. Although never stated in public..it's also part of his mission to be a tyrannical dictator and push his own fundamentalist, warmongering agenda here in America. Bush has his mission and vision and hasn't minced words in proclaiming that he will not be deterred or derailed. His Will be done.

Bush & Company will now have eight years to accomplish their goals...mostly unopposed by the people's representatives...who seem more concerned with winning the next election than honoring their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Bush is dangerous because there is little or no opposition to his insane plans and he believes he can do anything and not be held responsible.

To the point: the current leadership of the Democratic party needs to either forcefully and resolutely oppose the Bush Administration or get the hell out of the way and allow Democrats will guts to take the lead.

I'll say to the Democratic leadership what Jon Stewart said of the partisan hack show 'Crossfire': Please stop. You're hurting America. Please stop the pandering. The collusion. The cooperation. The appeasement. The enabling. And please stop thinking you can continue on the same path and not be thought of as part of the problem. Part of the treason.

Lead by example or get out of the f**king way. Stop playing Politics As Usual and do your damn jobs.

Signed: a concerned American and Democrat.

[veteran_for_peace]

1. My thoughts exactly

[The Political Amazon]

18. We don't have the luxury of waiting to vote them out of office. ACT NOW.

The issue with the Bush-serving Democratic politicians in Congress is not one of being "wimps," which is what most people believe.

We were taught in school about a pluralism style of government, but this theory simply does not stand up to rational analysis. There is far too much in the last decade--and before, if you analyze politics closely--that occurred in politics that does not fit the pluralism model.

The model that does fit is the Elites v. Masses model. Once you have learned about this model, you will first grieve for your lost innocence and for how you have been railroaded your entire life regarding the truth about politics in America. Then you will never again be tricked into believe that the divide in America's policy makers is between liberals and conservatives.

An excellent, easy-to-follow description of Elites v. Masses can be found in Dye and Ziegler's book "The Irony of Democracy." (I will also post an article I wrote during the Dean primary interpreting the Dean phenomenon through the Elite v. Masses model.)

Our country is divided into the very few Elite who rule the country (and, with the Elites from other countries, rule the world) and the masses (that's us).

The Elites will always ensure the survival and prosperity of other Elites FIRST before they consider the masses. That is why the Elites in Congress (like Kennedy, Kerry, HRC, Lieberman, etc.) have consistently voted AGAINST the best interests of America and its citizens in order to support and protect the Bush arm of the Elites.

This has brought our country to the brink of economic disaster and another Great Depression. It's not just Bush and the GOP--they could not have done what they have done without so many Democratic politicians in Congress providing them aid and cover.

It appears that China will no longer be providing us the loan-capital they have in the past. This is a very, very bad development because we are mainly paying interest on our current loans. If we default on our loans, it will have such a worldwide economic impact that the IMF will step in. And that is very, very bad, as well. Often the IMF sells off a country's publically-held facilities AND farmlands to other countries, and performs other draconian measures which does not help--but actually is the final nail in the coffin of many countries in which the IMF has had to intervene.

Our (us Masses) problem is this: we do not have people in the position of policy-making in Congress and the White House who will use their power to ensure that the masses suffer as little as possible.

Indeed, these Elites (and we are talking about the Bushes, Cheneys, and Kerry, Kennedy, HRC, etc., as well) will likely profit from the destruction of our economy and IMF intervention.

I think this assumption can be demonstrated by the Senate confirmation of Rice as Secretary of State. Clearly, Iraq occurred under her watch and within her realm of control. Clearly, Iraq is destroying us economically, and socially as we see our loved ones as soldiers slaughtered on the Elites' blood-drenched altar of Avarice and Greed in Iraq.

Yet, except for 12 Democratic Senators, they voted to confirm Rice. If you were to ask them why they voted to confirm Rice, when it went directly and completely against the best interests of America, its citizens, and their constituents, they would pull a Dick Cheney and say "I had other priorities."

And this is not the first time they have demonstrated that, when it came to what is best for America and its citizens, they "had other priorities."

Yet many Democratic voters continue to support these Elite-serving Democrats, and continue to contribute to their campaigns. Too many Democratic voters will gripe and complain about their representatives in Congress but when the reps come around at election time to beg for their money and votes, these voters will believe the politicians' claims that they are against Bush and his policies, for Democratic values, etc.--even though the politicians have repeatedly demonstrated this is not the case.

We no longer have the luxury of aiding and abetting those who aid and abett Bush's policies. Due to the precarious nature of our economic stability, I believe we do not even have the luxury of waiting until the next election to vote them out of office.

If we are to save America, we must recall those whose priorities are not doing what is best for America and its citizens. We put them into power, we can take them out, and we damned straight don't have to wait until election time to do it.

[The Political Amazon]

19. Elites v. Masses: An Overview

FYI PREFACE:

Just an FYI here...this is a long post. It presents an overview explanation for many questions Dean supporters, as well as other Americans, have had over the past few years. It was written during the Democratic primary, when Dean was actively campaigning.

It's about the "Elitism" theory of governing (a system, like "democracy" and "fascism" are theories of governing) as it relates to America, the people who really control our country, and the Dean campaign and the threat it poses to the "corporate/special-interest"-controlled status quo in Washington.


