Letters to the Editor
-
Exactly!
"There's no point in having Chris Carneys in Congress if -- as he and his small band of like-minded comrades are doing now -- they're going to force the House Democrats to join with the most radical elements of the GOP in dismantling core constitutional protections and further entrenching our two-tiered system of justice where the most politically well-connected actors are literally immune from the rule of law."
That's exactly my point -- and has been -- regarding the Blue Dogs, and the debate with "let's just win" pragmatist Dems. What's the point of having a Dem win if the Dem isn't demonstrably different from the Pub anyway? At least with a Pub, you know how he or she is going to stand, but a Blue Dog is just as likely to stab the party leaders -- and voters -- in the back as not. I don't want to turn this into a Hillary-v-Obama issue, but that's at the crux of why Clinton doesn't have my support: If I wanted a Pub in office, I'd vote for one, not a Dem who votes like one.
-
Indeed
His seat isn't safe. He has a tough re-election fight this year.
CQP has it at "leans Dem". Thx for the correction.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-PA-10
-
@shooter
They know something you don’t.
My, what a gentle soul, so innocent and naive. Because you are so sweet, innocent and trusting, I have to warn you that what I have to say next, will be disheartening. Shooter, many politicians pushing particular legislation have hidden affiliations. Yes, yes, I know. It's a horrible thing to say, but sadly it's reality. Politicians sometimes do things they’d rather not let the public know about and will bring all of the power at their disposal to keeping it hidden. They might even say it’s for your own good, too keep you safe. You know in your heart it's true. Search your feelings.
-
Peace
bstar, no need to qualify yer comments to me, personally. It's just that broad-brush disparaging commentary is one of my hot buttons. Like when eedjits use the "salonistas" label. Sets me off.
There are plenty of rational people in here, along w/ a few select loons, and most are willing to engage in rational discourse - as long as somebody doesn't seem to demonstrate right out of the starting gate that there's no possibility of any good faith interaction.
-
brightstar65
It certainly seems that way today considering there is no motivation visible.
It's more a matter of means than of motivation. Because the corporations control most of the news media as well as the government, presently there appears to be no way to reduce corporate control of the government.
Corporate control of the news media may ensure they will continue to have sufficient votes to elect corporatist candidates. But it is uncertain their control of the government would be reduced even if their candidates were defeated, as they are prepared to use other means if coercion and outright purchase are insufficient.
To be sure, alerting voters to the dangers posed to them by various candidates is important, as is getting them to actually vote for less-than-corporatist candidates. But it is unlikely to be enough to reverse the political trends which have favored corporations over the last fifty years or so. And so far there does not seem to be anything that will.
-
It's shameful and disturbing
that we now must contribute money, launch ad campaigns, and in other words, act as lobbyists to preserve our freedoms, that were guaranteed by our forefathers. OK, sounds like a naive high school freshman, who just covered the Constitution in their first civics class. But am I wrong?
To have the Executive, and the Legislative branches attempt to write a law that excludes the Judiciary? The cojones, chutzpah, whatever you want to call it hasn't been seen since the same thing was attempted in the Terri Schiavo matter. The only difference is that was the Religious Right attempting their power grab. Now we have the fascists coming up to bat, in the words of DNI McConnell "we've got to protect these corporations" Looks like Upton Sinclair was right, "when fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag, and carrying a cross."
We need election and lobbying reform from the ground up to stop this insanity.
Thanks for keeping the visibility of this up.
-
Any Words From Speaker Pelosi?
Has Speaker Pelosi commented on this yet? It seems like an effort such as this really would undercut everything she had worked for on the FISA issue. I remember being really surprised and pleased at how she managed the House on FISA. Is there some lingering resentment over who was voted into which job in the House when the Dems took over? Could Hoyer be using this as a power play of some kind to force Pelosi out?
-
PA - 10 is a hot race - Partisan Voting Index R+8
PA-10 is the district whose congressman, Don Sherwood, had a long-running affair with a young Peruvian immigrant 35 years his junior. Then he choked her and she called 911. End of Sherwood. But given the Republican tilt of the district (R+8), the Republicans will try hard to get it back. The Republican nominee is a rich businessman, Chris Hackett, who owns a temporary employment agency. He will try very hard to make sure incumbent Carney's current employment is temporary. With the district tilting so far to the Republicans, this is one of the GOP's best hopes to knock off an incumbent Democrat.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/House/house_races.html
So what? You want there to be a cost? This is it. Let Democrats see what happens to those who Republicans who run as Democrats for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the backlash.
-
skeptonomist
Blue dogs are better than Republicans
-- skeptonomist
Friday, May 2, 2008 06:59 AM
No, they're not. Real republicans, prominently identified as such, are far, far better than Blue Dogs.
Real republicans are in-your-face enemies, easy to attack and defeat.
Blue Dogs are traitors, spies in the Democratic camp, saboteurs and underminers who cause far more damage from within than republican could ever cause from without.