The Likelihood of a Republican President in 2009

[davidswanson]

By David Swanson

America is quite likely to elect a Republican president in 2009. The first reason is that Republican election fraud has been well established since 2000. Bush and Cheney lost Florida, and therefore America, according to the recount completed by major media outlets after it was officially blocked by the Supreme Court. And they almost certainly would have lost by a much larger margin if not for the illegal purging of the rolls engaged in by Republicans. We've seen a growing array of tactics employed in several states in 2002, 2004, and 2006 to suppress and not count Democratic votes. Bush and Cheney clearly did not win in 2004, yet they are in office. And they have turned the U.S. Department of Justice into a wing of the Republican National Committee.

But a Republican could win in 2008 honestly if the Democrats nominate the wrong sort of candidate and if the Democratic Congress makes the wrong moves in the next year and a half. Remember, as unpopular as Bush is, the Democratic Congress is even more unpopular. The most important issue in this election, as in other recent elections, will be Iraq. It will be even more important than in the past, and the public is even more in support of withdrawal. Because of this, it would be very, very difficult for Hillary Clinton or John Edwards to win the election. The Republicans can be expected to air on our televisions over and over and over again the choicest bits of the speeches these two Senators made when authorizing Bush to attack Iraq. They professed to believe the whole litany of lies about WMDs. A video interspersing these speeches with clips of Clinton or Edwards later denouncing Bush and Cheney's lies would make the Democratic nominee look unprincipled and dishonest. Sean Hannity of Fox News recently brought just such a video to a debate he took part in with Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson.

Now, Edwards may not be entirely unprincipled and dishonest. He has apologized for his war vote and advanced progressive majority positions on a variety of issues. Sadly, that does not change the fact that it will be virtually impossible for him, having given that speech, to win this election.

I don't think Clinton has ever been hampered by any principles or honesty. You can take footage of her speeches from any given week and edit together bits of her passionately contradicting herself. Most recently she is decisively both for and against speaking to hostile foreign leaders. Clinton cannot possibly win an election. Once you factor out the states that are unlikely to vote for a woman, even a brave and principled woman much less someone like Clinton, this is a tough climb. When you then factor out those on the left who will actively campaign against her or stay home, it begins to look impossible. If you then consider the way in which Clinton will galvanize those on the right who despise her, it's all over.

The Democrats in Congress are opposed to impeachment, in part because Clinton is opposed to it, and in part because they think she'll solve our nation's woes once elected. But they're also opposed because they think impeachment would galvanize their opponents. Nothing would do that as well as nominating Clinton. In contrast, forcing the Republicans to defend Bush and Cheney for the next year and a half would actually benefit the Democrats tremendously. Meanwhile, Clinton is not only unlikely to win, but has already committed to keeping the occupation of Iraq going until the end of her second term. Force her to admit that again in October 2008, and you can start singing the Republican Homeland National Anthem.

Now, Barack Obama did not vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. But he has voted many times to fund the occupation. He has given speeches in support of doing so. He supports keeping open the possibility of aggressively attacking Iran, including with nuclear weapons. He has proposed launching an illegal aggressive attack on Pakistan. He, like Clinton and Edwards, does not favor a swift and complete end to the occupation of Iraq. The peace activists already planning to protest the Democratic Convention will only be energized if the nominee is Obama. Numerous researchers and scholars are already predicting a Democratic loss if the Democratic Party does not take a strong stand for getting out of Iraq. Obama will not do that. And, on top of this, he'll lose the white-racist vote.

Obama, unlike Clinton and Edwards, is not hopelessly handicapped, but he will not win if the direction he pursues resembles even remotely the path he has been taking for the past several months.

But if all of this is as obvious as I am suggesting, why, then, are these candidates ahead in the polls? Well, the other candidates who have announced thus far, and some of those still rumored to be considering jumping in, are not without their own shortcomings. And those with the best records on Iraq, like Congressman Dennis Kucinich, are effectively shut out by the media. There is a pattern well established in this country of the corporate media working very hard to nominate Democrats destined to lose. This is not all a conscious conspiracy. The media does simply favor those Democrats who most resemble Republicans. The problem is that voters don't share this taste. The Democrats' base prefers strong and principled Democrats to Republican-lite. And that tiny sliver of voters who swing between parties also prefers candidates with strong principles who stand up for what they believe in. Less important is what specifically they are standing up for.

Those Democrats who vote in primaries are very obedient to the media's dictates. But general election voters are not voting as strategists and pundits. They're voting as citizens. And the biggest determining factor is whether they stay home or are motivated to go and vote.

Democrats could win in 2008 by taking the following steps:

Requiring paper ballots in every election, and election oversight by non-partisan officials.

Impeaching and removing Alberto Gonzales, and establishing strict oversight of the Justice Department.

Taking strong and swift action on Iraq and impeachment. Over three-quarters of Democrats want Cheney impeached, and the demand for Cheney and Bush's impeachments will only grow over the coming year and a half if not answered. When the Democrats moved to impeach Nixon they then won the biggest victories in recent history. When they took the impeachment of Reagan off the table, they lost. 230 years of impeachment efforts tells the story. It always benefits a political party to push for impeachment, successfully or otherwise. The only exception is the Clinton impeachment, which was unique in terms of the public's opposition to it, which was apparent from the start. Even so, the Republicans held onto both houses of Congress and the White House. And Al Gore was so put on the defensive that he chose Lieberman as a running mate and campaigned as if he'd never met Bill Clinton.

The Democratic leadership in Congress should announce immediately that because all useful bills are vetoed, they are going to solve our nation's problems by other means:

First, they should announce that there will be no more bills to fund the occupation of Iraq. Then, unless Bush chooses to fund the occupation illegally, he will need to bring all troops and mercenaries and contractors home. He already has much more than enough funding to do that.

Second, Congressional leaders should announce the immediate opening of hearings investigating the grounds for impeaching Bush and Cheney. *

Third, they should pick a viable candidate to run for president, which means quite obviously someone who has never supported the invasion or occupation of Iraq, and someone who favors ending the occupation completely and immediately.

These steps would boost Congress's approval rating dramatically. No, not among Republicans. But if Democrats don't start focusing soon on winning the votes of Democrats, they are going to find out yet again that elections are determined by turnout, not by turncoats.

____________

* FOOTNOTE:

The impeachments should focus on these themes:

BUSH:

1. Refusal to comply with subpoenas (not disputable, and passed by the Judiciary Committee against Nixon)

2. Routine violation of numerous laws, preceded by announcement of intention to do so in signing statements (White House website and GAO study)

3. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant. (Confessed to.)

4. Commuting the sentence of I Lewis Scooter Libby. (Both Madison and Mason argued at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia that impeachment would protect against a president pardoning someone for a crime that he himself was involved in).

5. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.

6. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

7. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

8. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

9. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

10. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

11. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina.


CHENEY:

1. Refusal to comply with subpoenas.

2. Creating and advocating the "Unitary Executive Theory" which is used by the White House to defy laws duly enacted by Congress and thereby justify dictatorial action. Cheney's office has drafted many if not all of the signing statements.

3. Cheney played a key role in setting up illegal spying programs.

4. Coordinating campaign to obstruct the investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald.

5. Coordinating a campaign of retribution against whistleblower Joseph Wilson, including the outing of a covert CIA operative.

6. Leading efforts to institute routine use of torture.

7. Leading campaign to manipulate pre-war intelligence.

8. Creating secret Energy Task Force which operated in defiance of open-government laws.

9. Directing massive no-bid contracts to his company, Halliburton, and profiting from the same illegal war he defrauded the American public to launch.

10-12 from H Res 333:
Cheney has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit….

Cheney purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit….

Cheney has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit….

[emulatorloo]

1. From what I remember of the polling, the majority of people supported the war

Since then they have realized that they were lied to and manipulated by the Bush and Cheney. They put trust in the office of the President -- they did not expect that they would be lied to and abused like that.

I do not expect that those people are going to be as purist about Dem candidates as some at DU might be.

JMHO -- agreed that the stronger the stances/actions they take against Bush and Cheney the better.

[ooglymoogly]

15. Because they were systematically lied to and defrauded

and told they were in imminent danger of becoming a mushroom cloud...see all of us have memories.

[Skittles]

72. I was never fooled

so why were they?

[niceypoo]

109. I am curious as to which republican candidate could win...

...they are running the biggest pack of hypocritical losers and empty headed bigots in their history. Its hard to imagine a matted ferrel sheep dog losing to them.

[ginnyinWI]

125. yes, well look what "won" in 2000.... n/t

[cd3dem]

149. it was a marketing victory... not a legal "won"...

Bush's background is marketing not law so the Bushies used marketing tricks... throw in a green third party to feed the ultra-liberals who saw Gore as not green enough... mess up a few votes in Florida by handing out unreadable ballots to retired people... scare a few blacks from coming out to vote... get the liberals to bicker with themselves so they are ineffective on the ground... and make sure if there is any need for mediation and negotiation that your brother is in charge of it...

what did we learn from 2000 and 2004? nothing... we are still slamming our candidates as not being liberal enough... fine... stick up for your fucking principles and give away all your rights when a republican gets in and the supreme court gets more Robert's like... kiss your damn freedoms good-bye...

do we really want to win in 2008? or do "you" want to win?

[enough already]

150. Maybe you slept through the last 2 elections... n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

28. Let's look at the polls, shall we? Memory is often a poor substitute for facts,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/21/opinion/polls/main545009.shtml

The story is written after the war started so all the current polls in the article are post invasion.

If you look, you will see that before the war started, a majority of American were opposed.

[Autonomy]

98. Umm, that's not what the article says...

"74% now approve of the U.S. taking military action against Iraq, up from 64% among these same respondents two weeks ago. One in three of those who disapproved of military action then shifted to approval after the war began."

I looked all through the article and could not find what you could possibly be referring to that pointed to a majority of Americans disapporving of the Iraq War before it began. Not to be snarky, but 64% is still a majority where I come from.

[TankLV]

107. That's what I remember - vividly - Thank you.

I'm fucking tired of revisionsts and plants who spew the repuke lies...

[Hissyspit]

62. Wrong. Majority against depending on poll. Strong support started AFTER the invasion began.

...even though it was often the same question being asked, it meant something different:

Before the war:

Do you support use of military force by the U.S. in Iraq?

After the war:

Do you support use of military action by the U.S. in Iraq?

Notice how they are actually different questions even though the words are exactly the same, due to the change in context.

I remember this well, because I watched the results change as the war started and talked about it in class.

[defendandprotect]

136. I don't know that that is true; wasn't the anti-war movement everywhere larger ???

[hijinx87]

2. approximately the same chances as . . .

:evilgrin:

[LWolf]

29. I would suggest that, if you are correct,

and the chances of a democratic win, or of achieving the steps to that win, are the same as hell freezing over, that:

1. You believe that global warming will result in an ice age in hell, or
2. We should put the Democratic Party out of it's misery, hold a memorial, and move on to something more productive.

[hijinx87]

34. you should have gone with

3. lighten up.



jeez. :eyes:

[LWolf]

36. Ok, # 3 coming up.

Lighten up? You got it. This will be fun.

Obviously, given the OP, the top tier is top-heavy and has to go.

Let's send them down the river. I've got their seats reserved:



There they go! Buh Bye! :hi:



Ahhh....much lighter. :D

:toast:

[hijinx87]

41. ok. that was clever.

but still a bit on the obsessive side.:evilgrin:

it has been a tough week; I am having a beer. I urge you
to do the same. ;)

[LWolf]

42. I'll have one with ya.

:toast:

[hijinx87]

43. finally, something we can agree on!

cheers, my friend. :toast:

[Help me help Earth]

3. Just a quick point about Obama.

To some degree he is handicapped by his race. If previous elections are any indication, a black candidate usually polls higher in white areas then they can expect to actually win on election day. Blame white guilt or whatever, but that's the way it is.

[noiretextatique]

45. that's called lying, not "guilt" eom

[emulatorloo]

4. "Those Democrats who vote in primaries are very obedient to the media's dictates." see Iowa Polling

These numbers don't conform to the "media's dicates" at all:



DU THREAD:

Wow: Three-way ties in Iowa...Let the fun begin.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3424254

THE NUMBERS

Barack Obama, 27 percent

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 26 percent

John Edwards, 26 percent

Bill Richardson, 11 percent

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

[John Q. Citizen]

24. How much you want to bet those numbers change in the next six months?

[emulatorloo]

46. Of course ! For all I know, Richardson could come up on top in Iowa. . .

point is I do not believe primary voters are as "compliant" to media spin as the OP suggests.

[John Q. Citizen]

50. So advertizers are wasting all that money?

[Greyhound]

74. Yep, you bet. Those stoopid companies flush hundreds of millions of dollars down the crapper

every year because the sheeple are far too clever to ever be swayed by something as blatantly false as advertising campaigns and the "news". Just walk down Fifth Avenue in Manhattan and see all those advertising guys lining the street trying to sell pencils for a nickel apiece.:eyes:

There is no limit to the human capacity for self-delusion.

[pokercat999]

79. Excuse me? The three media darlings are the top three

in the polls. How does this differ from what the poster is saying?

Actually this helps confirm exactly what the poster is saying. If Richardson or Dennis K or Gravel were on top of the polls the poster would have been mistaken.