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

ELITISM, THE DEAN CAMPAIGN, AND THE THREAT OF MASS ACTIVISM TO THE STATUS QUO
How the Empowered Dean Supporters Pose an Unexpected Challenge to BushCo's Choke-Hold on America

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

QUOTE FROM "The Study Guide for Dye and Ziegler's 'Irony of Democracy, 12th Edition.'" by Gregory Tilles.

BEGIN QUOTE:

GLOSSARY:
elites: The few who have power in a society, including a modern democracy like the United States. The few who govern are not typical of the masses who are governed, and are drawn disproportionately from the upper socioeconomic strata of society. Elites share a consensus on the basic values of the social system and its preservation, and public policy reflects these values.

masses: The many who do not have power in a society, including a modern democracy like the United States. They respond to the attitudes, proposals and behavior of the elites. The masses are largely passive, apathetic and ill informed.

iron law of oligarchy: The theory which asserts that in all societies, including democracies, any organizations and institutions, governmental and nongovernmental, inevitably will be controlled by an elite. Power is concentrated in the hands of the leadership, and individuals have little or no influence on the policies of organization and institutions.

democracy: A model for a society which achieves popular participation in public decision-making through majority rule and respect for the rights of the minorities. The fundamental value of democracy is individual dignity, which entails preservation of life, liberty and properaty and a commitment to equal opporttunities for all individuals to develop their capacities.

power: The ability to influence people and events by granting or withholding valuable resources such as wealth, position, status, celebrity, comfort, safety, and power itself. Large organizations and institutions in society control valuable resources and their allocatoin; government is the most powerful of all of these organizatoins because of its accumulation of great economic resources and monopoly on physical coercion.

pluralism: A theory which contends that democratic values can be preserved in a system where multiple, competing elites determine public policy through bargaining and compromise. Although individual citizens do not participate directly in decision making, they can exert influence on public policy through participating in organized groups and political parties, and by exercising meaningful choices as voters.

END OF QUOTE

NOTE: For more information on Elitism and Pluralism, the quoted materials are, of course, excellent source. On the internet, I recommend:

"The Power Elite" (http://www.udel.edu/htr/Psc105/Texts/power.html)

"Pluralism" (http://www.udel.edu/htr/Psc105/Texts/pluralism.html)

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

QUOTE FROM Thomas Dye and Harmon Zeigler's "The Irony of Democracy." (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0155061216/qid=1075214701/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-7385446-4237400)

BEGIN QUOTE: "Elite theory recognizes multiple threats to democracy: elite misdeeds, mass activism, and elite repression. While enlightened elites preserve democratic values, self-serving elites abandone the protection of democratic prinicples and sacrific societal values and pursuit of the common good. This behavior undermines mass confidence in elite leadership, as well as popular support for the prevailing political system. Irresponsible elites can be checked by elite-initiated reforms to restore mass confidence in government and preserve elite power...." END OF QUOTE

When the "irresponsible elites" (which, in our country, include BushCo and many other corporate elites) self-serving interests alienate enough people, there is a backlash. In our situation (i.e., the Dean campaign), it is "mass activism" that is threatening the the Elites--the real government system by which we are controlled.

Again, from "The Irony of Democracy," quoted above...

BEGIN QUOTE: "Elites respond in repressive ways to mass activism. By limiting dissent, speech and assembly, elites subvert democratic values..." END OF QUOTE
-------------------

I. NO, YOU'RE NOT CRAZY: If you have lately asked yourself, "What the HELL is going on in our country?," take comfort in the fact that you are not alone.

There are many Americans (especially those who are opposed to the policies and practices of the Bush White House) who are wondering the exact same thing.

Why has the media become such transparent propaganda tools for a select group of organizations and politicians?

Why have the leaders of organizations such as AAR P and the Calif. Teachers' union-- whose members could have, in the past, depended on to stand up to the government when necessary to protect the interests and values of the organizations' members--unexplicably abandoned the welfare of the members of their organizations and endorsed the harmful policies of the worst of the Republican politicians?

Why have our elected Democratic politicians turned their backs on us and instead discarded every Democratic Party ideal with which they ever manipulated us, and supported BushCo's most destructive policies?

Why has our Party leadership--instead of using the gazillions of opportunities it has had over the last 4 years to remove the Bush family from political power once and for all-- vigorously tried to quash any Democrat's seroius challenge to the BushCo control of American politics?

Why is the Democratic Party leadership and its allies working to disempower and turn apathetic the huge, driving force of Dean supporters. Clearly, the Party's leadership clearly understands that the fact that Dean on the presidential ticket will ensure that a huge number of new and younger Democrat voters will go to the November voting booths to vote for Dean, at which time there is a good chance they will vote for other Democrats, as well. This can only be a boon for any Democrat running for office. So why is the Party leadership so vigorously working to sabotage Dean's shot at running against Bush in the general election?

Why have the Kennedys become the Democratic-Party celebrity darlings of BushCo and his allies?

Why was it that, until Dean spoke out, NONE of the Democratic Party presidential candidates said one word in criticism of Bush, when clearly that was a major campaign tool and avenue to win in 2004?

Why has the media become so transparent in it's unflinching pro-Bush/pro-Bush-Lite Democrat politicians/ anti-Dean bias?

