Letters to The Crisis Papers
A note to our readers: We're eager to hear
from you, and to provide a forum for your words to be read by others. Here
are some helpful hints: Short, several paragraph letters have the best
chance of being accepted for publication. Sign the letter with your name; we
don't want to be giving out your email
address
to strangers. Unless you instruct us otherwise, we'll assume it's OK with
you if we post your letter, or excerpts from it.
Send your letters to us at
crisispapers@hotmail.com.
This page has retained letters for the past
three weeks.
Thanks. -- The Editors
May 6, 2008
The GOP is managing
the Democratic race or might as well be. Now in "retirement," Karl Rove
is obviously playing the process like a violin, as his machines, and
Limbaugh's troops, have been providing Clinton with enough support to
keep her in the race. (Rove is not responsible for her campaign's
extensive vote suppression--which, however, is a giant gift to him and
his accomplices.)
Ernest Partridge's sharp piece ... is a must-read for anyone who wants
to know what's really going on. Partridge notes the many inconvenient
facts about this race that most observers either haven't heard or won't
perceive: facts that ought to make it clear to any reasonable person
that the Democratic nominating process has been hijacked by the GOP,
just as it was by Tricky Dick's "ratfuckers" back in 1972.
If I may say so once again, all such deft manipulation is intended less
to scare up a majority of votes for John McCain than it is to enable a
convincing explanation for his startling "victory" on Election Day. And
all of you who keep pronouncing that Obama's cooked --whether it's
because of his long fight with Clinton, or Jeremiah Wright's big mouth,
or whatever else--are only helping to cement the rationale for his
"defeat."
Mark Crispin Miller
Ernest Partridge
replies,
Thanks, Mark, for your kind words and support. Always a
pleasure and an honor to hear from you.
And to our Crisis Papers readers: If you haven't read
Mark Crispin Miller's
Fooled Again, and his new collection,
Loser Take All, run, don't walk, to your nearest bookstore, or
follow these links and order from Barnes and Noble. These are
the definitive books on the theft of our elections: past, present,
and, unfortunately, future -- unless we the people get active, get
the word out, and put a stop to it.
Do you really believe
what you are saying?
I am just a uneducated layman Independent and with your lead in as you
describe your self as someone who writes for progressive paper's. I
would also think you would be intellectual interpreter of the Law and
anything you write about but when you right [sic].
For example, the
Founders might look somewhat askance upon the restriction of free
expression evident today in the corporate media, and upon the
retaliation upon individuals who exercise this right – individuals such
as Phil Donahue, Tim Robbins, Bill Maher, the Dixie Chicks, and other
citizens who choose to ignore Ari Fleischer’s warning to “watch what
they say.”
Nor would the Founders be pleased to learn of the “Justice Department’s”
violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights of
several American citizens – violations upheld by “conservative”
appellate judges.
Please! why would someone who puts as much time and effort into the
things you write about be so devious, if the Founding FATHERS during a
time of war heard Phil Donahue, Tim Robbins, Bill Maher, The Dixie
Chicks and others say the things that [George Washington] or Ari
Fleischer asked them not to say because it may get same soldiers killed
or whatever, even if he just thought it may undermine the WAR!!! I
am sorry but those traders would have been HANGED!!. and you know that
yet you lie!!.
You say the
Conservative JUDGES elected under our government with approval by your
beloved Socialist wing and DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
You called these
people American Citizens, but Benedict Arnold was a American ,these
people who you allege were violated is a assumption just because the
Government dose not prosecute someone because they do not wish to reveal
information dose not make these people innocent, you will not even
concede O J Simpson was innocent and a court of law found him so.
Why would a talented
educated person reduce himself to a propaganda red meat butcher , just
to have your red meat thrown to liberals in order to incite them to a
fervor.
Omission is as much a
lie as a bald faced lie, and as I stated the Donahue's and others were
asked in a time of War which you conveniently left out. Reading
your papers lead one to believe you are a respected Scholar and writer,
but when one gets to the Disingenuous erroneous statements, you are
reduced to a propagandist as I have said before.
Joseph Intili
Ernest Partridge replies:
Sorry, but you've got me totally befuddled. In the first
half of your note, you seem to be agreeing with me. I.e.
- Yes, the founders would
"look somewhat askance upon the
restriction of free expression evident today in the corporate
media, and upon the retaliation upon individuals who exercise
this right."
- and Yes, the founder would not be pleased "to
learn of the 'Justice Department’s' violation of the Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights of several American
citizens."
But then you reverse course as you say that dissent "in time
of war" is treason. But is this so-called "war on terror"
really a "war"? It was not declared by Congress, it was
based upon lies, and today it is less a war than an occupation of a
country that did not threaten us.
What "gets soldiers killed"? Sending them abroad to
fight illegal wars. How can we "support or troops"? By
ending such wars and returning them home to their families.
When you implicitly accuse me of treason, you seem to forget that those founders
to which you refer dissented, and rebelled, against their government
-- at the time, the government of England and George III.
It is not the place of Ari Fleischer or even George Bush to
tell me that I can not dissent when Bush and his cohorts engage in
an illegal war, and violate their oath to defend the Constitution of
the United States.
Under such conditions, it is not only my right to dissent, it
is also my duty.
You see, I am a loyal citizen of the United States of America,
and my allegiance is to moral and political ideals articulated in
the founding documents of our republic. That makes me a dedicated foe to those who would
subvert those ideals, the rule of law, and the Constitution.
Foremost among these betrayers are the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate,
to which I owe no allegiance whatever. They have forfeited
that allegiance. Thus I concur with the founders'
pronouncement, at the close of the Declaration of Independence, that
"a Prince, whose character is ... marked by every act which may
define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People." (See my essay
"On
Patriotism").