[DU9598]

5. Parallel

"A video interspersing these speeches with clips of Clinton or Edwards later denouncing Bush and Cheney's lies would make the Democratic nominee look unprincipled and dishonest. Sean Hannity of Fox News recently brought just such a video to a debate he took part in with Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson."

The problem with such an argument is that this parallels the mindset of the average American voter. Americans were wildly in favor of the invasion, but it was because they were lied to and they are pissed about that fact. It is clear that the minority in Congress was also lied to and fed manipulated facts. Voters are not dumb and can figure this out, despite cute flip-flop commercials regarding the war.

[ooglymoogly]

17. Yes some of what you say is true but.......

many of us including me saw through the claptrap, the lies, and duplicity...I am not elected to congress nor are the many who saw through this charade....yet it was clear to us....our congress and senate critters are supposed to be the brightest among us. My jaw literally dropped when I heard democratic senators giving cart blanch to someone I could see right through....Why would I vote for someone who did not see through this most obvious charade. NOOOOOO a thousand times no!!!!!! I will not vote for anyone who voted for this biblical calamity nor anyone still trying to justify its existence and who is not supporting ending it. Hundreds of thousands of deaths later, I am not going to vote for anyone who is so mentally blind and willing to put careers ahead of the now sacred Constitution of the Unitd States.

[bvar22]

35. Your memory is a little foggy.

It was close to even. Before the invasion of Iraq, about 1/2 of America was in favor of giving the inspectors more time.
If it was just the vote itself, not so big a problem, but the public cheerleading will be hard to hide.

It is difficult for the Pro-War Democrats to blame their IWR vote on Bush* when ALL these Democrats voted NO. Are ALL of these Democrats smarter than Hillary and Edwards?

The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

IWR

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu

[QueenOfCalifornia]

116. Thanks!

Thanks for posting this. It isn't said enough and is never mentioned on the MSM Hype Machine.

I am so sick of hearing that the Democrats voted for the war and are just as culpable as the GrandOldPhucks ---

The truth is so damned allusive, isn't it?

[pokercat999]

80. "Voters are not dumb"...... You can't be serious. Please

tell me you forgot the :sarcasm: , please.

[Mme. Defarge]

6. Well, if the Democratic Party didn't support

its winning candidates in '00 and '04, do you honestly believe they would support a Kucinich victory when it is inevitably challenged?

I would definitely vote for Kucinich, but it is hard to imagine ever working again on a Democratic presidential campaign after the last two fiaco's. ESPECIALLY SINCE ELECTION REFORM HAS BEEN DEFERRED TO '12.

[ooglymoogly]

19. self delete wrong place.

[Zensea]

7. This is basically just a hatchet job

Anyone who writes this kind of line is obviously up to no good.

"Now, Edwards may not be entirely unprincipled and dishonest."

In other words, Edwards is almost entirely unprincipled and dishonest (according to the writer) but the writer either doesn't have the guts to come straight out and say so or knows that it is such a ridiculous statement that he tries to hide it in this sneaky phrasing.

Whenever I see this kind of tactic in writing I immediately tend to discount anything else the writer states.

[Clark2008]

18. Well, if the shoe fits...

[Perky]

22. totally agree,,,, opinions are backed up by opinions masquerading as facts.

total blowhard

[ooglymoogly]

25. Anyone deluded enough to think this is NOT meant as an opinion piece should not

be voting...personally I agree with his opinion....in other words my opinion is in accord with the poster.

[Tesha]

26. Funny, they wrote *EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING AND FEELING* for a long time now.

We win when we act like Democrats, not Republican-lite
go-along-to-get-along fools.

We need candidates who will stand up for democratic
*AND* Democratic values, especially if you expect
this Democrat to vote for them!

This stuff actually works. Here in NH, where Republicans
have ruled the roost since God invented Dirt, a very
rowdy, very out-spoken Democratic Party took over
the whole state last year, and we didn't do it with
DLCers, we did it with fervently anti-war national
candidates and state candidates who spoke like
*ACTUAL DEMOCRATS*. And if we can kick out the
Republicans in New Hampshire, we can certainly kick
out the Republicans in Washington, D.C.

But we have to offer real change, not more of the
same old shit.

Tesha

[ooglymoogly]

30. Exactly right Tesha and a big hey from right ova da boada

and we did the same

[Greyhound]

77. This is what terrifies the DLC and other Republiks in Democratic clothing.

Also why the corporate media will go to almost any length to avoid talking about any progressive/liberal candidate or cause.

We are right, as usual, and they are wrong, as always, they just keep working to make sure nobody notices.

[Greyhound]

75. I'm pretty sure the writer wrote exactly what he meant.

John Edwards is a lawyer, not only a lawyer but a successful trial lawyer. That translates into he is a self-serving asshole (not at all unusual for politicians, nor a deal breaker, at that level everybody is an asshole that's how you get to that level) with a highly variable ethical compass.

[pokercat999]

82. I totally disagree that being a successful trial lawyer

translates into being a self-serving assole. You try looking in a mirror lately?

[Greyhound]

87. Fine. I'm guessing that you are either a lawyer yourself, work for them, or

haven't had too many dealings with them. The whole key to winning the "American Lawsuit Lottery" is ensuring your lawyer is a bigger, less scrupulous, asshole than the other guy's.

Nice metaphor for our nation's recent history.

[pokercat999]

132. True I haven't had many dealings with them (no I don't

work for them or with them) BUT if I'm ever injured or some member of my family is wrongfully injured in any way I want someone just like John Edwards on MY side because you can bet the other side will have the biggest baddest SOB they can find fighting for them.

Without lawyers we wouldn't even have seatbelts in cars let alone all the safety devices and testing we have on all kinds of products.

[Greyhound]

134. Absolutely true, and that is my point exactly.

It is simply the nature of the beast. What sucks is when you try to get a "John Edwards" to make your claim and find out none of them will take it because there isn't enough advantage to them, or that they won't go up against the lawyers on the other side.

It is a ruthless profession and only those with that highly variable ethical compass excel in it.

[pokercat999]

145. Something you/me, we ALL must realize. Human beings

always put their own best interest first if they have a chance to think it over. Why would a lawyer take a case, spent tons of their own money and risk losing with no payoff, just because the client thinks it the right thing to do? They are in business and in America they are EXPECTED to make a profit. Sure they do some pro-bono work but that is just to keep up appearances. Their first motive is to earn the big bucks, we are a capitalist society first and foremost.

[Greyhound]

148. But isn't it antithetical to the concept of America that people can only get the justice they

can afford? That is what we were trying to prevent in the formation of this nation. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and all that goes with that.

