Common Dreams:Nadar:How Will the Democrats Control Congress?

[davidwparker]

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0106-20.htm

"Early and troubling signals from Capitol Hill indicate that the Democrats are not going to move to remove the brazen Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, are not going to go after the huge waste and redundancy in military weapons contracts rendered obsolete with the demise of the Soviet Union, are not going to end massive corporate welfare, as we know it, and are not going to propose a serious crackdown on widespread corporate crime, fraud and abuse."

Are there any signs of election reform?

Are there signs of removing from the tax code laws which encourage outsourcing?

Media reform?

I'm interested in seeing what two weak leaders in the House and Senate actually do.

[LittleClarkie]

1. Well in three days so far no sign

But somehow I would think that's not enough time.

[davidwparker]

11. True, it has been 3 days. But now that it is official, I guess one could

expect some details about what happens after the first 100 legislative hours.

100 hours / 40 (the number of hours Pelosi said the House would work) = 2.5 weeks.

After 2.5 weeks, what then?

If past is prologue, then I'd say Nadar is right again. They're being cautious because 2008 is just around the corner. Don't want to make waves.

[snowbear]

2. Oh no....

[The Magistrate]

3. This Ripe Turd, Sir, Needs To Sit Down And Shut Up

His opinion on political conduct by Democrats is as valuable as that of a career criminal's on the need for law enforcement.

[Jim Sagle]

7. Your Honor, you're stealing my lines! Have we switched personalities?

;-)

[The Magistrate]

13. Keep An Eye Out For The Urge To Use A Semi-Colon, My Friend

That would be a confirming sign....

[Jim Sagle]

22. Decidedly so; in other words, fuckin' A.

[Sparkly]

12. Hear, hear!!

:thumbsup: :applause:

[LittleClarkie]

24. Funny, I was just thinking about him today

Thinking that Cindy is reminding me of Nader in drag, with her talk of there being no difference between the parties.

[AtomicKitten]

4. Nader? I thought he was dead.

[BuelahWitch]

46. Somebody thawed him out...

:yoiks:

[KingFlorez]

5. Not this fool again

Nader doesn't have a clue what his is talking about.

[Cameron27]

6. He speaketh with forked tongue.

[davidwparker]

15. He tends to be correct. He's not candidate material, but I'd say he is

correct. Time will tell.

[ShortnFiery]

42. I rue the thought, but, IMO Nader is spot on.

Fear not though fellow DUers, my husband always talks me into voting the Democratic ticket for the Presidency as well as the Senate. :shrug:

However, I fear that our legislators sorely need term limits and to ALWAYS remember that they work for us, not their personal gain, career and financial best interests.

I hope to hell that I'm wrong, but I'm not. :(

[citizen snips]

8. STFU Nader

[omega minimo]

9. Nadar/radar going off

:popcorn:

[emulatorloo]

10. I don't know which is more tiresome - Ralph Nader or "Common Dreams"

can we just ignore their divisive BS for a little while? I'd like to give the Dem congress a chance before succumbing to this attack-from-the-left rote nonsense.

[davidwparker]

14. It's not intended to be divisive. It's hints of what the Dems will do or not

do. There were some important things that we expected to happen when the Dems took over. One by one, they drop off.

Impeachment was taken off the table because it might cost the midterms.

Some high percent of the people want us out of Iraq. Yet, funding will continue.

I'm watching what these people actually do. It was tiresome watching Pelosi/Reid cave when they were in the minority. How sad it will be to watch them cave when they are in the majority.

[The Magistrate]

23. What Is Tiresome, Mr. Parker

Is lectures on how to run the government of a democracy from persons who garnered roughly two percent of the vote, directed at people who collectively were voted for by about fifty three percent of the populace. If the man had the least idea of how to do it, he would be in office somewhere, actually satisfying constituents....

