Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Use of the "E-word" tends to cause eyes to roll back in heads, but I'll chance it anyway.
Does anyone seriously expect a global military empire engaged in a perpetual war to be run democratically? It is not for nothing that the term "Commander-in-Chief" has come to be used in relation to the general public.
Ironic, yes, that the Commander-elect is perceived to be "anti-war". But also representative of the divergence between the perceptions of the people and the needs and dictates of the military-driven empire. Whatever else Lieberman may be, he is a bellwether, and chairmanship of the "Homeland Security" committee sounds just about right to me. A fitting reward for he who has served the empire so well by keeping primed the pumps for battle. Admire and tremble that he moves so effortlessly from one party to the other - he is the very embodiment of today's ship of state!
p.s. GoodCelery, your post on page 2 of today's comments was wonderful.
p.p.s. Bystander, thanks for linking to pow wow's previous comment. I didn't had much time to read lately, but thanks to you, I didn't miss reading this comment.
These people who believe that a mystical center exists where bipartisan polity and comity drops like gentle lotus blossoms and the right and left wing enter Nirvana on shimmering footsteps are in the business of creating a reality to use to explain why the voters should be thwarted.
As always, ondelette expressed my feelings better than I could. I may limit my comments for the nonce to a simple "what ondelette said!!"
Bipartisanship - meeting half way and compromising - is fine.
If that is something the Dems really want, I would think they would clearly define their 'side' and saying that is the point from which they will start to the middle. I don't see that happening. All I see is a call to drop the bickering. That, in itself, is relatively worthless when it isn't mutual. Just as bickering is worthless in itself as well.
Is the call for bipartisanship coming from both parties? Why isn't the party that lost clamoring louder for bipartisanship? Don't they want to do their best to keep their priorities in the forefront? To get things done they determine important? From what I read, the call for bipartisanship is coming pretty much from the Democrats.
But back to 'define the starting point' from which you will compromise. There is something else I don't really see being expressed by many. One of the tenets of our republic is that the majority will not deny the rights of the minority (part of the reason why Wyoming has two Senators just like California). Has anyone here come across an elected official stating that bipartisanship is fine and dandy as long as the middle doesn't trample the rights of the minority? That there is a Middle that isn't the really the middle? That there are unacceptable compromises?
~
Please don't try and dunk good old ZigoMandelbaum in a UT baptistries...
Have patience with me. My day, o my, such idolatry. Who believes adult trees?
No drown a sapling bush, or say, Ya Glory, or who gonna boil beets with Beethoven.
Only a savage has true feeling, and may be closer to Nature's and enjoy corn hominy.
No you Be a simpleminded preacher, boy or girl? Who knows anything for sure? Glory!
Glenn is no doggone dogmatic Rabbi, who is growling with green rabid teeth, IMHO. Hallel!
UT's a festival every day if Klytus cooks some ever ever present good reality. O no halitosis.
Per TV, the Dems just let Joe keep his chairmanship.
At every parade there's a guy who stands next to the cop as the parade goes by. He wants everyone to know he's standing next to the cop. The cop is his friend, and he's friends with the cop. The cop won't do anything to him, because they're friends!
That's who the Democrats remind me of. The guy at every parade who wants the world to know he's the cop's friend... In other words, a total fucking loser.
100,000 in St. Louis. 60,000 in Portland. 30,000 in North Carolina. 75,000 in Florida. He was blowing down the house everywhere he went.
Would this many people really have turned out for "bipartisanship we can believe in?"
Per TV, the Dems just let Joe keep his chairmanship.-- AnnieW
If Boxer voted in favor of Lieberman I'm going to her house to dump lye on her lawn spelling out 'Barbs and Joe, sitting in a tree, KISSING! I'm sure she voted in favor. I am f'n pissed.
Wow, they don't disappointPer TV, the Dems just let Joe keep his chairmanship.
-- AnnieW
to the Obama's transition team yet? Might take until this afternoon.
It's official, I was so worried.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081118/ap_on_go_co/senate_lieberman_16
It made no sense, I don't want CHANGE I want Improvement, Justice & restoration of Law, and absolutely the punishment of criminals and those who colluded with them, or ignored the crimes.
NOT Change, I want things FIXED.
I thought it was a stupid meaningless slogan, and it looks like I was right.
if he will even wait until his second term to privatize Social Security.
As soon as Obama is sworn in, the republicans are going to show us what they mean by bipartisan. Last year they set the record for number of filibusters used in a single session of Congress. They'll definetly top that number this coming year. The repugs will do everything possible to block every piece of legislation Obama wants passed. What repugs mean by bipartisan is that they get everything they want, the dems get nothing, and then the repugs stab us in the back afterwards. Well if the repugs want to play the role of obstructionist, Harry Reid needs to rescind the "gentleman's agreement" on the filibuster. Make the repugs do a real filibuster, non-stop talking. Not like they did last session, where they just say filibuster and that stops discussion on every bill. If that doesn't stop the repugs from filibustering, then they need to use the "nuclear option" of banning the filibuster. If it was good enough for the repugs to do against the dems, it's good enough for us to do against them. Our agenda must get passed, even if it's over the dead bodies of the republicans.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