And here is the question that all of the Dean supporters are angrily asking themselves: Why is the Demoratic Party--including its celebrities like Ted Kennedy, as well as the majority of other elected Dem politicians--and the media, and the corporate powers who finance all of the above--so furiously trying to sabotage the Dean campaign, which is the one chance America has had in 4 years to really turn our country around, and disempower the GOP and BushCo.?

It's because, to everyone's surprise, the Democratic Party's rank-and-filers, who the Democratic Party's leaders and elected politicians have ignored for 3 years while they did BushCo's bidding, have turned out to be a real threat to BushCo and the rest of America's Elites.

Who would have thought that the core Democrat voters, ignored by the politicians they voted into office, would find in Howard Dean a voice to speak for them, and that, finally having a voice, they would turn their "mass activism" into an assault on the Elites' status quo in Washington?

Howard Dean and his supporters are not willing to settle for having America's policies designed by and for the Elites. The status quo we want changed is where the Elites and "special interests"--which are actually "Elites' interests"--control the power and wealth in our country, and make laws and policies that benefit the Elites at the expense of the Masses.

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: "Elitism" is the real system by which we are governed. Elites, sooner or later, end up governing every country, and that is not in and of itself a good or bad thing. It becomes "bad," however, when the Elites neglect to address the needs of the Masses while satisfying their own Elite needs for increasing their wealth and power.

The "Elites" of all spheres of our lives (religion, media, government, elected politicians, corporations, academia) are actually who decide public policy (i.e., what laws and policies we have to live by). The public policy the Elites of our country legislate into laws and government policies the Masses (us) have to deal with has little to do with what the majority of Americans want. The Elites' public policy, instead, is designed, first and foremost, to protect the Elites and maintain the Elitism system of government.

In such a system, if you are an Elite, to remain an Elite you have no choice but to do what is needed to maintain the Elite system. The Elites have, in the past, maintained stability in the Elite system by, at a slow, consistent rate of bringing in new Elites from the Masses. The new Elites are usually people who have risen to a near-Elite status in the Masses, and have a strong impact on public sentiment. The new Elites must, of course, be willing to embrace the Elitism system, and play their role in maintaining the status quo.

If an Elite, or the Elite system, is threatened, the Elites will circle the wagons and throw any other consideration to the winds as they work to seal the breach in the Elites' control of our society. To do this, often the Elites will take away the rights and liberties of the Masses.

As an example, when viewing our society as being governed by an Elite system, certainly BushCo, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, and the leaders of Halliburton's powerful subordinate companies, would be crucial components and links in the Elite system. So would have, before 2001, Enron, Ken Lay, and the other powerful leaders at Enron, as would Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Under an Elite system, if Ken Lay, Enron, Falwell, Robertson, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, etc. were threatened by scandal or a financial wipe-out, the rest of the Elites would circle the wagons and do whatever it took to bring the threatened Elites back to a position of power, so they could again play their role in government by the Elites.

We usually think of our government (because we were taught this way) as more of a Pluralism; that is, multiple groups, working for their own goals, providing checks and balances that keep one group from seizing control of the country. We believe--besides every bit of evidence to the contrary--that minorities have a real chance to become the majority. We believe that we actually have an impact on our government because we believe we can hold our elected politicians accountable (by the electoral process) if they screw up.

Obviously, this has not been true. The lengths that the Elites in America are ready to go to maintain Elite control of our country have been clearly demonstrated:
**The 2000 presidential election vote theft;
**The transparent illogical decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which appointed an Elite family into the presidency when the elite family's front man (Bush Jr) couldn't win the slot himself;
**Antonin Scalia, a U.S. Supreme Court judge--blatantly flaunting his willingness to sacrifice the reputation of the USSC in order to serve the Elite Bushes--after just recently going on a multiple-day fishing trip with Dick Cheney--by refusing to recuse himself from an upcoming USSC decision regarding Cheney.
**The media (controlled by the corporate media Elites) abandoning all pretext of being anything but biased and now --with litte concern for subtlety--demonstrating their role as propaganda tools for the Elites who control America.

But most importantly, many of Dean's supporters, in supporting Dean over the other candidates, in addition to attempting to make a real change in America, are attempting to hold Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards and Clark accountable for their past actions.

And look at the extraordinary attempts being made by the Elites to protect those Washington Democrat Elites from being held accountable.

The Elite-controlled media daily applies a blatant double-standard to the candidates: an excruciatingly overreactive (nearly reactionary), minutae-focused coverage of every word, phrase or gesture Dean makes...and, for the most part, a free ride for the Washington Democrat BushCo-supporting candidates Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards and Clark. The media blatantly ignores the hypocrisy of the Washington BushCo-supporting Democrats' criticism of Bush's policies, which they endorsed with their "yes" congressional votes. The media transparently plays the propaganda tool for the ultra-rightwing's targeting of a nonissue (Dean's Iowa speech), blowing it completely out of proportion until the American public's impression of what actually happened is coompletely at odds with the truth.

...and the list goes on and on.

While the Masses (us) have not REALLY had control over public policy, even if our chosen politician "won" the election, what elections do is show the Elite what we need to keep us happy, apathetic, and complacent.