[pokercat999]

152. How's that idea work'n out for ya? Not so good for me.

All those things go with a weak or benevolent gov't. We have neither.

[Zensea]

85. In general, that thesis about lawyers is a crock

Sure it's true with specific lawyers.
Whether it is true for Edwards or not can be debated.
General statements that are extremely cliche-ridden regarding lawyers don't indicate anything except regarding the person making the statements.

[Greyhound]

88. Really? Try getting a lawyer to sue another lawyer.

Make all the personal attacks you wish, it doesn't change reality, nor people's opinion, one whit.

[Zensea]

93. That's why I responded the way I did

Do you understand?
I often don't really see the point of trying to change the opinion of someone when I can tell they have an entrenched position that I feel indicates a limited view of the world.
This is one of those times.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

118. trial lawyers are bad....?

Self serving asshole huh.... So, you are saying that there are no ethical trial lawyers.

That's ridiculous. When you go in for surgery and the surgeon operates on the wrong knee, tell me you wouldn't sue the pants off of the god-like doctor?

Have you examined the cases that Edwards took on and won? Was it unethical to win a case against a pool drain manufacturer whose defective drain cover caused the disemboweling of a three year old girl? Or the medical malpractice suits he won against physicians whose actions caused terrible injuries?

I am sick to death of people painting a sweeping picture of trial lawyers as being heartless mercenaries who will do anything to make a buck.

Give me an educated, self made Trial Lawyer any day over anything the GOP has to offer.

[Greyhound]

129. Never said they were all bad, just that the nature of the profession

all but guarantees a certain type of person will be the ne that becomes successful in the field.

More than the cases he has won, I'm sure there are many that are admirable, to gage the man as a human being, look at the cases he turned down. Also remember the tobacco, pharmaceutical, energy, and insurance industry all use trial lawyers too, and they pay huge sums of money to endure that theirs are the best.

It was FoMoCo's trial lawyers that told them it would be cheaper to take the lawsuits than to correct deadly design flaws in their cars. It will trial lawyers that will ensure that Halliburton will pay no price for their crimes, etc.

As I said in a previous post, as long as your lawyer is a bigger asshole than their lawyer you will win your lawsuit against the Doctor, if not, you will limp in poverty for the rest of your life. I also stated that any Presidential candidate is most likely an asshole, and that includes mine, that is just a fact of American politics, nice people just don't get to that level.

Jerry Spence is a hero of mine and I've been fortunate to have met him, but he is an asshole. Doesn't in any way diminish what he has done, nor does the fact that he was both a prosecutor and advocate for the insurance industry. It's just the nature of the beast.

[laugle]

135. I agree with you, this sounds more like

RW BS, and is not worthy of comment. Reality is important-but negativety is not!

[rinsd]

8. Author consulted for the Kucinich campaign in April and worked for it in 2004.

[ooglymoogly]

27. well stop the presses...and bang the pans and quel suprise..

and quel dommage all over the place....you have the smoking gun.

[LWolf]

31. Yes. That's evidence of good judgement.

:hi:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. I hate to say it, but I agree...

Your arguments are very compelling, and well thought-out.

K&R

[Gregorian]

10. This ought to be sent to Congress.

It's the plain and simple situation and solution with which we are faced.

[SaveElmer]

11. Now for all the folks wailing about paid Clinton Shills on here...

The author was Dennis Kucinich's press secretary in 2004, and has consulted for him as recently as this past May...

Having said that, I find it amusing and ironic that someone working for the Kucinich campaign would seek to instruct Democrats on what is needed to win an election...

I also find it amusing and ironic that someone working for the Kucinich campaign would mock Hillary Clinton for changing positions on issues, when there is no other Democrat in the race that has made as gear shifting a change in position on a fundamental issues as Dennis Kucinich has on abortion, and flag desecration...

www.davidswanson.org

[MonkeyFunk]

14. so if we nominate Kucinich

that will surely prevent a Republican victory?

:rofl:

[ooglymoogly]

21. Me?.... I am hoping RFK Jr. and or Al Gore jumps into the race.

otherwise it is DK as far as he can run.

[LWolf]

32. We all find things. I find him to have good judgement! n/t

[elmerdem]

12. this remark

resembles AL Gore.

"Third, they should pick a viable candidate to run for president, which means quite obviously someone who has never supported the invasion or occupation of Iraq, and someone who favors ending the occupation completely and immediately."

I don't know if Al Gore will run, but I'm becoming disillusioned with the front runners. We are truly eating our own. Look at the last couple of weeks. I'm also sorry but I simply don't trust Edwards. I want to. I love his ideas, but my gut instinct tells me that he is a true politician to the core, Elizabeth Edwards not so much. I don't have any control of the media ignoring the rest of the candidates. I research them enough to think they may be better than the front runners, but most voters do not. They are pop culture voters and are easily swayed by political adds and the MSM. It is truly a shame. Anything can happen. We all know that Gore & Kerry were elected.

[superkia]

13. And the Republicans have a tv /movie star!

America loves some tv!

[Pooka Fey]

16. K&R

[ooglymoogly]

20. I am in total agreement with this post...KR

[LWolf]

23. I agree. Those are the steps to victory; to the best possible outcome.

I hope the Democratic Party, and Democratic primary voters, are willing to take those steps.

[LittleClarkie]

33. "Those Democrats who vote in primaries are very obedient to the media's dictates."

Then shouldn't they have voted for Dean, the frontrunner according to the media, in 2004?

[davidswanson]

137. the media murdered dean

before iowa

somehow that bit of history always gets reversed

[bvar22]

37. Agree, though the OP overloooked an inevitability.

If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, there WILL BE a strong 3rd Party run from a Populist candidate that WILL peel off a significant # of Liberal Democrats in the General Election.

ALL the current polls showing Hillary winning against certain Republicans are WORTHLESS.
None consider the inevitability of a 3rd Party.

This WILL happen. If Hillary is the nominee, Republicans WIN.

Edwards/Obama may not spawn a Populist 3rd Party, and wouldn't sacrifice as many liberal Democratic votes as Hillary would by several orders of magnitude.

After Hillary loses, the wailers and gnashers of teeth will BLAME the 3rd Party instead of their own stupidity for running a Conservative in 2008.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Greyhound]

78. Hammer, meet nail-head. n/t

[QueenOfCalifornia]

121. Exactly

You said it better than I've been able to.

Thanks.

[AtomicKitten]

38. if only

[puebloknot]

39. Dems will have to earn our votes to stay in office. And they'll have to...

... work to see that our votes are counted.

They've got 18 months!

[Bravo Zulu]

40. They've got 18 months!

there might not be anything left to be president of!

[puebloknot]

65. After today...

... you're right. Any election, if there is one, will be another scam!