Theodore Roosevelt was spot on, when he said:
Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean
to stand by the president or any other public official, save
exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country.
It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves
the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact
extent that ... he fails in his duty to stand by the
country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the
truth, whether about the president or anyone else.
Read the Declaration of
Independence, if you have the time for it. There you will
find that authentic patriotism consists in allegiance to our
founding principles and the rule of law. Not to individuals
who betray those principles and violate that law.
"to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed, That, whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such Government..."
And finally, YES!, I believe what I am saying. Otherwise
I wouldn't be saying it.
Responses to Ernest Partridge's
essay in The Smirking
Chimp.
Excellent. But as always, unfortunately in today's Amerika
when someone puts the picture of our 'government' together:
Disturbing, depressing and so bad as to be almost
unbelievable.
nedlud
The Neocons
Win the White House - AGAIN.
The Neocons have been busy the past 7 plus years fomenting
upheaval and war in the Middle East, while destroying the
Constitution and our freedoms and rights. Did anyone
seriously believe they would give up the White House and
control of the government? Didn't the turncoat Dems send a
message with "impeachment is off the table" that anyone with
an IQ above 70 would understand?
forman
Every 4
years it's the same story - the Dims are a confused,
incompetent, squabbling, infantile mess.
But maybe that's destiny for the "other" imperial Party.
The whole thrust of this article - that the people should
rebel - just doesn't reflect the reality of a huge empire
like the USA. In a bloated empire the people can never
unite. The official Ruling Class Party has a huge advantage
- which is why the Dims have only gotten 2 presidents since
Nixon - one because of Watergate and one because of Ross
Perot.
dogen
Time to
Fight Back.
Reading this excellent article, a sudden thought hit me:
What about write-in votes?
Isn't it true that the basis of the Republicans being able
to steal the vote time and time again comes down to the
advantage of doubt? They just have to get within a certain
margin (as mentioned in the article) to allow enough doubt
to creep in and make a Republican victory seem plausible.
Now, surely the Diebold machines have some way of accounting
for write-in candidates. Every day in the MSM and even on
Smirking Chimp we read/hear of people who claim that if
their candidate doesn't win the primary, they will not vote
for the winner. If the Republicans can't get within the
Doubt Zone otherwise, wouldn't it be simple enough for them
to create enough write-ins for the losing Democratic
candidate to counteract any overwhelming lead for the
winning Democratic candidate?
I, like many others do not want to vote for the other
Democrat if "my" candidate loses. However, I'm always
careful to say that I will vote for the other candidate if
they win, but I will actively campaign against them in 4
years. I propose that anyone speaking to the media take this
attitude. Instead of getting high and mighty, we HAVE to
make it clear that no matter who runs against McCain, we
WILL vote for them! Otherwise we are already helping the
Republicans write the narrative for their next election
theft.
Yes it hurts an idealist to hold their nose and vote, but
you know, I've been doing it for the last 30 years, and it's
better than doing nothing. After all, this idealist has had
to vote for the Democrats all this time, and I hate them
ALMOST as much as Republicans!
Think about it, please! There are so few ways for the little
guys to fight back, and this seems to be one of them.
Hunker Down
Funny Thing
Is I only see Obama supporters saying that they won't vote
for Clinton, not the other way around. I, and just about all
of the other Clinton supporters have pledged to support and
vote for Obama if he is nominated.
OTOH, most of the Obamaniacs have pledged to do everything
possible to get McCain elected (voting for Nader or Gravel
or Paul, or writing in Obama or Kucinich) if Clinton gets
the nomination.
The laughable thing about all of this is the fact that
Obama, not Clinton, is the business as usual, party-insider
favored candidate who opposes universal health care and
thinks we should spend more on the military.
JMadison
JMadison, I
Guess It Depends On Your MSM Source.
My only regular source of news (besides this most excellent
site) is NPR (we only get radio, no T.V., no cable, etc). In
their reports I've heard supporters of both Democratic
candidates saying the same thing--that they would not vote
for the other person. That's supporters in both camps saying
this, meaning that stupidity on both sides is getting
attention from that particular corporate news source.
I only rarely hear anyone from either side say they'll
support whichever candidate wins.
Hunker Down .
Just Look
Around You. Show me one single comment here on SC where an
Obama supporter declares that they will vote for Clinton if
she is nominated. OTOH, Cewiller, Miss Marple and myself
(ain't too many Clinton supporters around here anyway) have
all pledged to vote for whoever wins the Democratic
nomination.
JMadison
Another
part of the plan?
Excellent “Big Picture Article” I think Ernest probable had
this written before another piece of the plan fell into
place; with less than two weeks before the Indiana Primary
Election the U.S. Supreme court rules that Indiana’s Voter
ID law requiring a photo ID to vote is constitutional. With
many inner city blacks in Indiana having access to mass
transit (City Buses) but very little access to good paying
jobs a high percentage of these likely Obama voters do not
have driver’s licenses. Here are the requirements to obtain
an ID from Indiana;
• One primary document; and
• One secondary document; and
• Proof of Social Security number or Social Security
ineligibility; and
• Proof of Indiana residency.
OR
• One primary document; and
• Proof of Social Security number or Social Security
ineligibility; and
• Proof of Indiana residency.
What’s a primary document you ask?
Primary Group-acceptable United States documents:
• US Birth Certificate with authenticating stamp or seal
containing the applicant's date of birth, place of birth,
and parent's names issued by a county department or county
board of health from the applicant's state of birth, a state
department or state board of health from the applicant's
state of birth, or a verified delayed birth certificate.