A SHIFT IN ELITES' STYLE OF WIELDING POWER: Elites can be either "enlightened" Elites or "irresponsible, self-centered" Elites.

When governed by "enlightened" Elites--who realize that the Masses (us) must be kept happy if the Elites are to retain power (the status quo)--the Elites work to at least look like they are incorporating the needs of the people, while carrying out their real agenda (to maintain the status quo and Elites controlling the country).

When the control of all Elites is by one Elite, or small group of Elites, we have a Fascist state. Don't be alarmed by the term "fascist" because it is simply another theory of government, like "democracy" and "elitism."

In the past, we have been governed by "enlightened" Elites who have at least made an attempt at a show of heeding our wishes because they knew that if the Masses became sufficiently unhappy they would resort to mass activism (that's what we're doing with the Dean campaign) which is a BIG threat to the Elite system of controlling America.

However, we have seen in the last 4 years the Elites in the government sphere of America--aided by the Elites in the corporate and media spheres (especially the media, which so brilliantly spins and colors the reality they present to the Masses (us) in order to support the Elites' control of us)--steadfastly, and increasingly blatantly IGNORE the wishes of the people. It's like they don't even care that it is obvious they are ignoring the very people who they need to vote for them if they want to maintain the facade of the American Masses actually having a say in our government.

Why this change?
***Because more and more of the Elites' power--instead of being distributed among the few elites who control us via the media, corporate power, the government, religion, academia, etc.--has become more and more centered in one very small group of Elites: the rightwing and its leader (BushCo and the international Elite power that controls BushCo). I call this controlling group the Extremist Elites.
***Because the Elites of many different spheres of American society are now, like it or not, being at least partially controlled by the Extremist Elites. And the arrogant BushCo et al. that make up the Extremist Elites believe that they have such a firm choke-hold on the Elites that control America (and, therefore, a firm choke-hold on the Masses) that they no longer have to make much of an effort keep up the pretense of Pluralism in America.
***Because the "bloodless coup," or the control of all of America's Elites by the Extremist Elites, that was greatly accelerated by the 2000 vote theft/USSC decision, and shoved into hyperdrive by the 09/11 WTC attacks, will be nearly a done deal if the Extremist Elites, who really control America, are able to sabotage Howard Dean's presidential campaign, silencing the outraged voices of the Masses--who finally found in Dean a voice for them.

Unfortunately for the Masses and our country, this very small group of Extremist Elites who are running the show now are NOT the "enlightened" Elites. They are the arrogant "irresponsible, self-serving" Elites, who are not farsighted enough to realize that the Masses' needs must be at least minimally met or they risk an uprising of "mass activism," which is a huge threat to the status quo of the Elites' control of our country.

The Extremist Elites believe that the key to dealing with the Masses is to repress them, stripping them of their rights and liberties, using force if necessary. The Extremist Elites are also so lacking of the ability to see the bigger picture (i.e., anything beyond satisfying their own needs) that they don't realize that anything that is suppressed--including the outraged voices of the Masses--will only erupt later on in a far more purulent form.

SUMMARY: This is where we are now in America: the large group of Elites who governed America's spheres of power (corporate, religious, government, academia, media) have in the past addressed the needs of the people while carrying out their real agenda (maintaining the control of our country in the Elites). There has been a dramatic shift of power amongst this larger group of enlightened Elites, and they are now controlled by one small group of self-serving, irresponsible, extremist Elites (BushCo, et al.).

This small group of Extremist Elites are an arrogant bunch. They believe they now have such a firm choke-hold on the rest of the Elites (and, therefore, on the Masses) that they and the Elites they control no longer need to bother with much of a facade of the Masses having any real impact on how America is run.

Therefore, we are seeing the Elites in the Democratic Party, and even in organizations we always thought were really "for the people" (i.e., AARP and the Calif. teacher's union), blatantly, without even an attempt at offering an explanation why, support the very forces they said they have been fighting all these years when they begged us for our money and our votes.

This is why Ted Kennedy and Eunice and Maria Shriver have--by supporting Schwarzennegger's election--basically shit all over the very values they have used to convince us to support them and the Democratic Party. You can't get much more blatant than Maria Shriver working behind the scenes in Sacremento to use the political power WE--the Democratic Party Masses--provided to her and her powerful family to lean on elected Democrat politicians to endorse Schwarzenegger's blatantly Elitist policies which target the disabled and poor and benefit his rich fellow Elites.

This is why the Bush Sr library foundation gave Ted Kennedy its service award this year.

This is why the Democratic Party leadership has done everything it could to undermine a REAL affront to the GOP.

This is why the majority of our elected Democratic Party politicians (the ones who I believe are committed to maintaining control of ou country in the hands of the Elites) aided BushCo in their most heinous policies over the last 3 years.

Obviously, Howard Dean and his supporters are in for a fierce struggle to get Dean elected, and an even more fierce struggle after he is in office and the pissed-off BushCo-controlled Elites seek their revenge from him like they did with Clinton.

Howard Dean, by paying attention to the voice of the Masses--who the Elites had erroneously decided were no longer worthy of consideration--has built a powerful organization of committed activists, who are willing to go the distance to try to take back our country from the irresponsible Elites whose short-sighted policies are on the road to creating a world which will not support the existence of many of those who make up the Masses.

