This isn't entirely true. Most Americans support a single-payer system -- and would love it if they could see how easy and cheap it is compared to what we have now.

Also, when it comes to policy, we don't that everyone pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The US government subsidizes undeserving corporations with little oversight all the time.

It is more accurate to say that we don't have a democracy that allows us to act for collective good, we can only vote for variations on how much of our money to give to the rich.

Were it not for 9/11, which for no good reason bestowed upon Giuliani the air of leadership, he would be off our radar.

Given the man's unadulterated record of cronyism and hostility to civil rights, we must register his continued political viability as yet another casualty of that fateful day.

I now fully agree with other posters here who have claimed that Democrats aren't just weak -- they are part of the enemy's strategy. Because they exist, giving the impression of an opposition party, there will never be an opposition party ("let's all elect more Dems, and then things will be okay!").

Clearly they act on behalf of the Right. How? By establishing how far the acceptable Left can go. Because the Democrats never want to UNDO anything the GOP does (they only say "no more"), the Dems keep the political center wherever the GOP leaves it. In this way, the GOP and Democrats operate as a single tool for the oligarchy: they work together to form a ratchet. The GOP pushes us to the right, and the Democrats, by establishing how "liberal" it's okay to be, provides a barrier to any backsliding -- and then the GOP pushes forward again.

If you were part of the billionaire class, wouldn't you be smart enough to just buy both the parties and be done with it?

One overriding characteristic of the right-wing rise to power was the GOP's championing of its base.

As if they haven't been living in the same world for the last decade, the Democrats have decided (again) that the best strategy is to shit on its base.

Really, there is more evidence everyday that the national Democratic Party exists to prevent the formation of a real opposition party.

(No, I do not believe members of the party think this -- I think they are just cowardly functionaries who do what donors tell them. I do think, however, that the super rich know exactly how they are playing the parties and that this is a conscious manipulation of our politics -- the two-party ratchet: GOP moves us to the right; Democrats hold us in place; GOP moves us to the right; Democrats hold us in place.)

Let's just play into the horrible war crimes and not say anything that the Right could use against us. They'll never suspect as we bide our time...that's right, we'll just bide or time...gonna bide that time...come on, let's just be quiet...we'll bide our time.

I just gave $100 to MoveOn. They are already responding to the Senate and you can give here:

http://pol.moveon.org/pac/fightback/

(Sign the petition and then you can give.)

Is it honestly your contention that the vote today in the Senate was not motivated by and directed toward MoveOn and its ad?

I think one key sentence in Glen's post is worth pondering:

As indicated, the legislation McConnell is touting empowers the Attorney General to provide amnesty when, in his sole discretion, he deems it to be warranted. Even Congressional Democrats would be reluctant to vest that amnesty power in Alberto Gonzales.

While I'm not sure these Democrats wouldn't (they did just give him more spying power weeks after Gonzales told them to fuck off), the emerging pattern is that it is okay to bend the Constitution and award dictatorial powers because this President will use them for good.

Witness the consistent argument: "we need these powers only so we can stop terror." All tyrants get their power by claiming some reason to need it. Even Hitler didn't come out and say: "I want new powers so I can destroy unions, invade Europe and kill a few million ethnic minorities in a shockingly methodical way."

The notion that you can put rights and laws on hold "for good reason" is a dangerous path. As we all know, the Constitution was written to protect against exactly this kind of action. Even Article 1, Section 9, which protects the right of habeas corpus, already has a qualifier , just in case: in the cases of insurrection or invasion. It does not say, "in the case of a vague threat that may or may not be tied to a single criminal act by a few perpetrators (i.e. 9/11), and at the discretion of whoever the electorate favors in one particular season.

More U.S. residents die every day from all kinds of preventable circumstances than died from terrorism since September 10, 2001, yet we are willing to throw away our rights all based on the idea that "this guy wouldn't abuse that power," whether Bush, Gonzales, or any new AG? As our founders knew, even if we could trust the current leadership (and I think the record proves we can't), what's to stop the next president from using the powers for ill.

Lord Acton isn't the only guy to figure out that power itself is more dangerous than the disposition of he who wields it. That's why we have a Constitution instead of a "best practices" guide.

SusanMc wrote:

Is there any chance he'll surprise them?

I'd say it's unlikely, as they know what they want out of him. And even if he does surprise them, how much influece remains for Paul O'Neill, Gen. Shinseki, Richard Clarke, and on, and on.