• Certificate of Naturalization/Citizenship
• Certification of report of birth (DS-1350)
• U.S. consular report of birth (FS-240)
• Birth certificate issued by United States territories,
including American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin
Islands
• U.S. Veterans Universal Access Identification card with
photo
• U.S. Military/Merchant Marines identification card with
photo
• U.S. Passport
Primary Group-acceptable immigration documents:
• Valid foreign passport with photo with a visa that
includes a valid form I-94 indicating the authorized
duration of stay in the United States
• Valid foreign passport with a current visa that states
"Upon Endorsement Serves as Temporary I-551 evidencing
Permanent Residence for 1-year"
What’s a secondary document?
Any document from the list of Primary Documents may be used
as a Secondary Document.
• Certified academic transcripts from schools in the United
States and its territories
• School report card dated within 12 months of application
• School identification card with photo or yearbook photo
within three years of application
• An identification card with photo issued by a foreign
consulate
• An identification card with photo issued by the federal
government
• An Indiana identification card
• A driver license, identification card, or permit with
photo issued by another state
• Original driving record from another state
• Valid form I-20 with a valid form I-94 and a F-1/F-2
status in passport
• Valid form DS-2019 with a valid form I-94 and a J-1/J-2
status in passport
• Indiana county pre-sentence Investigation report with
clerk stamp or seal
• Indiana gun permit
• Indiana probation identification with photo, name and date
of birth
• Letter from probation officer, caseworker, or social
worker on official letterhead, certified with stamp or seal
with the applicant's name and signature of the probation
officer, caseworker, or social worker
• Prison release documentation
• U.S. district court pre-sentence Investigation report with
stamp or seal
• Valid banking card or MasterCard, Visa, American Express,
or Discover card issued in the name of the applicant with
his or her signature
• Bank statement issued within sixty (60) days of
application
• Form W-2 (federal or state) or Form 1099 with applicant's
name and address
• Computer generated pay check stub with applicant's name
and address
• Valid employee identification card with photo
• Valid Indiana professional license
• Valid insurance card
• Medicare or Medicaid Card
• U.S. military discharge or DD214 separation papers
• U.S. Uniformed services card
• Divorce decree certified by court of law with stamp or
seal.
• Application of Marriage or Record of Marriage that is
certified with stamp or seal.
And the situation to obtain a passport from the Federal
government is even worse given the short time period, a
resident of Indiana would have to travel to Chicago and
apply at the State Department regional office on the 18th
floor of the Federal Building.
As a tactical move an Obama challenge to this law is a win.
Obama would be seen as a defender of voting rights.
Yes, that's right, one of the items you can use to get a
photo ID is a photo ID.
Madhoosier
wonderful
summation...
now the reality of the conclusions:
"It is time for our Gandhi, our Sakharov,
our Mandela, our M. L. King, to step forward."
a) even if
such a leader exists among the sated and stupid American
populace, they would need to be able to lead Americans. and
that requires Americans in huge numbers willing to follow.
know any? I don't.
b) I would not look among democrats for such a leader. the D
leadership are the ones who have done NOTHING to remedy
ANYTHING, especially vote fraud and arrogation of
constitutional mandates.
Since the D leadership, in the majority in both houses, have
done literally bupkus, especially on failure of oversight,
impeachment and dealing with vote fraud, the ONLY conclusion
that can be drawn is that they are complicit in all of it.
COMPLICIT in ALL of it.
so ... which D candidate can fix anything? presuming
Conyers, Pelosi, Reid, etc are not going down to defeat (too
much corporate sugar there), and we all know that the voters
are not going to get orders of magnitude smarter... so
nothing can be done.
I'm left with the feeling of dread that 'we the people' are
going to have to face something so horrible (that I hesitate
to predict it) in order to get pissed enough to actually
react. And that reaction may just need to be extremely
violent. There is just too much entrenched inertia in the
power base against the people and the founders'
constitution. Batshit nutbags like William F. Buckley are
still lionized instead of mocked. Murdoch is alive and
propogandizing like Goebbels with massive audiences still.
the sc is still soiled by Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts.
debates are held on lapel baubles and preachers' sound bites
instead of the mortgage crisis, wars, racism, deficits....
And Olbermann even crapped 10 minutes (including copious
teasers) tonight on 'idol'.
for America to return, all the bullshit must be repudiated.
I'm not optimistic.
let me know if the bullshit rate even levels off from its 36
years of increase
jtree
|
Responses to Ernest Partridge's Essay in
The
Democratic Underground.
It doesn't help that Obama made serious mistakes and gave
them their fodder.
I think he's totally compromised regarding Rezko and
campaign donations and obligations to corporate and lobbyist
groups.
Still, I think the media is a sick joke and uses any sort of
mistake to bash a Dem they're afraid of... remembering what
they did to Howard Dean as well.
What's amazing and shocking to me is the willingness of so
many Americans to watch and be influenced by the media which
is owned and controlled by the corporofascist machine.
ananda
You have
got to be kidding me. If there was an iota of complicity
with Rezko, doncha think Clinton would have dug it up by
now?
As for the Clintons, they are a major part of the problem.
Don't you wonder why all the rethugs are 'supporting' her?
They are salivating at the thought of Clinton v. McCain;
then they can bring out the heavy artillery against her.
Stand by.
babylonsister
Trifles and distractions, not only in the MSM, but here on
DU -- look at the number of Rev. Wright threads and the
stupid "who is more electable" polls about a general
election that is a light year (in political terms) away.
Americans, in general, are pretty stupid, and usually get
the government they deserve.
nichomachus
"The
corporate media must be repudiated by a sizeable portion of
the public."