[welshTerrier2]

16. to all the Nader critics on this thread ...

frankly, i see all this focus on Nader as a defective "People Magazine" approach to the great issues we face ... i don't give a damn about Nader one way or the other ... but i do care very deeply about many of the issues he raised ...

i see your ad hominem criticisms of him as shallow whining ... you take the time to post about how much disdain you have for him and then fail to even express an opinion on issues raised in the OP ... sorry but that's just pathetic ...

so, what are your thoughts about whether you'd like to see bush's tax cuts for the rich repealed?
what are your thoughts about waste and redundancy in military weapons contracts?
what are your thoughts about ending massive corporate welfare?
what are your thoughts about getting serious about corporate crime?

to focus only on some ex-candidate when issues of great importance have been raised is sadly lacking ... as i said, i couldn't care less whether you whine about Nader or you don't ... but to fail to discuss the issues raised, the really important issues raised, just because Nader raised them seems lacking in many ways ... forget Nader and address the issues!

[AtomicKitten]

17. I for one prefer to given the Democrats more than 15 minutes

before summarily dismissing them as ineffectual, incompetent, or whatever pejorative critique Nader has ready to lob into the fray.

But that's me.

[omega minimo]

20. and you fail to even express an opinion on issues raised in the OP

so, what are your thoughts about whether you'd like to see bush's tax cuts for the rich repealed?
what are your thoughts about waste and redundancy in military weapons contracts?
what are your thoughts about ending massive corporate welfare?
what are your thoughts about getting serious about corporate crime?

[AtomicKitten]

25. Gee, I'd say I'm all for dealing with all that (and more)

but feel it would be reasonable to give the newly sworn-in Democratic Congress more than 15 minutes to address those issues.

But, then again, I don't automatically assume a negative attitude concerning the Democrats right out of the gate so I can only assume that my willingness to be patient a bit longer must seem outrageous to you.

[omega minimo]

33. don't miss the point

welshTerrier2 (1000+ posts)  Mon Jan-08-07 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
16. to all the Nader critics on this thread ...
... i don't give a damn about Nader one way or the other ... but i do care very deeply about many of the issues he raised ...
i see your ad hominem criticisms of him as shallow whining ... you take the time to post about how much disdain you have for him and then fail to even express an opinion on issues raised in the OP ... sorry but that's just pathetic ...
... as i said, i couldn't care less whether you whine about Nader or you don't ... but to fail to discuss the issues raised, the really important issues raised, just because Nader raised them seems lacking in many ways ... forget Nader and address the issues!

[welshTerrier2]

21. fine, but ...

if you feel compelled to point out that Mr. Nader is unfair for criticizing Democrats in their first week in power, I have no problem with that at all ... i certainly have no incentive to make any defense of him ...

but when doing that comes at the expense of discussing the critical issues raised in the OP, I think the priorities leave much to be desired ... i see no reason to choose criticisms of Nader above the important issues he raised ... fools may draw erroneous conclusions on the issues or may unfairly criticize those elected to solve problems but the problems remain nevertheless ...

isn't that what should receive our greatest focus? Nader just is NOT important; issues like publically financed campaigns or a bloated, military industrial complex are ... my view is that too many are choosing the wrong priority to focus on ...

[Sparkly]

26. What's to discuss?

We're all for election reform.

We're all for a change in the tax code to discourage outsourcing; John Kerry spoke about that constantly during his campaign.

We're all for media reform.

I feel the same way reading these words from Nader as I would if they were coming from Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove or Jerry Falwell.

Nader grudgingly accepted the Democrats' plans, but attacked them on "arly and troubling signals" that they might not lasso the moon next week. I think if our "two weak leaders" ever accomplished what Nader's made a career of nagging Democrats about, he'd be out of business. So instead of helping things happen, he gets in the way, and then wags his sanctimonious finger at the people who are actually in the fight.

Perhaps I'm mixing up the message and the messenger, but the only message I hear from THIS messenger is, "Democrats are AWFUL." Gee, thanks, Ralph. Let me know when you're accomplishing more than they are.