[Major Hogwash]

67. We vote again in 15 months.

Just thought I would toss that in.

[Time for change]

44. Nice impeachment list

[mnhtnbb]

47. I disagree that Edwards is disqualifed based on Iraq vote. To the contrary,

many people who supported the war would be able to identify with him. It allows
voters who supported the war--and now changed their minds--to support him.
They will also admire someone who can admit he was wrong, unlike Bush or Hillary.

[Seabiscuit]

51. That's it in a nutshell.

While I was angry at Edwards throughout 2004, he was the first to come out in 2005 and publicly admit his vote was wrong. Kerry seemed to have dragged his feet forever on that one. And when he first said it it was buried almost like a footnote in a very lengthy interview, primarily about other things. And Hillary's pronouncements make about as much sense by now as Pelosi's ludicrous pronouncements about ending the Iraq war.

Edwards makes it possible for those who fell for the administration's lies about Iraq and have since learned to oppose the war, for whatever reason, to have faith in a candidate who made a similar mistake.

[davidswanson]

138. he says he wants to keep open

the option of nuking Iran, and we're to believed he's actually learned something?

[Perry Logan]

48. With Democrats like Swanson, we don't even need Republicans.

[many a good man]

55. Has he ever participated in a discussion here?

He copies and pastes from his blogs but never follows up with any discussion, as far as I can remember. He makes some good points but other times goes a bit too far imho.

[bluedog]

104. guess not..................asked about that before......n/t

[Seabiscuit]

49. So where's Al Gore when we need them?

According to the OP's author, the Dem's presidential prospects are looking thoroughly bleak and depressing. He only mentions Kucinich as the guy people wouldn't reject out of principle, yet then says that thanks to the media, DK is basically unelectable. The rest of the current field is, without a doubt, milquetoast and rather pathetic, all with serious flaws, gaffes, and lack of charisma.

Maybe someone should send this thread to Al Gore pleading with him to come to our aid.

The rest of the OP is spot on, about what Congress needs to do from this day forward.

[ginnyinWI]

126. Gore might just jump in, but not in any expected way

What I mean by that is, from reading his new book, I think he's thoroughly digested exactly what is wrong with the media today, and will, if he gets in, try to play them to his advantage. This means an unconventional run for president. I don't know what it will be, but he's been there and done that and has seen what happens to a candidate. He won't do the same thing twice and expect a different result. If anything, the American media is much worse now than it was in 2000.

[leaninglib]

52. It's a 50-50 nation, so anything can happen.

[Laurab]

53. Nice post - I agree with much of what you say

and would probably agree with even more if the repuke candidates weren't such jokes. As far as I can tell, they don't really have one viable candidate - the repugs don't like their candidates at ALL. And their joke of a frontrunner will be destroyed, I believe, within the next several months, because he's just got too many skeletons in his closet - well, not really even in the closet. I mean, the cross-dressing, and next wife jokes have only just begun.

Really, I think the dems will run away with it - unless Hillary, the annointed one wins the nomination. That scares me a bit, because she is as hated on the right as * is on the left. She doesn't deserve it, but it's true. It would be the best get-out-the-vote nomination, but for the wrong party. Even if it is Hillary, I still think we can win, but it's going to take everything we've got, and many of your suggestions, for that to happen.

I'm sorry, but there's just not a single repuke candidate that I can even take seriously, and I don't think I'm alone.

[bvar22]

57. Fred Thompson.

He will be stepping in.
I hate the bastard myself.
The Democratic Party is well on the way to self-destruction.
However, the individual Democrats who are selling us out will do well in The New American Century.

[Laurab]

58. I think Fred is a bigger joke than the rest, really

And from the little snippets I've seen, mostly on the Daily Show and Colbert Report, he shouldn't be too difficult to run against, either. Besides which I cannot imagine even looking at that face, much less listening to him talk as a POTUS. I can't imagine how he ever made it as an actor.

I know very little, but already I know he's lazy and has no appetite for policy work, isn't all that smart, and doesn't want to be, lacks curiosity just like our present POS - actually he sounds quite like our present dear leader in many regards. The best thing I heard is that 2 ex girlfriends said nice things about him. I don't think he can run on that. I refuse to even consider looking at that face for four years! I think a debate would do him in, myself.

[lefador]

71. Same was said about Reagan...

He was a hack of an actor who almost run California into the ground, and that was under the heyday of the post WWII American economy.

Same goes for W, he couldn't debate to save his life. Heck every time he opens his mouth he manages to commit yet another crime against the English language. But, most people I guess wanted to have a beer with the guy. Never mind that he was supposed to be a recovering alcoholic and being in an environment where beer was plentiful may push him off the wagon.

I always got a chuckle because I think Americans as a whole are a bunch of assholes. I could decide who was the biggest asshole: American Average Joe who would consider the possibility of having a presidential candidate as a drinking buddy even though he is a recovering alcoholic and thus endangering his well being, or Bush for pretending that his silver spoon-fed, boarding school and ivy league entitled arse would even give the time of the day, much less share a cold one, with Average American Joe. I guess they deserve each other...

[Greyhound]

81. I thoroughly disagree...

with my inability to find anything to disagree with in your post



Saint Raygun the destroyer; proving that Americans are the most gullible rubes on earth.

[Laurab]

96. But at least they could make Reagan up to look pretty

and he could speak in whole sentences. Really, I wasn't too interested in politics back then - it took this administration to get me interested. I grew up in a Democratic-voting family, but never much thought about it until the past few years. Ignorance was bliss - there was no way I could ignore what was going on once I read a little bit about this administration.

I don't really think Americans as a whole are a bunch of assholes, although obviously, somewhere around 30% are either that or just illiterate idiots who vote against their own self-interests. I really think it's more that people just don't pay attention, and only know what's on the news or in the paper.

Not every "average Joe" voted for bush - I think the only ones that truly deserve him are the ones who asked for him.

At any rate, I don't think there's any way they can make Fred Thompson look good, or impress in any way - I'm hoping that the average Joes and Janes are at least a little smarter this time around. My gut feeling is that they will be.

[davidswanson]

139. that was true

in 2000 and 2004 too. How'd the We-May-Suck-But-We're-Not-Republicans strategy work out?

[Laurab]

143. To be honest, I don't think "we suck" this year

I didn't think our candidates sucked in 2000 (which we actually won, btw), or 2004, either. I liked John Kerry, and believe he may have won, too, but of course, that doesn't matter since he isn't in the office he may have won.

I think a few of our candidates are quite good, really. Just because I think the repuke candidates are jokes, doesn't mean I don't like our candidates. The "front runners" aren't necessarily my favorites, at least not 2 of them, but put side by side with ANY of the repuglicans, they will look much better than they do side by side with each other, and IMO will make the repugs look like the jokes that they are. Time will tell.