What would be the difficulty and the practicality involved
in setting up online petitions targeting the major networks
and their advertisers? Signing it would basically be a
pledge not to watch, nor listen to, nor read the tripe
they've been peddling as news until they clean up their acts
and start getting it right. If people actually followed
through on something like that might it not have the desired
impact? I believe Obama does have the courage, but as you
say, he can't mount a successful campaign against three such
adversaries at once.
mlevans
Does anyone
really know the depth of Obama's vulnerability?
Putting all our eggs in the Obama basket will end in failure
if we continue to ignore the Trust #10209 stench.
I promise you the media will ignore this until Obama wins
the nomination. We ignore it now our peril, we have three
months to defuse this ticking time bomb, will anyone even
google the phrase?
I'm no Hillary fan, yet I support her nomination on three
words; Supreme Court Justices. McCain will finish the job
Bush began, he will make Nixon/McGovern look close if Obama
wins in August.
jlove
I like and
support Obama, but This is where his inclination to "reach
across the isle" is more of a hindrance than an asset IMO.
Yet, he's done an excellent job of responding to attacks.
Time for Change
*******************
I wish this reportage would appear on Cabal "News" [sic] and
in the daily right-wing fishwraps across the country. People
might start forcibly closing down these fascist
government-run propaganda outlets and maybe democracy would
return to the US
TOJ
Ernest Partridge replies:
Is "Cabal News" a spelling error, or a deliberate pun?
Either way, I like it!
"Cabal" (def): "a group of conspirators or plotters,
particularly one formed for political purposes."
(MS Encarta Dictionary)
|
Responses to Ernest
Partridge's essay in
OpEdNews.
What's the difference?
As a British citizen I find all this election farce quite
amusing. Here we have two right wing parties slagging each
other off and the dozy electorate think they are in it for
the good of the people when history shows otherwise.
If just a handfull of representitives had any interest in
the voters welfare their would have been a minimum of
healthcare for everybody, I know about medicaid. If the
people out there think that medicaid is a solution then they
should try it, just go and sit for hours waiting for the
front office mafia to call you and then be looked upon as
sub-human.
My point is that everybody should be provided with the best
care the country can give, not be graded according to your
bank balance. Cuba, a country ostracised by the USA looks
after its people better, they even provide doctors and
medical aid to Africa.
Costa Rica and Switzerland don't need an army to defend
their people so why do other countries need military. The
USA is military mad and the reason is it gives people of
limited intelligence a sense of security but nothing could
be further from the truth. It provides the likes of Cheney
the means to carry out the most horrendous crimes unchecked.
A true democracy needs to span the whole political spectrum
but the three candidates don't fit that criteria by a long
way, they're considered right wing by universal standards.
Of course any US politician showing any sort of pity for the
poor is considered a communist, this is the state of affairs
in the " good old USA " which is an odd phrase anyway since
it isn't good nor is it old.
One candidate, is being got at by the usual suspects because
he associated himself with a religious figure who has the
audacity to tell the truth. Just imagine a US citizen
calling the USA a terrorist nation when all they did was
invade a couple of countries causing the death of millions,
millions of others are refugees in Syria and Jordan so in
the minds of democratic USA that's not a crime.
They, the selected canditates will go on their merry way and
nothing will change the poor will get poorer and the rich,
richer, there will be no universal heath care, there will be
a massive military and massive taxes for the working person
to pay to keep the Autocracy/Theocracy in good health.
douglas kay
A Handful
of Representatives.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus is such a handful. It
consists of 71 members of the House of Representatives and
one senator. Most are Democrats. There is nothing at all
funny about this tragedy that is threatening the world
economy, the environment, human rights, famine and the
growing possiblity of WW III and nuclear holocaust.
Pat Williams
Bravo
Very well said! Too bad it takes a British citizen to tell
us what should be obvious to our own countrymen.
Ginger in Florida
Pat,
If 71 people in the US Congress were sufficient, that would
be great. Clearly they are not, and I suspect that if
Democrats had a majority in both chambers, even that would
not be sufficient to fight the forces arrayed against
progressive politics. This is especially true since a
considerable number of Democrats identify as conservatives
instead of progressives.
This article makes valid points about the likilhood of a
conspiracy between media owners, voting machine company
executives, and the Republican political leadership to
manipulate the election results. Maybe McCain doesn't care
what he says because he knows the fix is in. But the
essential fourth element in this mix is the schizophrenia
and self-destructive behavior of the Democratic Party.
Afraid of being assaulted by the Republican media (which is
funny because they willl be assaulted anyway), Democratic
conservatives repudiate Democratic (and in fact all)
progressives.
What I suspect will come out of this is the death of the
Democratic Party. That this is a bad thing isn't clear
anymore, because the Democrats themselves aren't clear.
Wanting to have it both ways all the time, they come across
to the public as fuzzy, muddled, contradictory, weak,
cowardly, and ineffective. It is this last attribute,
ineffectiveness, that will put them in the loser's column in
November.
A party that cannot muster enough internal discipline at the
leadership level to hammer out a compromise between the
factions and get on with the business of winning is not
going to win. They face formidable forces, but being unable
to identify as Democrats by virtue of trying to look like
Republicans is what will drive the final nail in their
coffin. (IMHO)
Wayne Turner
Urge your
U.S. Representative now to vote "YES" for the Emergency
Assistance for Secure Elections Bill, HR5036.
The republicans are trying to kill this bill that would
provide fincacing for paper ballots to any state or local
government that wanted them.