[welshTerrier2]

30. issues to discuss ...

well, let's take these two important issues ...

what are your thoughts about waste and redundancy in military weapons contracts?
what are your thoughts about ending massive corporate welfare?

do you agree that there is massive waste and redundancy in military weapons contracts? have you heard prominent Democrats raising this issue? i'm fully supportive of your theme that "the Dems just got there and it's absurd to criticize them on their performance" but i also don't think the military-industrial complex, i.e. the bloated weapons procurement budget, has been on the Dems' radar in years ... if you argued for more military personnel spending because of the nature of the conflicts we keep fighting, i might agree ... but to have a defense budget larger than the entire rest of the world combined is utter madness ... is this a prominent issue for Democrats? is it important to you? if the Democrats plan to raise this issue later, great ... it doesn't have to happen tomorrow ... i'm concerned, though, that they are not going to raise it at all ... and it's certainly worthy as a discussion topic ...

and corporate welfare? i've heard Dems speaking out against the abuses of Congress that occurred with the passage of the Medicare Bill ... i've heard calls for "ethics reform" ... that's fine ... it's a great start ... but i can't say i've heard the term corporate welfare pushed as a major party plank ... take for example the obscene record profits Big Oil has enjoyed since the Iraq war began ... take for example the obscene PSA's the Iraqi government has been blackmailed into signed ... how about a discussion calling for the voiding of all contracts with the Iraqi government as long as the US remains in occupation ... Dems should tell Big Oil to stick it and that their imperialist abuses are over!!!

there's plenty to discuss here ... or should we all assume we're "all for that liberal stuff" and the only purpose of DU should be about candidate advocacy and party cheerleading? I have no problem with criticisms of Nader but to suggest that he hasn't raised some of the most important issues we face is also wrong ...

[Sparkly]

32. Yup, yup, yup, we agree on the issues.

Now what?

What does Ralph suggest? :shrug:

[welshTerrier2]

35. no idea what Ralph suggests ...

but let me ask you about many of our prominent Democrats ... what do they "suggest"??? ... let's start with some of our 2008 "likely's" and a few other big names ...

let's make a list ... Reid, Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, Biden, Kerry, Clark, Kucinich, Gore and any others anyone would like to add ...

since you and I seem to agree on the issues I listed, what are the views of any of the above Dems on making deep cuts in our bloated weapons procurement budget? have they spoken out on the issue? do they do so regularly? are they effective messengers? if we support them, is it reasonable to assume they'll represent our views on the issue? i ask because i don't know the answers to these questions ... i have not heard these Democrats making this a major plank in their campaigns ... have they? should they? would you like to see them make this a significant issue in the campaign? would it be OK if I criticized them if they didn't?

and what about corporate welfare? same list? my belief is that we invaded Iraq to pad the piggy banks of the Big Oil piggies ... the profits they've made since the invasion are astounding!!!!! do you think they're eager to see the occupation end? would you support a massive windfall profits tax to strip away their profiteering on the war? have any of the Dems listed above talked about this? have they made it a central theme? would you like to see them do so? i would ... that would be great ...

i see our democracy as 100% corrupted by big monied interests ... i applaud the Dems' first step with all this "ethics reform" but it is a little bitty step albeit an important one ... way more is needed ... that's not a criticism; it's what i believe is needed ... our democracy no longer operates for its citizens ... to quote Dylan: "money doesn't talk it swears" ...

so, whaddya say? are the Democrats addressing these important issues in their public statements? do they seem committed to making the changes we need? if you're hearing it, please educate me because, at best, i'm hearing vague hints at the theme but i really have no confidence that major changes on these issues are on the Dems' radar ... i truly hope i'm wrong ...

[Sparkly]

38. Ralph won't come up with anything about winning or holding office

I've said this many times: the most we can do is build constituencies who agree at the grass roots. If our views are held by a small percentage of people, they're unlikely to be "represented;" and if lawmakers do act to please only a small minority of their constituents, they're unlikely to be elected or re-elected.

Is there something else you think we should do?

Meanwhile, few Democrats have even begun campaigning at this point, so there aren't many "major planks" out there.

In addition, cries of "He's gunna decimate the military! Just like Clinton did! And during a time of war!" could easily tank anybody; rattling sabres loudly at corporations could send worse well-aimed cannonballs rolling. You mentioned campaigns, so that's what I'm responding to.