[sellitman]

54. Kucinich has been and continues to be our best candidate on issues.

Now if the MSM would only focus on real issues then .....WHAM...we win!

[pokercat999]

83. Unfortunately Dennis isn't tall enough. I wish I were

joking.

[sellitman]

89. Yes but his upside is....

After 8 years of a Kucinich Presidency we could get 8 years of an Elizabeth Kucinich Presidency.

And she is tall enough.

:evilgrin:

[pokercat999]

133. Touche!

[mzmolly]

56. The conditions for "supporting Democrats" continually change on the part of some progressives.

The list you note above, if it was done tomorrow, would only be added to.

[Like It Is]

59. Here's Your Democratic Winner.

JOE BIDEN

[Phredicles]

61. Aw, hell no.

His only value to the election is making HRC look just a little less horrible. It's only a matter of time before he says something else idiotic with that stupid smile on his face.

[Truth2Tell]

60. It looks to me like

all of the apologists for our Repuglican-lite leadership are happy to have us all walk lock-step off yet another cliff. It's really starting to get old.

[Norrin Radd]

63. k+r

[Liberty Belle]

64. Here's how to stop it:

Tell Congress to follow California's lead (announced at midnight tonight by our wonderful Secretary of State Debra Bowen) and decertify every single electronic voting machine in the nation!!!!!!!!

If we boot out all the machines, we will see a blue tidal wave sweep all those crooks and cronies out of office.

Please contact your Congressional reps and Senators to urge that they follow California's path and relegate electronic voting machines to the dustbin of history.

[lefador]

69. I doubt it...

What you will see a tidal wave of people who will stay home because frankly they can't tell the difference between the Dems and the GOP so why bother, and all those Jesus freaks who get their day off because they were told that they either vote or face the fiery gates of hell will as usual push the GOP lever at the booths.

Democrats will be left theorizing what went wrong, maybe the candidate was too out spoken, maybe he or she was too timid, did he wore too much make up? Was she showing too much cleavage? Hopefully Nader will run, so the Democrats can scream bloody murder on how an old fart who is responsible for lobbied to make seat belts mandatory was responsible for the GOP win.

Rinse, dry and repeat cycle.


Ding, ding, ding.... this country is done.

[davidswanson]

140. i agree

and listed that as step 1

[Kablooie]

66. YES! I agree. But unfortunately the Democrats as a whole show no sign of agreeing.

So if you're right, we can welcome a new Republican president and probably Repub majorities in both houses again for the next 8 years.

[Phrogman]

68. I cannot vote for anybody that helped start the war in Iraq

If they didn't speak up than when it was important, than they don't have what it takes to lead the free world.

Thats crystal clear to me.

[Hobbs]

70. No Dem President is correct

but there will be a Dem in the oval office because you can't have a President without a Constitution.

[Perry Logan]

73. Earth calling DU. The Democrats could run a dog in 2008 and still win.

I think we should do it, just to prove it.

[LWolf]

95. That being the case,

what possible reason do we have for not running the man who is best on every single issue? As long as we are in position to win, we ought to win with our best.

[MADem]

113. Not a Clinton supporter, or opposed to females candidates in general?

...what possible reason do we have for not running the man who is best....

[LWolf]

117. Not a clinton supporter. I AM a female, and

would love to see a female POTUS. Not her, though.

I can't say I'm thrilled with the quality of the offerings in the primary race. I said the man because the one with the best platform happens to be male.

I'm not going to vote for a candidate whose platform and record I don't like, over a candidate whose platform and record has earned my support, because of gender.

[MADem]

119. Well, there ya go. Your remark was cryptic. It read as though your use of the

term "man" was not specific to an individual. You've now explained that you had a specific 'man' in mind, and you believe that he has the best platform.

But without that knowledge of your personal views, it didn't read the way you intended it.

[LWolf]

120. That probably happens pretty frequently

in "anonymous" discussions. :hi:

[opihimoimoi]

76. The Pubs want folks to thiunk in terms of INDIVIDUAL Candidates and how they Compare

In Reality...voters should be looking at Parties and the differing philosophies...

GOP...decietful, greedy, arrogant, apathetic, etc...negative polarity

DEMs...benevolent, altruistic, positive polarity

[luckyleftyme2]

84. WELL SAID

THEY EVEN SCREW THEIR PEER GROUPS!(REPUBLICANS THAT IS)

[SunDrop23]

86. I have little confidence about 2009.

Maybe it is because I live in a small town in a red state and all I hear is how bad the Dems are, how terrorist are going to kill us, how them fucking Messicans (sic) are taking over, etc., but I haven't been able to convince myself we will win.

[opihimoimoi]

90. Ignorance is NOT the Answer

[SunDrop23]

94. What is your point?

[opihimoimoi]

106. Sorry, wasn't meant for you...just saying Ignorance Level seems to be getting its way

in our Society and its negative results is Not the Answer...

Obvious to most of us but we are only 12% or so...

[mrigirl]

91. here's your man that can beat the Repugs!

Biden is the only Dem w/ enough balls to stand up to the Repugs and put them in thier place! In a head to head debate Biden would demolish any Repub candidate. He's our only hope of winning this election. Hillary and Obama will not win. They are too busy going after each other instead of going after the Repugs! Biden's been the only one as of late who has stood up and spoken out. With Biden's experience in the Senate and his heading of our Foreign Relations Committee he is by far our best bet. Do you guys want things to change? To get better again and restore faith in our Presidency? To restore United States integrity w/ the rest of the world? What Arab do you think will sit w/ Hillary and treat her equally like a man? None. Biden's our guy people. Wake up before it's too late.

[MADem]

114. Problem is, he's not 'really' running for the job.

He's running for Secretary of State. Everyone knows that.

And how frankly idiotic is this comment? What Arab do you think will sit w/ Hillary and treat her equally like a man?

Funny, decades ago, those "Arabs" of which you speak had no difficulty whatsoever with Prime Minister Thatcher. They haven't slit their throats over the leadership of Germany, either.

Your utter ignorance of the leadership in the Arab world is flat-out astounding. These guys went to Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Yale...they aren't uneducated camel jockeys who crap behind a sand dune.

I nominate this post for most obtuse of the week.

[mrigirl]

155. My "obtuse" opinion

MaDem- I assume perhaps that you are from Massachusetts like myself? We all are entitled to our own opinion here but I wanted to reply back to you beacause I hate to burst your bubble but I am not the only one who feels that Hillary wouldn't garner as much respect as a male President would. Granted, because of her husband she would do a hell of alot better than Condi has. But still- when you compare her to someone like Senator Biden who has actually been doing foreign relations for years- there's no comparison. I will support Biden in the primaries and if it ends up being Hillary in the end (as the frustrated Democrat that I am) in the end she will get my vote. For the record- Margaret Thatcher had no interactions w/ Arab nations back in her day.

