Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
The Five No Votes:
Kucinich
Moore (WI)
Paul
Rahall
Waters
I supported Barack with volunteer time and my money; however, I'm not looking to read any blind followers. American democracy relies on an informed and engaged electorate. I never expected Barack to be what I wanted without some work -- and I'm glad to see that most of the left-wing blogosphere wants to stay engaged and demand the policies we worked for.
Keep up the good work Glenn!
"Holding up his end of the bargain, Randolph agreed to cancel the march."--El Cid
Don't know to cry or feel relieved that the march was canceled. Some politicians do believe that marches are now the fringe, non-movers that used to be. The real changers are the blog, money generators to campaigns (ala Dean/Obama).
Marches are another 60's tool that seems to have lost its political impact. In addition, the media's ability to lower expectations and coverage is significant.
Were the recent global anti-war, and trade congregates an influential enough platform in light of what policies materialized?
How different things might have turned out if Bush had been cowered at all by 100's to millions of people showing unity against his war on the poor and the "terrists".
To say FDR and his era was a political horse of a different color would be a monumental understatement.
To be honest I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. I'm comfortable with the idea of being surprised by his governance, however.
No need to pay attention to this, for two reasons. First, it's just Kucinich, and everyone knows Kucinich can be simply ignored with impunity. Second, it's just some obscure Law he's talking about. Laws like this simply aren't pragmatic. They're ideological. We need to get over them.
AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Kucinich, you mentioned Israel’s potential violation of the Arms Export and Control Act, which governs US arms exports to foreign countries. Can you explain?REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: In 1976, Congress passed a law that says that if the United States is going to give arms to another country, that it can attach and does attach conditions that says that those arms are transmitted under the condition, first of all, that they’re used for defensive purposes only, and second, that they not be used to escalate a preexisting conflict. On both of those cases, I think that Israel has failed. And I’ve asked the President of the United States, through the Secretary of State, to make such a determination.
Now, the importance of it here is that Israel signed a $30 billion agreement with the United States in 2007, $25 billion of which has not been spent, for military assistance. And I think that if Israel is going to get aid from the United States, that the United States must be very certain that that military aid is not going to be used against a civilian population in a way that it’s occurring in Gaza. It’s a very dangerous moment. Not only F-16 jets, Apache helicopters, but now we’re seeing white phosphorus used against the people in Gaza. This should be a great concern to every person in this country, because of the amount of money that we’re giving to Israel, that the conditions upon which that aid was transmitted be enforced.
http://i4.democracynow.org/2009/1/12/kucinich_cites_arms_export_and_control
Kudos to you. That's a wonderful bit of history, and so beautifully relevant. Thanks for digging that up. Much appreciated.
If Glenn doesn't mind, here's a link to the Countdown to End Torture clock, with a petition to Obama at the bottom of the page. You can see the organization's suggested Executive Order to End Torture at link on the left on the page:
http://www.nrcat.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=250&Itemid=185
Pressure doesn't always work. But no pressure never works.
Looking at Obama’s comments on Sunday, I think they were fairly innocuous; you could read them anywhere on the spectrum from being infelicitous to indicative of some desire to use evidence gathered through torture as the basis for criminal prosecutions. Given that the man had not taken office, not held the reins of the executive for so much a second, I am willing to reserve criticism until I have some empirical evidence to support a failure, either of policy or moral character. If he after a month or two in office, he fails to close Gitmo, or makes a move towards the establishment of some court with evidentiary rules that diverge from our legal traditions or moral principle, you and I can link arms and scream bloody murder together. Until then, I elect to “keep my powder dry” (trite platitude inserted for your enjoyment).-- Shooter McGavin
Why would you wait for a "failure" before you attempted to do it right in the first place? Would you start steering your car to the right after you hit the pole on the left or would you steer right in time to avoid the pole?
If you wait, you'll not only hit the pole, you'll probably end up with damage to the car which could have been avoided had you started turning before you whacked the pole.
Now isn't the time to let up. Now's the time to apply more pressure so the Obama car doesn't hit the pole.
Glenn, you said:
"It's critical that Obama -- and the rest of the political establishment -- hear loud objections, not reverential silence, when he flirts with ideas like the ones he suggested on Sunday. This dynamic prevails with all political issues. Where political pressure comes only from one side, that is the side that wins -- period."
This point can't possibly be said too many times. The first actions to holding any politician accountable is to criticize each and every time they stray from their promises.
This must be the mantra of the electorate,television journalists, blogs, and newspapers.
Well said! Well Done!
You're right that marches have largely proven ineffectual for some time, with the glaring exception of the Orange Revolution.
I think there are lessons in that - marching alone is not what scares politicians, but the real prospect of actual overthrow (preferably non-violent). Today's marches don't really hold that possibility, even if they turn violent it will just result in some injured cops, property damage and a whole lot of people tossed in jail. Somehow the Orange revolution became something the authorties didn't dare chase out of that square, as it was the locus of public outrage into that election. I don't know how today's marches could be changed to bring that sense of urgency and possible further action, but it is what is really necessary: The authorities need to fear that the next march will be larger, and then larger still. Now they know they can just ignore them and they'll go away.
There was also the Brooks Brothers riot in Florida during the recount debacle that did prove effective at its aim of ratfucking the recount.
I don't know if civic organizers give this sort of thing much thought, but they really should. Their tactics aren't working and they need to try something else.
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