As for Congress, by all means -- lobby away. Things start with "little bitty steps," which also leads more and more people along to the Democrats' point of view, trust in them, etc. I think their starting agenda is good, and hope they'll make strides from there.

What are your ideas for impacting change?

And is it okay with you if I criticize Nader?

[welshTerrier2]

40. impacting change

i don't give a damn about Nader and i couldn't care less what people say about him ... what does bother me, though, is the focus on Nader instead of the issues he raises ... i strongly agree with him on many issues ... this has nothing to do with him personally for me or with his "politics" (e.g. running against Gore) ... my statement back in 2000 was that I thought Nader's candidacy was very ill advised ... so, yes, it's OK with me that you criticize Nader but I hate to see threads like this that take issues I care about very deeply and lose the important stuff just to beat on Nader ...

and i would have not even responded to many of the Nader critics had they said something like "i agree with some of his points but he's a jerk" ... fine ... whatever ... i care about the issues and i certainly think it's pretty lame to fail to discuss the issues just because Nader raised them ... his "evilness" should not put important issues out of bounds as it's done with many on this thread ...

and i've certainly not condoned (though i don't necessarily disagree) with Nader's hasty judgments about the new Dem Congress ... i'm afraid to say that he's probably right (you yourself gave the political arguments) about what the Dems will and will not tackle ... but i am willing to take a wait and see attitude on all issues except the war in Iraq ... there's an urgency to that especially given bush's latest insanity ... as i said elsewhere, I like what i'm hearing from Reid and Pelosi about "the surge" ... so, if Nader is being criticized for jumping on the Dems after just a week in office, that works for me ...

the bottom line, though, is that Nader is nothing ... he is not important ... but even the worst right-winger raises important issues ... even if we disagree with them vehemently, it seems we have an obligation to make a good case against them ... to merely say "nah nah nah nah nah and bush is a jerk" does very little to strengthen our arguments in the public arena ... Nader, whether we agree with him or not, still raised a number of very important issues ... forget him; discuss the issues ... too many see his name in a thread and important issues go without discussion ... Nader isn't important but the issues are ...

what are my ideas for impacting change? sheesh, i have the flu ... i'm barely awake right now ...

but, OK ... my most important path to change has got to be education ... i see it as the highest responsibility of political parties and political candidates to "lay a foundation for change" ... some changes are not, as you point out, politically viable today ... does this mean we are better off not "starting" ... "don't touch that one; it's a loser" ... i really hate that ... do something! make some effort! at least state the objectives or your underlying values ... if we don't take our case to the people, how will things ever change?????

and it's not about all the "far lefty rhetoric" or intolerance or extremism ... that's all centrist political bullshit ... yes, i would love to see a 50% cut in the military budget ... no, i don't think it's realistic ... so what do we do? i'm afraid we cower in the corner and hide from the issue ... truly, we are pathetic as long as we let the marketing types run the party ... it's not even good politics ... voters can "smell" insincerity ... they know we're not genuine ... so, balancing political pragmatism with setting an idealistic goal is the right path ... we talk about "guns or butter" ... not exactly a radical new idea ... we start a dialog with the American people that talks about finding the right balance between protecting the country with all the defense we need but not wasting money that's critically needed for other things (including balancing the budget) on weapons systems that we don't need ... we talk about the pressure from the weapons lobby ... put those bastards on page one and let the voters know the pressure the Congress is under to cater to them ...

yes, we'll be attacked as weak on defense ... we need to "start slow" and make a case that wasteful defense spending and massive deficits and corporate lobbying are WEAKENING THE COUNTRY ... does this have to happen tomorrow? of course not ... should we demand massive cuts in this Congressional session? of course not ... it's not possible ... but if we don't start raising the issue and if we don't start making the case, things will never change ... i think we "progressives" have an obligation to push our elected Dems to start speaking out on these issues ... it's not about extremism or absolutism or calling for things that are politically DOA, it's about letting the American people know about THE DIRECTION we want to go and what are values and priorities are ... if Democrats refuse to address these issues in a meaningful way, i would prefer not to support them ... if We the People cannot take back our government, no political party is going to accomplish anything ... either We the People have power or we don't ... right now, corporations have the power ... defense, oil, media, pharma ... they're all bastards ... our guys are either representing us or they aren't ...

