if the career goals of individual politicians lead them to make decisions they suspect, or even know, are bad for america?

it would be the natural consequence of voting for people, rather than referenda on plans or policies.

imagine if dubya went to war because saddam threatened his daddy, or because he wanted to surpass daddy who left saddam in place, or he simply wanted to do a favor for cheneywho wanted to do a favor for haliburton...

imagine if obama stays in afghanistan not because he thinks it right, but because leaving would endanger his re-election..

but you never wonder about things like this, do you.

i can understand going slowly, or standing still. 'ship of state, etc. but he has extended the crimes of the bush regime, has already authorized war crimes and subversion of 'rights.'

if they were really rights, they wouldn't be so easily subverted. they turned out to be privileges, extended and withdrawn at the convenience of the rulers.

he is just another american emperor, literate and clever, and americans remain naive bumpkins, easily led. the path of empire continues to fascinate the rulers, as why should it not? at worst they retire to their 'library', and leave the ruins to the chumps.

the government of the usa cares little for the civilians at the best of times, and in recent years has stopped pretending to care for any but the rich.

the welfare of haliburton and mcdonnell are the primary concern of the goverment, the 'defense' business is the biggest american industry and without war they tend to get overstocked.

so there will be no big socialist programs, until the 'losers' get violent. that won't be happening soon, they are spiritless people deserving as much pity for their mental chains as the material conditions of their lives.

it's not the government's fault. they are thieves, thieves steal, and you let them.

you could organize citizen action groups, establish citizen initiative power, and clean up the beltway. but you just whine.

"you get the government you deserve" is precisely right.

the beltway bandits get what they want whether you complain or not, and it doesn't matter which gang is in the oval office. corrupt oligarchy is bi-partisan policy.

if you're not ready to fight for democracy, why not just put your head down on the grass, and start munching.

what? just kneel before the juggarnaut?

why are americans incapable of saying "we need a new system?"

just a suggestion, but if you want a system run 'for the people',you need a system run 'by the people.' fortunately, there is one, it's called 'democracy.'

the alternative is a hollowed out banana republic of gated communities supported by hopeless morlocks living out of dumpsters behind the service gate of the eloi communities.

decisions are made in secret, by a limited number of political aristocrats. the simulated 'democracy'of public discussion has no direct effect, since there is no referendum on any matter of public concern.

that's why a non-entity like dubya and his eminence grise, cheney, can run the country: they are selected by a populace utterly divorced from power and dependent on media for a superficial 'choice.'

public opinion does matter, but because it's theater, any result desired by the elite is possible.

so it's wrong to criticize opinion leaders for lapses in logic or character. they are saying what they get paid to say, and probably believe it as well, since belief easily follows benefit.

if you think america is any kind of democracy, public affairs will always appear chaotic. once you grasp the reality of oligarchy and plutocracy, things make more sense.

calling someone a k street whore, who is a k street whore, doesn't immediately strike me as offensive. alternative epithets, such as 'k street hagfish' might be objectionable, or not, but decorum does forbid smearing someone with 'k street lobbyist.' unless, of course, they are.