Michael Chavers
The first
post in this comment section is just a hint of something
most Americans will ignore, the truth that our government is
a monster with no morals, honor or integrity. At least the
guy did not mention the most painful truth, we are
collectively about as smart as a bag of hammers.
Roger
The Brit
has got it right
Douglas Kay as a British citizen has a better perspective on
the political scene, then all the bought off pundits in our
MSM. All three of the remaining front running candidates
have ties to the Council on Foreign Relations and assorted
other One World Order fascists groups; (Bilderbergers,
Trilateral, just to name a few).
I've been supporting Ron Paul ever since he decided to enter
the race. The power-elite and MSM made sure his candidacy
was marginalized and he was only reluctenly allowed to
participate in the debates, (everyone he won, according to
polls taken afterward); even Rudy Guilani admitted Ron Paul
won the debates. Well Ron Paul is still in the race, and he
will get my vote. He has a slim chance of winning, but from
my perspective, he's the only one who can turn our country
around. The others will just obey their corporate masters
and America will continue its downward spiral.
ronheri
During the
last primary, the media constantly reported that everything
was going smoothly - no problems. There was a phone number
that was to be called in the event of problems - and guess
what, no one ever answered the phone! Over two hundred
people were lined up at one of the voting spots, waiting for
broken machines to be replaced. Took 2-1/2 hours for this to
be done, meanwhile - many of the people had to leave. When
the voting commissioner was asked for permission to let the
voting spot remain open to make up for the original lost
2-1/2 hours, permission was refused. Many calls were made
pertaining to voting problems, nothing was done about them.
If Slick Hilly wins the nomination, it will only be because
the republicans fixed the vote - knowing that if there's
anyone who stands the slightest chance of facing down
grandpa McBush, it is Senator Barack Obama. We wish him all
the luck in the world.
lucydavis
You nailed it. The only way for McCain to win is to
destroy Obama now. Clinton will not get the dismayed
Democratic vote. Clinton will lose to McCain. The definition
of Insanity is repeating the same process and expecting a
different result. Clinton and McCain are "Washington
Insiders" and represent "more of the same". I for one, will
not accept that Amerika is that Insane, therefore, the
tabulating is inaccurate, and reflects what Corporate
Amerika desires, just like Pre-war Iraqi intelligence. They
do not plan on giving up a thing this November
Kato
Krause |
About Bernard Weiner's Essay,
"What's With Your 'Crazy' U.S. Politics?" -- A Letter to European Friends.
Bernie:
Please tell Wolfgang and Jacqueline that the American people never voted
for Bush/Cheney.
That's something Europeans either don't know or don't want to know
(because, let's face it, they may enjoy feeling superior to the dim
American electorate). They have to know it, however, since what we need
above all at this moment is world solidarity against the Bush regime.
Secondly -- and not to sound like a broken record -- the likelihood of
yet another stolen race this year is greater than ever; and that's the
only way McCain could "win," with the economy in such disastrous shape,
and him so keen to fight this war, which two-thirds of Americans do not
support.
And, if/when he "wins," the rationale that will explain it all away will
be this rift inside the Democratic Party, and, no less, Obama's being
African-American. So, instead of looking at the evidence of fraud and
vote suppression, everyone will say, "America just wasn't ready to elect
a black man," and, "It was that long, bitter struggle between him and
Clinton." Thus the evidence of yet another stolen race will be ignored,
so that the contest after that (if any) can be stolen, too, and all our
subsequent elections will be fixed.
...If people don't wise up to the great likelihood of further fraud, and
a surprise "win" by the impossible McCain, they're liable to keel over
when it happens, succumbing to despair: just as they did when Kerry
packed it in four years ago -- only this time such surrender will be
fatal.
Mark Crispin Miller (5/6)
Author, "Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy,
2000-2008"
New York
Bernard Weiner replies:
Thanks for the
important reminders and insights, Mark. I always feel politically
nourished by you.
My biggest problem with some of our very astute and capable intellectual
observers and thinkers, and I am again singling out poor Bernard Weiner,
is that they are TOO FUCKING POLITE!! I would love to see this guy erupt
and get really FUCKIN' PISSED OFF when he writes about the enormous
global tragedy that is the Amerikan way of life.
nedlud (5/6)
from SmirkingChimp.com
Ah, words! Many of us can express anger and rage without ever uttering
the word "Fuck/" I have had this same criticism regarding some of my
columns. But surely you realize that sometimes an even-tempered
deconstruction of the horrors being waged in our name, with our sons and
our money can convince the unsure reader much more than a raging screed!
Not that there's anything wrong with the occasional raging screed --
I've done one or two myself.
Keep your anger alive, nedlud. I love your participation! But cut Dr.
Weiner some slack. He's trying to rationally explain the inexplicable,
the indefensible facts. The statistics = the rage!
Michael Fox (5/6)
from SmirkingChimp.com
Dear Wolfgang and Jacqueline:
Please pardon the familiarity as I don't know your surnames. Your friend
Bernard is quite correct, as far as he goes, and quite measured.
In fact, the American political situation is fucked-up for basically two
reasons:
1) Only about half of eligible voters will ever vote in a key election
(like in 2004 and 2006). Of that half, about half will always vote for
the fascist candidate, no matter who or what he/she/it is. Of that first
voting half, about half will vote against the fascist, usually
regardless of who the D candidate is. The only challenge, then, for the
fascists, is to swing 1 or 2% of the electorate who are gullible or
suggestible. It is understandable, then, that campaigns ignore substance
in favor of doing everything possible to inflame nascent hatreds among
the more primitive of the electorate. Over the past 35 years, the
fascists have elevated that to an art form. But to hedge their bets,
they've also implemented a cornucopia of vote fraud methods to guarantee
their 1% margins.