The Elites have already done much to sabotage our Dean campaign. If they continue and successfully effect a Democratic Party primary where the winner will be a candidate who is so similar to Bush that they couldn't possibly win in a general election, some tough decisions will have to be made by each and every one of us regarding what we will do for the rest of the election cycle which culminates in November 2004 (or whenever the U.S. Supreme Court again appoints Bush Jr to the Oval Office).

What does it say to ourselves and to the rest of America if we simply obediently back whatever empty-suit Democrat candidate the Elites choose for us?

Will we be affirming for the BushCo-led Elites that the Masses really ARE easily manipulated and unwilling to mount a serious challenge to the Elites? That, despite a quick distempered skirmish to support Dean, once they sabotage our candidate's chances at the White House, we will all quickly fall into line and do like we were told by the Democratic Party Elites and their masters?

After the thrill of having a candidate we could believe would really make a change, would we be satisfied with going back to being used by the Democratic Party as a tool to endorse and legitimatize their slavish drive to maintain the Elites' status quo?

There is much riding on Dean's campaign, certainly more than he ever anticipated when--so many months and miles before-- he drove across the Vermont border and started handing out flyers for his presidential campaign.

And the brunt of the importance of Dean's campaign is really riding on the shoulders of the Masses who are supporting Dean. How we conduct ourselves as the Elites try to sabotage our drive to take back America will say a lot about whether the BushCo-led Elites are right in believing that they have a choke-hold on our country and us, the Masses.

[E_Smith]

21. Can you provide examples of this quote:

"This is why the majority of our elected Democratic Party politicians (the ones who I believe are committed to maintaining control of ou country in the hands of the Elites) aided BushCo in their most heinous policies over the last 3 years".

[lonestarnot]

57. I confess, I did not read all of your post because I got up too early

but from the major portion that I did read I can see that you left out a word prefacing elites - "greedy" call 'em as I see 'em! Greedy MFO's!

[deutsey]

2. Amen

[Sydnie]

3. Snap -- exactly what needed to be said. Thanks for saying it.

Nominated for the front page!

[Goddess Nephthis]

4. Here is pissed me off about...

the Democrats this week. Condi had a new asshole torn in her ass. She was exposed as a liar and an incomepent. Oh they stood up there, turned red with outrage, blew spittle, pounded their fists. They ranted. And then voted for her anyway! Jeez! Why the fuck put on such a show? If you are going to vote for the bitch, vote for the bitch and shut the fuck up. Don't put on a fucking show so I can see how outraged you are. If you were so fucking outraged, you would have stood by Kerry and Boxer. Instead you look like a hypocrite and will rightfully be called one by the Bushbots. All show and no substance, that fits these assholes to a tee.

[Q]

7. Do they really think the VOTERS aren't paying attention to this...

...sad spectacle? Do they understand that THIS is why more Americans voted for that wretched Bush than Kerry? Americans want LEADERSHIP. They're desparate for it. They will follow false prophets if there is no opposition brave enough to point out the lies and deceptions.

Bush is crazy as a loon as he's leading this country to complete destruction. Who will stop him? Democrats have a duty to oppose him. If they don't have the guts...they should resign and allow new leadership to take their place.

[Q]

5. Things are being done IN OUR NAME

...that are WRONG whether by a Republican or Democrat.

I'll say it again: the Bushies may be criminals robbing our treasury and future...but the Democrats are drving the getaway car.

They must GO ON THE RECORD as opposing Bush policies or be considered as supporting them. Hiding in the shadows, avoiding controversy and playing it safe just won't suffice anymore.

My sincere thanks goes out to those FEW Democrats that have consistently opposed Bush and his democracy-destroying policies from the beginning. You should be leading this party...not the Grima Wormtongues advising that Public Servants can cooperate with evil without becoming part of it.

[bread_and_roses]

51. "Grima Wormtongues" indeed

Well said original post, too. When will we wake up? When will we recognize our own power? Last election the grass-roots organization that I work with mobilized over 6000 volunteers in NY State alone...it is WE who can make the difference, yet it is WE (and I certainly include myself) who keep giving money, time, energy, votes to the "lesser of two evils" who in the end don't work for us, who vote for "wealth" not "workers" as the poster below pointed out. Whan will we wake up?

[CWebster]

6. Yes, but

what if we have the liberal media, like the NYTimes and Saletan dictating who is more "electible" again?

[Q]

9. Perhaps we should be concentrating on...

...restoring America to some semblance of sanity and put winning on the back burner?

This is about an act of conscience. The only thing we should be worried about winning is winning back our democracy and making the Bushies responsible for the dozens of crimes they have committed against our nation and humanity.

There can be no peace without justice.

[CWebster]

15. I am listening to James Zogby right now

and he is talking about how the Democrats don't allow debate. That Kerry barely mentioned Iraq or the ME, and chastised Dean who claimed we wouldn't be safer after Saddam was captured - and Dean was right.

But, what if the Repub-lites who have enabled this entire state of affairs, dominate the microphone as a sort of Fox news of the Left and maintain their leadership status?

This is why they object so much to Dean making inroads into the heart of their control room.

