Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Did anybody else notice that William Timberman was one of the commenters at the DSCC blog?
I don't know what it is that draws you to him and creates an incomprensible smugness about him and those who have voted for him.
Kitt
Maybe it's because Ralph Nader can tell the difference between an "Uncle Sam" and an "Uncle Tom". Or says he can, anyway.
And could it be that such delineation is precisely what America needs at this timely juncture? I don't think so, but I leave that dichotomy to others more expert than myself.
And who soothes my bumpin', thumpin' brain? No-body!
I don't think that anyone can seriously claim that we've witnessed bipartisan politics over these last 8 years. Examples of partisanship are many but the most glaring would be the Justice Department purges of early 2007 (this fits into a larger pattern of politicization of the bureaucracy) and the record breaking number filibusters in the 110th Congress. Furthermore, with people like Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Tom Delay throwing their weight around how can this era be described as bipartisan?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that we've had both extraordinary partisanship and extraordinary bipartisanship over the last 8 years. The Republicans have been extremely partisan and the Democrats have been extremely bipartisan. I know how "partisan" it sounds to say that but the facts are there in abundance. Republicans have gotten even their most unbalanced proposals passed and the Democrats have found all but a very few of their proposals blocked. This trend can be found from legislation to appointments.
If you reevaluate Obama's message with this in mind, bipartisan change means that the partisanship of the Republicans will no longer dominate politics. Instead, the spirit of bipartisanship that the Democrats have amply shown in supporting the extreme and dangerous policies of the president despite the protestations of their constituents will take center stage. We will move from having a radical right wing government to having a conservative centrist government (conservative meaning resistant to policy change).
Bill Maher said it right when he said that it's nice to have a president smarter that him. Smarter than me as well. The guy ran a flawless two year campaign. His decision on Lieberman is another example of his political genius.
I saw him (on TV) at McCain/Palin rallies where he looked like he was finding the "red meat" quite tasteless, and beneath him (but reluctantly clapping anyway)...
Ah, pride and hubris...
In over his head.
This is not to "excuse" him.
But he knows.
And he knows he knows better.
That's always harder to swallow after the fact.
But the truth is the best lesson.
Obama isn't about broken politics. He's mending. Obama's legacy is not Bush's.
Too many are confusing the past with the future.
link at sig
Maybe keeping Lieberman in place as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee is a smart move for now. In January the committee can be dissolved or renamed and his reappointment will be moot. that's my fantasy, anyway.
I'd put winner in quotes for that group.
So a decision to keep Lieberman in both the Democrat caucus and the chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee was made by people who haven't even been sworn in to the Senate yet, like Senator-elect Tom Udall? The election was just two weeks ago. New Members of Congress don't even take office until January and probably haven't even gone through any briefing on the overall legislative process yet. They don't have offices nor websites where constituents like me can write and object. They don't even know how their new constituents feel about Joe Lieberman. But they're voting on whether or not to censure that traitor. Something stinks here! Does anyone have access to a rollcall yet?
Really?!! Of 55 Democratic senators, only 13 are actually vertebrates? You'd think the 42 douche-nozzles who voted to reward Joe-the-Quisling with his committee chair would feel suicidal shame when looking into a mirror... but then again, that act would require a spine... or the neck muscles of a snake.
From the AP article that just went up regarding Eric Holder as the top choice for AG:
In the past week, Obama aides have asked Senate Republicans whether they would support Holder. In particular, the aides questioned whether Holder's confirmation would be delayed because of his involvement in the 2001 pardon of fugitive Marc Rich by Clinton at the end of his presidency.
One person involved in the talks said the Obama team has received some assurances that, while the Rich pardon would certainly come up during hearings, the nomination likely wouldn't be held up. All spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
It doesn't matter what we or anyone else say about the nomination. As long as Senate Republicans give the thumbs up, he's in.
Rule of law . . . dead.
Accountability . . . dead.
Change (aka fixing things) . . . dead.
Economy . . . dead.
Representative government/self governance . . . dead.
Voting for mainstream party candidate . . . dead.
The people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of the people. The Dems clearly aren't. The GOP clearly is. GG, Chomsky, and Nader all have this exactly right. I'm just curious what label should be attached . . . corporate totalitarianism, facism, corporate neofeudalism, . . . what is certain is the system is broken. Maybe the key is we have to find the people with the skill set to be effective politicians and leaders, who don't actually want to be politicians but believe in sanity/rule of law/etc., convince them to run for office, fund them only with small donations, and help them get elected. Because at this point anybody who actually wants to run for office should be immediately suspect.
I read through much of the comments and did not see this thought, so please excuse me if I missed it:
It is my understanding once the Senate is in the new session it will require a full vote of the Senate to remove Lieberman from his chairmanship, versus just the Democratic Steering Committee determining who gets what seat in advance of a session.
If this is so, Senate Republicans could very conceivably (and easily) block Lieberman's removal.
Any one else out there know more? I am at busy at work and can not research this right now.
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"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