2) American politicians of both parties are completely, utterly,
irreversibly corrupt. Since it takes a buttload of cash to conduct a
campaign for city councilman, and insufficient numbers of Americans, as
of today, at least, have Bill Gates' money, all who run must either
commit extortion, accept bribes, or both, in order to raise enough money
to buy and/or respond to the attack ads which inflame the nascent
hatreds in the 2% of swing voters.
As a result, no virtuous candidates will ever, again, run. And it is
almost unavoidable that the public vetting process (primaries) will
result in the worst of the virtueLESS candidates will end up running in
the general election. Thus, we always have the "Woody Allen" choice
between the awful and the horrible. And this reinforces the electorate's
tendency to stay home (see #1 above).
jtree (5/6)
from SmirkingChimp.com
Responses to Bernard Weiner's essay in
The DemocraticUnderground.
A note from a European:
First; You would be hardpressed to find a European that
considers Putin as a European.
Second; Calling Sarkozy sketchy is a bit of a stretch, even
if he might seem a bit low on substance.
But overall, where I see major differences between US and
European politics;
1) Military. Not many Europeans consider handling the
military one of the major priorities of the president or the
prime ministers. Unlike the US (understandably to a degree).
2) Religion. It might be a bit more of an issue in southern
Europe - but overall religion is pretty far down on the list
of topics when assessing politicians (unless they are
Muslims, but that's another story). It simply isn't much of
an issue how much someone loves god, or not.
3) Many countries operate with prime ministers, that are not
chosen personally, but as a consequence of multiparty
elections, giving a parliamentary majority that then point
to him/her for the job. Making elections quite a bit more
issues-based (not completely, of course.). And in the
countries that have a president, that person is in many
cases a figurehead, more than an executive head. And it
gives a more varied and equal representation in most of the
cases.
4) I don't think I have EVER heard Danish politicians being
questioned on their patriotism. During the Cold War it came
up a few times perhaps, but these days it seems to be a
nonexisting issue. It all leads to far less personality
based politics.
But overall I think your main problems in America are your
guns and your far-too-numerous religious nutcases. Take
those issues out of the equation and your politics might be
considered a tad more normal from a European point of view.
dbmk (5/6)
What is the
role of money in your elections?
One of the biggest factors in US politics is money,
especially corporate money. This year, all the candidates
combined will spend enough money campaigning to provide free
health care for every poor child in America (which the
children won't get).
Do European elections rely as much on money and corporate
contributions?
nichomachus (5/6)
Look past
the money to get at the root of corrupted elections.
Elections are compromised by money because money buys
ADVERTISING. When the role of advertising is minimal, when
elections are decided by debates and talk shows and op-ed
pieces in the newspaper, they can be more issue oriented.
I have noticed a disturbing trend though, which is to
advertise candidates in the manner made popular in America,
by vacuous advertising. A voter can't make a reasoned
decision based on a head shot of the candidate, a two-word
slogan and his party logo.
Fortunately, the smaller the country, the closer the
candidate gets to the people and they can see through the
advertising, and Europe is made up of many small countries
(and a few large ones).
To have truly fair elections, political advertising has to
be banned. Issue forums, debates, editorials, position
pamphlets, and public appearances are great, but advertising
has to go. Advertising is the use of psychology to lure
people into making bad decisions concerning their lives:
smoke these cigarettes, look macho in that car, go into debt
to impress the neighbors, spend money you don't have to buy
stuff you can't afford. Is it any wonder that political
advertising gets people to make poor decisions based on
emotional responses instead of reasoning out their own
self-interest?
izquierdista (5/6)
I suspect
another difference is that in most European countries there
is no politician that fulfills all the roles now ascribed to
the president of the US -- head of government, head of
state, head of the military.
In other countries, those are all different people.
This explains why people can't settle on a candidate. Do we
want an inspirational leader who can bring us together (head
of state), do we want an experienced policy wonk who knows
how to twist arms and kick ass (head of government) or do we
want a saber-rattling, balls-to-the-wall warrior (head of
military)?
US presidential candidates are left trying to be all three
-- and voters lurch from one model to the other, which is
why they can't agree on who is the "best person" for the
job.
nichomachus (5/6)
It could
work that way in the U.S. if they made the cabinet
departments more independent of the President. It seems that
in Europe, the cabinet ministers owe their allegiance to the
party first and the Prime Minister second, whereas in the
U.S., the cabinet secretaries are much more beholden to the
President.
izquierdista (5/6)
The whole
thrust of the Cheney administration has been to make the
president the omnipotent ruler of the country to whom
everyone else -- even the Supreme Court -- owes allegiance.
nichomachus (5/6)
As long as
we're discussing the political differences between US and
countries of the EU, I share what my closest friends (a
Czech & Dutch couple in their 80s) point out to me: European
countries do not have "pledges of allegiance" or salutes to
flags, because those were the symbols of Hitler &
totalitarian regimes. "Sieg Heil!" anyone? In researching
this, I was quite surprised to learn that until 1943, the
American flag code required students to salute the flag with
one arm extended forward.
These observations from Alternet: (google "Pledge of
Allegiance" & Europe):
Can
anyone deny that the American flag has achieved the
status of a graven image?
The contention that flag worship is blasphemy was a key
element before the Supreme Court in 1940. In that case
it upheld the right of a Pennsylvania school district to
expel two students who refused to recite the Pledge of
Allegiance. The two teenagers were members of the
Jehovah's Witness denomination. Their church believed
that pledging allegiance to the flag violated the
Biblical admonition (Exodus 20) against worshipping or
bowing down to any graven image of God. The court
decided that the need for national security and national
unity allowed Congress to force individuals to violate
the Ten Commandments.