[omega minimo]

36. Dems not speaking out against massive corporate welfare cost them in 2OOO

[Sparkly]

39. Gee, last year it was gun control.

Or was it Gore's "earth tones?"

A few years back, it was Gore not campaigning enough in Tennessee.

In 2001, I think it was Elian Gonzalez...

[omega minimo]

41. don't miss the point

[AtomicKitten]

27. I think

you are a bit wound up, quite frankly, and are itching for a confrontation with somebody over something, but since I share your anxiety and sense of urgency, I don't think I'm your huckleberry.

I just process things differently, wt2. :)

[welshTerrier2]

28. "a bit wound up"

actually i have the flu ... nasal spray, tylenol, and fig newtons ...

you try it and see if you can write a rational post ... :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

29. healing wishes to you !!

Take care, become one with the sofa and a good DVD, and get better!!

[welshTerrier2]

31. thanks, AK!!

appreciate that ...

[omega minimo]

19. !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

:yourock:welshTerrier2:yourock:

[PVnRT]

43. For Christ's sake

The Congress HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO DO ANYTHING YET. Get it? Is it that hard to understand? Were they supposed to wave a magic wand and make all of our problems go away?

They are addressing the issues. How about we give them a few more minutes before cranking up the guillotine?

[omega minimo]

44. Another one missing the point and reacting to something WT2 DIDN'T SAY!!!!!!!

With a curse thrown in just for fun, eh? Your arrogant, obnoxious post ignores what the post was about (as have other replying to it), continuing to ignore the issues raised (which is what the post was about) and reacting aggressively to something else that wasn't at all what WT2 posted.

"Get it? Is it that hard to understand?"


Apparently the post was too hard to understand or some folks prefer attacking-- at the risk of appearing unable to read-- rather than actually address the issues or the point of a post.



WT2 IS TALKING ABOUT THE NADER-HATERS ADDRESSING THE ISSUES-- NOT THE DAMN DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS DAMMIT.



"Get it? Is it that hard to understand?"


Those issues are (and were in 2000) extremely important for Democrats to address-- which makes this willful obtuseness really annoying.

[PVnRT]

45. Talk about arrogant and obnoxious

But, then, i've come to expect that from Nader supporters.

"so, what are your thoughts about whether you'd like to see bush's tax cuts for the rich repealed?
what are your thoughts about waste and redundancy in military weapons contracts?
what are your thoughts about ending massive corporate welfare?
what are your thoughts about getting serious about corporate crime?"

I'm all for each of them. Shall I outline all of my beliefs in all of my posts in the future so that "certain folks here" don't get confused?

Now, what do you and the others here who are so quick to holler and scream about how the Democrats "haven't done anything yet" expect to have happened by now? All of the issues that the OP brought have been addressed in some way all during the 2006 elections. Is it just that you want politicians to make more speeches about them? Put out some press releases? What? Maybe if you guys actually voiced your expectations rather than bitch and whine that you haven't been handed the moon with a pretty pink ribbon yet you wouldn't be forced to deal with us arrogant and obnoxious assholes who are so clearly unenlightened.

[omega minimo]

47. Reread my post until you understand what's being said

"Now, what do you and the others here who are so quick to holler and scream about how the Democrats "haven't done anything yet" expect to have happened by now?"


That's not it.

[PVnRT]

49. I have reread your post

Apparently you have problems getting your point across. Or you just like tap dancing because you have no answer, which is most likely the case.

[omega minimo]

50. WT2 points out that those whining about "Nadar" avoid dealing with the issues in the OP

Deal with it.


"Apparently you have problems getting your point across. Or you just like tap dancing because you have no answer, which is most likely the case."

[omega minimo]

48. .

[SaveElmer]

18. Shakespeare had Ralph Nader in mind....

"Ralph Nader, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

A made a slight modification ;-)

[DaveinMD]

34. Nadar can piss off

as far as I'm concerned.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

37. My favorite nut is the pecan.

The nader not so much. :P