[Q]

32. Democrats DON'T allow debate...

...at least not in places where it counts...like in the public forum. You can see it on this board. Many Democrats are seemingly as willing as their GOP counterparts to simply vote and then step away from the process. Once in office the Dem leaders can do or say anything they want and still count on reelection.

Politicians like Dean threaten the status quo of perpetual war and a government unaccountable to the people.

[lonestarnot]

56. Wah What?

Not

[kentuck]

8. well said, Q....

Slap 'em back to reality. Good luck.

[Q]

11. They're aware of the realities...

...now they just have to face it and move on to the next step. The next step is demanding that the people's representatives stop playing politics and uphold the rule of law.

No one should be above the law. No one. Not even King George.

[Mountainman]

10. I agree with you. I feel I don't have any representation in Washington

I don't think the change will come by us pushing but by them caving. We don't have any power and we don't have anyone who speaks for us.

I see the Social Security fight as a sign of what will come. If the repugs succeed in gutting social programs then I will know that our leaders did not come to Washington to fight for us.

The headline in our paper yesterday was all about the deficit and how the war is making it worse. The solution is to cut spending on social programs they say. Nothing about ending the war or reversing the tax cuts. Just more war and less safety nets for the foreseeable future.

No I have no one speaking for me and I hate the work bipartisanship!

Everything Kerry and Edwards said about fighting for us is now only lip service.

[Q]

13. Just saying 'we have no power'....

...is tantamount to conceding before the real fight even begins. We do HAVE THE POWER. We just need to USE it.

At least half of America is against Bush & Company. A strong leadership can tap into that power and together change the destructive course of Bush's agenda. There is power in numbers. Millions of Americans coming together under a leadership determined to uphold the rule of law in America. Bush & Company would pee their pants if they knew they would be held accountable. They would be forced to change, resign or be impeached.

[Mountainman]

14. Well I don't see it that way. The only way we gain power is if there

is a coalition formed of moderate Repubs and Dems. There is a divide in the country that is hurting both sides. My hope is that enough people of goodwill on both sides will ban together to do what is right for the country and not what is right for their party.


Alone we are sitting on the sidelines watching the game. The Rice vote is a good example. There will be many days where we huff and puff but they will get their way in the end.

It has to play itself out. At some point Americans will hurt enough to want a change. That's when we begin to get back the power to lead. That is if we prove to be an alternative and not republican lite.

The reason we could not make a case against the war in Iraq is because our guys voted for the IWR too. If this continues we hand everything to the right. We have to turn against the war and not say, "now we are in it we have to win"


No we have no power.

[Q]

30. Certainly you don't expect the 'leadership' to fight now...

...after four or more years of laying down in the middle of the road and letting the Bush steamroller drive over them and then say 'thank you sir, may I have another?'

I suppose it's human nature to hope for the best. What else can we do? But I like to use history to guage the present and future. History shows us that there aren't enough Leaders in the Democratic party to confront Bush on his lies and criminality.

Social Security? Even the cowards in the leadership know they have to at least pretend to fight on this one...or risk breaking down the illusion that they're still Democrats.

But the problem seems to be that just enough 'democrats' in the leadership want many of the same things the Bushies want. That means they'll put up a fake fight and then 'compromise' on the way the program is implemented.

The problem for the Democrats who support the Iraqi boondoggle is that they will have to be forced to work within a wartime budget that has no money left for any kind of social program. This will mean either giving up support for a needless war or free up some wartime expenses to feed social services and public education. But like Bush...they can't admit they were wrong about preemptive war and will stay the course. Only the war profiteers will be happy in this scenario.

[Pam-Moby]

12. My thoughts exactly

I have been saying that our democratic leaders better start being representatives of their concerned citizens or WE need to find other progressive democrats to fill their seats. I actually believe that we need to find a way to replace them now and not wait the two or four years that they have left. The damage that they can allow to happen in between now and then may not be repairable. WE ALL NEED TO LET THEM KNOW HOW WE FEEL NOW!!!!!!

[Q]

16. But we must change the mindset...

...of those who vote and demand nothing in return. The leadership can do anything they want and still get voted back into office.

Nothing will change until we give politicians a little 'incentive' to do the right thing by withholding of votes until they take a stand. No representation...no vote.

[Tinoire]

17. Forget about leading. I think we're down to "get out of the way"

Clinton on C-Span2: "I like GWB, I get him."

Reminds me of another one who told us the same thing. Screw these people. Traitors to the people.

Anybody who can say ""I like GWB, I get him." is NOT someone I want around- either as a political leader or a party member.

I'm effing livid.

Get the HELL out of the way- all you people who "get" GWB./

[Q]

25. I wonder if Cllinton even realizes he's in the way...

...or is he so caught up in his own celebrity that he can't see the forest for the trees?

Certainly he understands that thousands are dying because Bush lied this nation into war? He MUST know that Bush intends to gut every social program and enrich his war profiteering friends?

Clinton is only a small part of the problem. The real danger? The collaborators in the current leadership that are directly or indirectly responsible for Bush attaining much more power than the Constitution allows.

[Zhade]

20. Kick

kick

[Just Me]

22. YES!!! Great freakin' post.

Those who don't have the courage or focus or integrity must get the hell outta' the way!!! Put up or shut up!!!