In 1943, the Supreme Court reversed its 1940 decision.
That reversal probably had less to do with religion than
with the Court's realization that, at the height of a
war against totalitarian regimes, a central feature of
which was a slavish devotion to national symbols,
compelling us to worship the flag was inapt. (As a side
note, that same year the Flag Code itself was changed.
No longer were students required to salute the flag with
one arm extended forward. The similarity to the Nazi
salute was too embarrassing. From that time onwards, we
were told to put our hands over our hearts.)
The
evidence that we literally worship the flag is overwhelming.
Unique among all nations, we have a Flag Day, a Flag code
etiquette, a national anthem dedicated to the flag and a
verbal salute to the flag. Twenty-seven states require
school children to salute the flag daily. Some might argue
that we are simply saluting a symbol, that we are actually
pledging allegiance to our country. But the words tell a
different story.
Divernan (5/6)
Ernest Partridge comments:
Ever notice that the first line of the "Pledge" is
total nonsense? "I pledge allegiance to the
flag..."
How does one "obey" a piece of cloth?
The fact that almost nobody recognizes this as
nonsense, indicates just how many people take it
seriously.
"Bludnorthwest" below, is a worthy exception.
As citizens
or as elected officials, our allegiance is or should be to
the Constitution of the United States, not to the flag, or
even the States or the Union, but the Constitution.
Bluenorthwest (5/6)
Thanks for
that background on "Flag Worship."
I've been horrified that candidates are being asked about
this "flag pin thing" which was dreamed up by the Repugs to
show loyalty to Bush after 9/11. To hear Russert carrying
ton about whether Obama should wear a flag pin or not did
indeed remind me of "Heil Hitler" by a toady who worships GE
for everything he's been given by Jack Welch.
The flag pin issue is almost a given with few seeming to
understand that the people who wear them are displaying
their allegiance to the worst instincts of partisan
politics. That our Democrats haven't make that an issue
shows how cowered they are by their "bi-partisan"
allegiences.
KoKo01 (5/6)
We have
advertising here in Britain. We allow political advertising
but with a twist. First off, it's free. The companies
(including the BBC which is the only kind of advert they can
run) donate X number of minutes of commercial time to the
three main political parties around election time.
Which brings me to the second difference: Each party gets
the same amount of time to make their case. What normally
happens is that the party in power will make a case for
retaining it in their ads and within the next couple of
days, the two opposition parties will respond. What that
leads to is an advertising style which tends toward a
formalised debate with rebuttals and counter-rebuttals...
And with respect, Bernie, I think there is one other problem
that you haven't covered: American arrogance. I speak here
of the overweening nationalism which almost had Michelle
Obama being tarred & feathered for saying she'd not been
proud of her country before, and still is aimed at the Rev.
Wright. One definition of nationalism is the idea that one
should be incredibly proud of their nation, not for what it
has done or what it represents but simply for existing.
Michelle Obama and Rev. Wright's comments wouldn't have
raised an eyebrow here.
Leaving that aside, there are many huge differences:
1) Religion. In Europe, while many people are religious,
it's very much a personal matter between the individual and
his/her god. Even here in England where we are still
(nominally) a Christian nation, Blair feared that talking
about how his faith influenced his policies would get him
labeled as a "nutter" (too late, Tony). In America, it seems
that while the Constitution bans a religious test for
office, the people have imposed one of their own and many
seem to expect the president to be a kind of high priest.
2) Closer tie to the electorate. We have a system here in
Britain where MPs are expected (not as an enforceable rule
but as a point of pride) to hold an open meeting for their
constituents at least once a month (known as a "surgery";
the PM and Cabinet are allowed to avoid that for obvious
reasons). Any constituent can show up at a surgery, ask
questions or state their opinion. Our politicians aren't
more inherently noble than yours but that makes it a lot
easier to hold them accountable when they screw up.
3) Concentration of powers. In the US, your head of state,
head of government, head of military and (realistically)
head of law are concentrated in one person. Here, we
separate those functions out. In Britain, the head of state
is the monarch, the PM is head of government, the Sec of
Defence is C-in-C of the military (in real terms anyway) and
the Lord Chancellor is head of law. The division isn't
absolute, an especially military-minded PM might well get
involved with war planning for example (i.e. Churchill) but
there isn't that concentration of power.
4) Issues base. Because elections in Europe are generally
done by electing parties who then pick a leader from their
ranks, there is a much stronger emphasis on issues and much
less on personalities. Britain is actually a mixture of
American and European on this one. Because our PM is
invariably the head of one of the parties, their personality
is more "in play" than much of Europe.
5) Finally, there is the director/editor dichotomy. The
names are fairly arbitrary but they illustrate two different
styles of leadership. The director is personally involved
with everything, very hands-on and makes most decisions
personally. The editor sets general direction and perhaps
gets involved in the biggest decisions but otherwise
delegates much of his authority to trusted and competent
subordinates. In the US, you've had both. Clinton and Bush
Sr. were both editors but the general trend is toward
directorship. W is a director (or, more accurately, his
controllers Cheney and Rove are). Here, the emphasis is much
more toward the editorial style. We have had directorial PMs,
such as Thatcher and Blair, but they're usually forced out
when their autocratic tendencies become clear.
Prophet 451 (5/6)
There are many
obvious differences between the national/general
elections held in both America and Britain but one major
similarity.
1) A British Prime Minister can call an election at any time
in his 5-year term. In theory, he can use good economic
news, for example, to boost his party's representation in
Parliament by calling a snap general election hoping that
voters will be swept along by such good news. It is said
that Harold Wilson, the Labour Prime Minister in the
1960s-1970s used this feel-good factor after England won the
World Cup in 1966.