[RestoreGore]

92. And how do you then deal with the brainwashed distracted Americans out here?

And the fact that the media was not at all mentioned in your plan with it being the biggest part of the equation? How do you institute this when a large majority of Americans are still distracted and disillusioned? Do you really believe many even care what Congress does at this point since they have given so much away already? And this isn't about their "favorability" ratings, this is about doing the right thing. Unfortunately, with all of the political ooperatives for the candidates now posting on these sites no doubt, it is hard to now discern whether what is being posted by the author is because they think it the right thing to do, or just to score points for their candidate.

[proud2BlibKansan]

97. Wow - no one has talked about the most important part of this piece - the footnote

* FOOTNOTE:

The impeachments should focus on these themes:

BUSH:

1. Refusal to comply with subpoenas (not disputable, and passed by the Judiciary Committee against Nixon)

2. Routine violation of numerous laws, preceded by announcement of intention to do so in signing statements (White House website and GAO study)

3. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant. (Confessed to.)

4. Commuting the sentence of I Lewis Scooter Libby. (Both Madison and Mason argued at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia that impeachment would protect against a president pardoning someone for a crime that he himself was involved in).

5. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.

6. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

7. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

8. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

9. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

10. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

11. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina.


CHENEY:

1. Refusal to comply with subpoenas.

2. Creating and advocating the "Unitary Executive Theory" which is used by the White House to defy laws duly enacted by Congress and thereby justify dictatorial action. Cheney's office has drafted many if not all of the signing statements.

3. Cheney played a key role in setting up illegal spying programs.

4. Coordinating campaign to obstruct the investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald.

5. Coordinating a campaign of retribution against whistleblower Joseph Wilson, including the outing of a covert CIA operative.

6. Leading efforts to institute routine use of torture.

7. Leading campaign to manipulate pre-war intelligence.

8. Creating secret Energy Task Force which operated in defiance of open-government laws.

9. Directing massive no-bid contracts to his company, Halliburton, and profiting from the same illegal war he defrauded the American public to launch.

10-12 from H Res 333:
Cheney has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit….

Cheney purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit….

Cheney has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit….

[Prophet 451]

99. Possibly true

If they can Diebold enough races (screw you, "Diebold" is indeed a verb), scare enough people, scream hard enough at the Dems (who will back down because they still haven't learned to go for the jugular) and if teh Dems misread the public mood enough, they could put a Republican in office.

That's assuming there will actually be an election which at this point, is no longer a certain bet.

[rhett o rick]

100. If we can't get the Democratic Senators to stand up for the Constitution

how can we expect to win in 2008? Sixteen Democratic Senators condoned and support George Bush's violation of the law. He violated the law and Constitution and 16 Democratic Senators said that is just fine. This totally undermines our chances to convince the American public that Democrats support the Constitution and Republicans don't.

[autorank]

101. K*R Heartily Endorsed....this is the type of analysis and thinking we neet! n/t

[windoe]

102. Tough strategy (rant warning)

The neo cons are playing hardball and Dems are playing with play-dough.
The Neo Cons are the Radicals with their aggressive fascist laws
-We are the Conservatives who want to conserve Constitutional laws, civil rights and environmental protection. Ironic that the 'liberals' are
in support of our original Republic.
-We have to learn to instantly recognize the thought-stopping techniques employed by mainsteam media, these include:
Humiliation through character assassination- a very ingenious ploy that drives people off subject every time
Baffling us with so much BS that we do not know how to respond
Redefining "talk show' to mean interrupting, insulting and labeling, twisting and taking words out of context. These are arguments, not
discussions or even debates.
Editorializing masquerading as new coverage
Calling anyone making 2+2=4 a conspiracy theorist. Making connections is how we make sense out of a complex world. This is a very
complex world and a dumbed down oversimplified solution cannot work.

-Most importantly the neo cons changed the paradigm to polarized thinking and framing of presentation. The most primitive form of thinking is predator/prey, black and white, them and us, fight or flight, left and right, always using the most extreme inflammatory language to highlight our differences (and divide and conqer us?). We are VERY easily manipulated into this kind of thinking, unfortunately it is the BEST thought stopping technique of all, it is simple and easy to understand for a stressed out world. Fundamentalists think this way, unfortunately, so they easily join the ranks.

-If Kuchinich is our man than by God lets back him, who fing cares how tall the man is! We need to play hard people and change the paradigm to match the complex world we live in, not support the adult children who have looted the treasury and now have all the means to buy off anyone they can (media, infiltrated all branches of government), the military industrial complex and secret government, and weapons of mass distruction. We cannot enable this to continue, every day they are in office they rake in more untraceable money and keep changing the laws. How can they do this if it is not with all the trillions of stolen moula?

Thank you all wonderful people for caring so much, you have kept me sane ( okay....relatively speaking)

[Kip Humphrey]

103. Dem or Repub, I'm sure our next president will be a dutiful lieutenant

committed to the agenda of neo-liberal/neo-conservative corporatist global fascism.

[hfojvt]

105. I appreciate the to-do list

although I feel it is overly ambitious. Also, I do not think Edwards is nearly as vulnerable as either Clinton, first because she is a Clinton and second because she is a woman, and Obama.

[Danger Mouse]

108. I'm not so fond of Clinton or Obama.

Edwards is alright.
The Republicans have a pathetic field of cantidates.
We'll have to see how Fred Thompson looks. He's no Reagan, though, but I bet he wishes he was.

[Like It Is]

123. Watch the video, Biden is the man ! On this thread.

You'll enjoy it.

[Danger Mouse]

128. I'll check it out, thanks.

:hi:

[Martin Eden]

110. "no more bills to fund the occupation of Iraq"

I know it's pretty much a given here at DU that the Democratic majority in Congress should end our military involvement in Iraq by defunding it. I'm going to invite some flames by disagreeing with that approach in terms of its consequences.

The fiasco in Iraq is a giant millstone around the neck of Bush and his party. The Democrats, by forcing a withdrawal through defunding, would be removing that millstone and taking ownership of the issue -- AND THE BLAME FOR WHAT HAPPENS IN IRAQ AFTERWARDS. You know how the blame game plays out in partisan politics -- for the next 20 years or more the Repubs would point to Iraq as the prime example why Democrats can't be trusted on national security. Nevermind that Bush got us into this mess and mismanaged it so egregiously that he guaranteed a FUBAR outcome. The Dems, by forcing his hand, would relieve him and his party of much of that burden.