We go forward UNITED or divided.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. The way to resist the neo-colonialists is to resist.

The way to give them their way is to "compromise", "pick our fights", and all the other weak kneed responses that gave us BushCorp and PNAC.

[Q]

24. There ARE Democrats trying to lead the way...

...but they're being ridiculed, silenced and marginalized by the factions in control of our party.

Kennedy is speaking out against the Iraq invasion and occupaton. So is Byrd and those trying to pass legislation that would forbid government from using tax dollars for propaganda.

Some Democrats are trying to lead...but the enablers and Bush apologists won't get out of the way.

[Just Me]

31. Precisely!!! We must become the carriers of their torches!!!

Demand that the rest of the party either get on board or move over!!!

I sense that our own "revolutionaries" are growing. We must support them by getting on board, too!!!

[Q]

34. Don't believe them when they say they have a 'long-term' strategy...

...because the only strategy they have is to save their own political careers.

We have the wrong leadership at a time in history when we need fighters...not appeasers and enablers.

[tanyev]

26. Exactly what I said in my email

to Lieberman a couple days ago. "If you can't be a part of the Boxer Rebellion, then at least get out of the way." No replies from him yet.

[Q]

28. Lieberman is among those who think there is no such thing as a bad war...

...as long as he doesn't have to fight in it. And therein lies the problem: it's ALWAYS the leaders who start the wars and citizens who have to fight them.

You'll rarely if ever see a politician support a war he has to fight in. If they had to march off to war after voting they'd be voting NO.

[DesEtoiles]

27. YES

[marcologico]

29. groan, another Valentine to the dean of infomercials. Didn't you know

that Ron Popeil is a republican?

p.s. stand up action alert: Ronco Six Star Knife Set w/ Knife Block on Sale! SEND YOUR MONEY NOW!

[Q]

33. And another drive by post...

...with sarcasm instead of substance.

The premise is as stated: the current leadership should lead by example or get out of the way. If you can bring any insight to any sign of leadership...please let us know.

This is about making the CURRENT leadership accountable to their oath of office and to the people who elect them to lead.

It's telling that YOU can take this so lightly that you can joke about it. It tells me that you're not really aware of what's going on in DC and can't see the danger.

[marcologico]

49. So tell me, exactly what about the VOTES and ACTUAL POLICY STATEMENTS

of Kerry, Kennedy and Boxer haven't you liked so far?

Maybe they haven't sent you enough policy-free, baloney-filled, money-grubbing e-mails?

Or any?

[Q]

53. Look back over the last four years...

...and tell us who has gained the advantage? Republicans or Democrats? Did they gain that advantage with better ideas and policies? Or by using tactics that are by their very nature unAmerican and criminal?

The Dem party has lost their way. It's not the fault of the voters....they turn out in droves to vote Democratic hoping for a better government and world. But in each and every election they get less and less in return for their loyalty to the party.

Many Democrats have adopted the mindset of the Republican clones who think that winning is more important than honor and integrity. More important than democracy and justice.

Thus...the leadership of both parties are responsible for the creation of an executive branch that operates outside the Constitution, checks and balances and rule of law.

What happened? Of course the brunt of the blame goes to the thugs in the GOP that are part of the group that plans to destroy America and rebuild it in their far-right, neocon image. But Democrats are also to blame for allowing them to accomplish their goals unimpeded out of fear for their own political careers.

The Democratic leadership is more concerned with self-preservation than fighting against the Bush Empire for the good of the people. Their tough talk rarely if ever is followed by action and taking a stand. They have become a rubber stamp for Bush to the detriment of everything that used to be good about America.

[marcologico]

55. Look back over the last four months. Kerry, Kennedy and Boxer

have been doing one hell of a job of a) getting out the message ("Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," "George Bush's Vietnam," "Ridiculous," etc.) and b) getting out the vote.

You can ignore the Dem turnout on Nov. 2 or you can forget it or you can drink the Rove Koolaid, but those three at least are winning the war of ideas whether you like it or not.

[leftofthedial]

35. it is not Repuke versus Democrat

it is wealth versus worker

[Q]

36. Bush is the leader of the 'ruling class' and is running this country...

....like a bad CEO. Just another business for him to run into the ground.

But it goes beyond that. He has broken many laws that would have meant impeachment for any other president. He has committed treason by aiding and abetting those who have financed Saudi terrorists. And it's treason to send soldiers into harm's way on false pretenses.

The Democratic leadership is treating Bush like he's simply a 'bad' president instead of the criminal he is.

[CWebster]

37. One party?

Imagine Kennedy and Nixon paling around--or Carter and Reagan.

Who wants a Bush/Clinton dynasty? I do not think the present Democratic leadership has a clue as to how to truly "win" since they cater to this "middle class" image designed for the 90's. It's the only tune they know, and although it is irrelevant, any change of strategy or emphasis would signify that times have changed. Rather than truly advocate "new ideas", they replay the same theme or, in the absence of ideas, triangulate.

[moggie12]

38. Very well said

The Democrats need to stand up and say, "Bush is nuts."

Barbara Boxer opened the door, now let's hope more Dems follow her lead.

[Q]

54. Not just 'Bush is nuts'....

...but 'Bush is nuts and we can prove it'.

