Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Here in Canada we have our elections in about 6-8 weeks, there are no 2 year long campaigns. An MP needs about 70k to finance his or her campaign.
Part of the problem as I see it, is that candidates in America must raise truly astounding amounts of money. I understand that a Senator has to raise at least 60k a WEEK to finance their reelection campaigns. Ain't no way someone can get elected in America without a lot of money, and I don't think anyone here will disagree with me when I say that Quid pro quo is as old as man, and that once elected politicians are not just beholding, but essentially employees (or co-conspirators) of the Über rich who got them there.
Of course I am making the old "both parties are the same" argument, but I am also trying to look at the root causes of this. If it is in fact true that both parties are the same -- the fact that they both feed at the same trough may go a long way in explaining why. There are many ways to change this system, but I don't see the political will to do so.
I am not at all hopeful that Obama will change much if anything, and this Lieberman thing is good evidence of that. The thing I find most disturbing about Obama is his plan to escalate or 'surge' as they say these days, the war in the Afghan. I find this bizarre and incomprehensible. I am not even sure what the "official" rationale for this escalation is. What's the plan man? And finally, Obama has twice threatened to bomb Pakistan -- which in some ways is even more disturbing than his planned escalation in Afghanistan, a country that has never been conquered. Pakistan is very fragile right now, and if they tip over to the Islamists and fundies, we will have a nuclear armed nation completely in the thrall of A.Q. Khan and his ilk. And that's not change that we can believe in.
And thanks for bringing up that brilliant comedic character and reminding me how long it's been since I've seen that movie. I think this weekend might be a good time to sit around in my sandals and bathrobe and abide.
I am trying to undderstand what our President elect is doing.
But day by day it seems as though all of his moves are coming
from Rahm Emanuel and his powerful cronies.
And if so, President elect will be used by those he trust around him and at the end of 4 years, they will point the
finger and say we knew he would blow it.
Lieberman cannot be trusted and the fact that he made threats
to caucus with the GOP should have been enough to dump him.
That phony tape that came out today was meant to control him
and his administration when they try to be fair and broker a peace deal.
If I have been caustic, acerbic, sarcastic, unpleasant or not nice I apologise. But "progressive" drives me nuts.
"Progressive" is the "family values" of the "left".
At fivethirtyeight.com:
"In our interview with him yesterday, Howard Dean dropped some very strong hints about what Obama is up to. We should expect him to be as methodical and meticulous about spending his political capital as he was about spending his advertising dollars and his ground game resources during the campaign. One can debate whether the Democratic caucus was more likely to achieve certain progressive policy outcomes with or without Lieberman in its ranks, but to Obama's mind, kicking him out would have been a giving both the Washington press corps and the Republicans a sort of shiny red apple, creating a huge distraction and requiring a significant expenditure of political capital.
So how you feel about Lieberman should ultimately hinge on how you feel about Obama, and how you feel about Obama should ultimately hinge on your opinion about whether he is liable to put that political capital to good use. If you believe Dean's implication that Obama is going to use that political capital to pass both significant climate change reform and significant health care reform within the first two years of his presidency, you probably ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. If, on the other hand, you see Obama as someone more concerned with the accumulation of power toward ambiguous, uncertain, or incorrect ends, this is liable to be the first of a long line of displeasing decisions, and you had better get used to pushing back against the White House."
"If I have been caustic, acerbic, sarcastic, unpleasant or not nice I apologise. But "progressive" drives me nuts.
"Progressive" is the "family values" of the "left".
-- Derbig Mooser"
____________
Derbig, it's clear that you're merely hung up on one word. Why let semantics make you antagonistic to others (like Timothy3) who are obviously on your side? After reading numerous posts from you, I've been flummoxed by this.
The best thing Obama can do now is what he promised he would do--bring this polarized country together. We are in an economic crisis. Energy wasted on hate is energy not applied to fixing the problems of an out-of-control economic downturn. If Obama can take a more centrist position and bring the best minds together from both parties, there is a chance of a recovery and a rebuilding of a nation that was once great and can be great again.
Glenn's anti Eric agenda did not work his posturing failed!!!!!!
Let's look at the record. Lieberman said he was sorry. For all the Holy Bible thumpers out there, WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
Remember, Jesus rebuked the notion of forgiving some one 70 times 7. He said 70 times that and 70 times that. One of the constant themese of the Gospel is forgiveness. By forgiving Lieberman, Obama showed a sense of class and magnanimity that neither Lieberman nor the entire GOP can ever hope to match.
Albeit using an allusion to Christianity may not apply to Liberman, I do believe that Judaisim observes a holiday known as Yom Kippur. Perhaps Lieberman needs to consult with a few enlightened rabbis. Perhaps these religious leaders can impress upon Lieberman that atonement must translate itself into deeds and actions not mere words.
I will also disagree with all the experts cited there. The real obstacle to bi-paritsanship is the filibuster. I remember the time that reactionary southern Senators used the filibuster to block any and all kinds of civil rights legislation, ruining the lives of millions of people. Because of the filibuster, the Senate finds itelf constantly trying to "bribe" various Senators with special favors and earmarks, just to get legislation on the floor. Because of the filibuster, a handful of hate-filled Senators, namely Republicans, can simply thwart the will of the majority time and time again. If we want true bi-partisanship, we need to abolish the filibuster permanently. We need to abolish the filibuster 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"
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