I harbor no illusions that our military engagement in Iraq is something that can be "won." Staying the course Bush has set is the definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. IMHO this was an illegal invasion based on lies to establish permanent military bases for the PNAC agenda, control of oil, corporate enrichment, and political power. Drunk with their own power and blinded by ambition, hubris, and ideological groupthink, they overreached, made colossal mistakes, and caused great harm to Iraq and to our own country.

Now more than ever we need strong, enlightened leadership in Washington. Obviously it is up to the Democratic Party to bring an end to the Bush/necon madness in Iraq. Aside from the political consequences described above, is defunding to force immediate withdrawal the wisest course of action? I don't believe there are any good options in Iraq, but there must be a least worst option. I think our government needs to fundamentally change its foreign policy (repudiating the "Bush Doctrine") and make every conceivable diplomatic effort to work with the international community and Iraq's neighbors to come up with a transition away from US military occupation that gives the people who live in Iraq the best chance for security and stability. I don't claim to know what can be achieved, but I think it is the responsibility of the United States to make that effort.

I also think that such an effort cannot be made while Bush is in the White House. Given the costs of staying his course for another 18 months and the constitutional imperative of impeaching Bush/Cheney, I would couple impeachment with the need for the changes and efforts mentioned above. I would not, however, force withdrawal by defunding while Bush is in office. If it was a choice between immediate withdrawal and several more years of the same course, I'd choose the former. However, I do not think that is our only or best option. -- for Iraq or for the Democratic Party.

[davidswanson]

142. have you given any thought to

what the best option would be for the thousands of people who will DIE as a result of this cynical policy, inlcuding some hundreds of US servicemen and women?

I'm with you if you want to impeach and withdraw. But refusing to withdraw for political reasons is not only morally offensive, but it will look morally offensive to voters.

[Martin Eden]

146. I've given it much thought.

The strongest argument for immediate withdrawal are the lives of Americans in uniform that will be saved. What remains to be seen is whether that strategy will result in more Iraqi lives being lost in the chaos that will follow -- as opposed to a Democratic administration making the necessary diplomatic efforts to ensure a more stable transition from US military occupation.

I don't know the extent to which such diplomatic efforts would result in stability in Iraq. I'm fairly certain however that the Democratic Party would take the blame for whatever terrible events follow an immediate withdrawal forced by defunding. If this did indeed significantly damage the long term electoral success of the Democratic Party the end result could be more colossal strategic blunders like Iraq at the hands of neocon Rethugs, and much greater cost in blood and treasure.

Your original post was about political strategy for electoral success, especially in the 2008 presidential election. If the Dems forced a withdrawal through defunding and the headlines were filled with bloody images of an escalated Iraqi civil war and radical Islamists propagandizing an American "defeat," how do you think that might impact the chances of the Democratic candidate in the general election?

[Martin Eden]

154. "morally offensive"

What is or is not the morally correct course of action is a very difficult question that can be looked at from different perspectives. If political reality strongly suggests that a course of action will hurt the electoral chance of the Democratic Party and result in continued neocon/rethug control of our foreign policy, isn't it a moral imperative to prevent that from happening?

[provis99]

111. this article is bizarre

It says Democratic candidates will lose because they have given mixed messages on support for the war. Well, ALL the Republicans have said they support the war indefinitely. So how, exactly, under the terms the author sets, are Republicans supposed to win?

[davidswanson]

141. ah - they've got a surprise weapon

REPUBLICAN VOTERS

[femrap]

112. What are we going to do if Gore

doesn't run???

[Greyhound]

130. Vote for the corporate nominee with the 'D' after their name for the sole reason

of the SCOTUS appointments. Then go take a long hot shower.

[femrap]

144. Yeah, you're right....

see you're a Kucinich fan, too.

I sometimes worry that this evil regime will never cede their power.

[Greyhound]

147. They will as long as the replacement is one that will continue the

true agenda, and that looks inevitable at this point.

Sad really, but it works over and over and over. The sheeple are easily mollified.

[sallyseven]

115. I disagree 100% with your Obama puff article

Hillary and Edwards are both as viable to the Dems as Obama. he is too young and inexperienced to be a good president. I find less about him to like every time he opens his mouth and I am sick and tired of him saying the time to be against the war was before it started but he votes for every funding bill. He is I think a dishonest person and his handlers might want to change tactics. They are doing him a lot of harm.

[cd3dem]

151. I agree

I agree... I am growing tired of Obama myself... I got a call from Obama people in the spring and when I said I was not giving money at this time... she hung up on me without saying good-bye... yes, she was a volunteer but why wasn't she better trained?...

he started off sounding like he wanted to run an honest campaign on vision and a positive new direction... now he has called Hillary Bush-Cheney-lite.... we should not say negative things about our own... in the end when the last dem is standing the republicans will use our words against us... I have seen it done... I wish Obama had used his charm to campaign for the party and not gotten in before he had more national experience... if he thinks he is the best candidate because he did not vote for the war... then perhaps I should run... I opposed it from the start too!

[Mrspeeker]

122. The have already won!

McCain is the next president, and I kid you not!

[ptolle]

124. amend if I may.

One might fervently hope that enough people in this country have been made aware of republican manipulation of the voting process that the open and grand larcenies they once pulled are no longer possible, if not then the integrity of the voting process ought to become an integral part of any Democrats campaign.
George will, thankfully, be gone and dickless cheney with him but it's possible to connect almost any potential republican candidate to those two sociopaths through their advocacy of certain policies and that, IMO, needs to be done.Obama's mere mention of even entertaining the possibility of using U.S. troops in yet a third theater may cost him the nomination and we'd need not worry about your other scenarios.
I'd like to think it's possible to cite the other grievances you've listed as more than enough reason for the country to reject almost any republican candidate.
Perhaps wishful thinking but I believe America has seen quite enough of the republicans lately, and need little more to be persuaded to show them the door for a long time to come.

[Cha]

127. It's good he's writing this so

all these facts can be layed out..David Swanson has done a lot of research.

Nice to see journalists who are thinking.

[oakleaf]

131. If democrats lose it's because they have ruled out the best candidates

If the democrats lose it will be their own fault.

I have a question for all democrats and left wingers: Why not support the candidate with the most experience, leadership, and democratic values? Is there any doubt that Mike Gravel will win more respect for your party then Hillary or Barack could ever dream of getting?

Do you really want to keep playing the republican game of "politics as usual"? Because as a party you have been playing that republican game, and losing miserably.

Your best interest is to restore respect and credibility to your party, not bog it down with special interest politics. Vote your interest!

[Perry Logan]

153. For some reason, liberals think it's cool to predict their own defeat.

Wingers are just the opposite. They predict a rosy future for themselves no matter how screwed they are.