Too many in the Democratic leadership have joined with their counterparts in praising the 'Emperor's New Clothes'. But the whole world can see that he's naked and wonder why more Democrats don't stand up and point that out.

It seems to be the nature of the Democrat to want to see fairness prevail and always give others the benefit of doubt. But I'm becoming very concerned that this attitude is blocking the view of too many Dems that won't or can't admit that Bush is dangerous and needs to be held accountable for the good of the nation and the world.

[Generator]

39. Well you know I agree!

My husband was impressed with the most NO votes against the Liar in State since 1852 or whatever it was.

I said yeah 13-that have finally woken up and realize it's not business as usual.

I said even on DU-there is a divide, those that want to continually excuse the Dems we have, and say "oh they have no power, and they must play ball now to have a chance in the game later" and the other side that realize the constitution is slipping away and that those that we oppose we must oppose just to be able to sleep at night.

Hell, I even feel complicit for orginally supporting the Iraq war. I bought the lies about WMD, my fear was used against me, I was propagandized, so I understand how it happens. I don't sit and continue to say it's okay-because the torture scandal put a lie to any remaining justification for the war. We are the bad guys now, and if we continue to let people like Gonzalez go through, what does that say about OUR morality? Torture is okay IF it gets one bad guy and ruins a hundred other lives? Is that an American value? Are we willing to live with that? Is that what America is, no better than Saudia Arabia or a dozen other countries that support toture?

The history books are waiting Dems, and you too will be held to account.

[Q]

41. In our hearts we can excuse the rush to war after 9-11...

...but now that everyone knows the truth...there's NO excuse to continue to support an occupation that didn't need to happen and is a war crime in progress.

We must support those Democrats brave enough to speak out against this needless slaughter and work to remove from office those who continue to support it.

We have our vote (maybe) and our voice. Let's use them to make both Republicans AND Democrats accountable.

[joanski01]

40. I started to get a little hope

that they are starting to fight back, since bush* will be there for four more years. Yesterday, I saw the following Dems on C-Cpan giving speeches:

Maxine Waters on Washington Journal

Hillary Clinton on that Healthcare Program

Barach Obama on the same program.

Bill Clinton at Davos.

John Kerry on the Health program talking about Children's healthcare.

A repeat on C-Span of Marty Meehan speaking on getting out of Iraq.

Senator Kennedy (not televised that I know of) speaking on getting out of Iraq.

That's 7 dems in one day.

Oops! Forgot Nanci Pilosi's press conference.

[Q]

42. Flapping their lips on Talking Head Pundit Shows...

...is not much help. Nothing they say on these programs has any impact on what goes on in DC. At best they look good to the voters and leave the Democratic viewers with a warm and fuzzy feeling and the impression that something is being done.

What COUNTS is how they vote when they're confronted with issues important to the credibility of the party and the future of America.

We'll have a LIAR for Sec. of State and someone that excuses torture as Attorney General. Who would have thought this would ever happen in America?

Worse...too many in the Democratic leadership went along with this insult to justice.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

43. We need to spread that we know how CIA-Oil Wars work and we're pissed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1542610

This thread I started has it all: Psy-Ops techniques used on us as if we were an enemy populaton to be controlled (we are), the CIA propaganda matrix, 100 years of oil wars, the rigged electronic voting machines, 9/11 as the New Pearl Harbor.

The internet has more of us 'going off our meds' and getting mad as we learn how we've been played with a flag and a bible for decades.

Spread this info and LET CONGRESS KNOW THAT NOW WE KNOW THE SCAM.

They will accomodate public opinion with a little more courage because they can't have too many small plane crashes without chilling the economy they feed off...namely us.

They still need us to spend our lives driving around buying their crap!

[Q]

44. Americans are programmed...

...not to believe anything that isn't on the Nightly News. 2000 election stolen in broad daylight? CONSPIRACY THEORY! The Bush Administration negligent in detecting and stopping 9-11? CONPIRACY THEORY! Bush & Company rushed our nation into an unnecessary, illegal war? CONSPIRACY THEORY!

Hell...most Democrats won't even read or take seriously the PNAC documents that spell it all out. The bottom line is that freedom and democracy are impossible without a free press.

[Q]

45. A refresher course:

The Declaration of Independence



IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.


The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[Q]

46. Refresher: Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights:


Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

47. "The Bill of...what?" Now it's all about the Pledge of Allegiance.

Was it painful to watch Bush** pretend to take an oath to defend the Constitution...again?!!

Oh, the Constitution is so...September 10th!

I carried a copy with me when I used to fly to work (thanks, Wesley Clark client Acxiom, for giving my info to DARPA) and I met journalist Helen Thomas at an airport.

I got her to sign my mini-copy and she beamed like a proud grandmother just because I knew what the First Amendment was...sad, really.

[Q]

48. The relevant paragraph:

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

[rodeodance]

52. you are right-it is all about the Pledge!

[Q]

50. It's difficult to accept...

...that so many otherwise intelligent Democrats can't see that their own party is selling them out. I understand that it's difficult to face the fact that your government works for itself instead of the people.

But it's becoming painfully clear that the Bush Gang will continue to do anything they want and consider themselves above the law until a loyal opposition emerges to stop them.