The US President has no such flexibility. The date of each
US national election is set in stone and the President goes
into it on the back of whatever news is around at the time,
be it good or bad.
2) The US has an election every 4 years - the UK every 5
years maximum.
3) The UK's Prime Minister can serve any number of years.
The US President is limited via the Constitution to two
four-year terms - a maximum of 8 years. Though the
Constitution can be amended, there has been no evidence in
recent years that there will be any such change to this part
of the Constitution.
4) Even if the two countries' populations are made into a
comparable proportion, the amount of money spent during an
American national election dwarfs [sic] the money spent
during a UK general election. For the UK 2001 general
election, political pundits spoke in terms of tens of
millions being spent in total by all parties. In the 2004
American election, pundits spoke in terms of hundreds of
million of dollars being spent - possibly even a billion
dollars.
5) One of the main reasons for the above is the difference
in duration of the two campaigns. In the UK, Tony Blair
announced the 2005 general election for May 5th on April 5th
- leaving just one month for campaigning. In America, the
election campaign starts in January in the year of the
election with primaries and caucuses, leaving 10 months
until the actual election.
6) In America, the national election is between two
candidates - a Republican one and a Democrat one. (Other
candidates do stand but they have no chance of being
elected.) Voters vote for a candidate. In the UK there is a
totally different approach. There is a vote for all 646
constituencies (2005 figure) and voters will probably vote
for a party rather than for a candidate.
7) In America, the opportunity for a protest vote barely
exists - unless you deliberately abstain. The Reform Party
and Green Party do exist but the Electoral College system
means that they have no chance of getting any form of power.
In the UK, there are plenty of opportunities to have a
protest vote against the standing party/Prime Minister. The
election of Michael Bell as an Independent anti-corruption
MP in 1997 showed this. In 2001 an Independent candidate won
Wyre Forest as the Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern
MP - his manifesto was based solely on keeping open the
local hospital whatever the cost. He received the support of
the local populace and became that constituency's MP. The
system in America does not allow for this at presidential
level - though it does happen at Congressional level,
especially in the mid-term elections.
8) Turnout at both national/general elections is poor. In
both 2001 (UK) and 2004 (US), 1/3rd of those who could have
voted did not. The announcement of an election in the UK in
April 05 was described in one British broadsheet as "the
lull before the lull."
9) The UK's electoral system is based on the
first-past-the-post system. All the winning party needs is a
majority of MPs elected to Westminster to win a general
election. For 2005, all the winning party will need is 324
MPs to have an overall majority in Parliament. In America,
some say that there are 50 elections as opposed to just one.
Whoever wins a state, gets all of that state's Electoral
College votes and the loser gets none. Once a presidential
candidate gets a majority of Electoral College votes, he is
declared the winner even if some states have yet to declare
the popular vote totals. In 2000, Bush won with fewer public
votes but with a majority of Electoral College votes. The
same oddity has happened in the UK. In 1951, the
Conservatives won the general election with 11.62 million
votes (including National Liberal and Conservative MPs)
while the Labour Party got 11.63 million votes. However, the
Conservatives won 259 seats in Westminster to Labour's 233.
10) In the UK an election manifesto is traditionally
considered to be binding. It is not uncommon during Commons
Question Time for Opposition MPs to state: "In your
manifesto you said (blank), why hasn't this happened?"
In America, an election platform (the equivalent of a
manifesto) is not considered to be binding. It is what would
be done given the perfect opportunity to do so.
Divernan (5/6)
More
Americans need to get out of the country and visit other
parts of the world, but especially Europe so they can see
how else life can be lived in the industrialized world.
I have been to England, and fell in love with the place,
especially London. If emigrating wasn't so expensive I would
do it quickly. Europe's not perfect but far more attractive
to me.
There is a serious problem with the utter brainwashing that
people go through growing up in the US. They are told again
and again that the USA is completely and utterly God's gift
to the Universe, so when they hear anything that goes
against that, no matter the evidence, no matter that some
things that others do are actually a better way, they resist
and fight, or ignore it. It is uber nationalism, which is
pretty disgusting.
ebt12 (5/6)
|
The primaries have
weeded out the true peace candidates so avoiding/ending wars is not as
important to us as we'd like to think. The consequences are never
catastrophic enough.
xRepublican (5/6)
from AfterDowningStreet.org
"McCAIN-THE-CHAMELEON"
Apt description of McCain! I hope your coined phrase of him catches on
in time!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!!
yanhadenuf (5/6)
from AfterDowningStreet.org
Dear Bernard,
The one thing you left out of your essay was the Fox psuedo-antiterrorism
show, "24". As I look back, I can see that the show was a perfect
propaganda piece to inure the general public to the idea of torture.
In that goddamned show, they always capture the right suspect, and he
always tells them what they want to know. In reality, we have tortured
and murdered hundreds of innocent people, and have gleaned no useful
information from our barbarism.
Who is behind "24"? The Goddamn Pentagon???? What a fucking disgrace. I
am so ashamed of what these fucking nazis have done to my country. Proud
of you guys, though. Keep up the good work. Hopefully I will never meet
you in a FEMA detention camp.
Thomas Arnold (5/6)
Now that we've learned all about the Pentagon's psy-ops against the
American people, using retired military generals, and given our having
witnessed the media's making of the "Dean Scream" and the "Kerry
Flip-Flop" and the "Obama-Wright" controversy, can we please start using
the proper words for all of this? Thank you.
Brainwashing = repeating something over and over and over again until
the victim starts to believe it.
Let's call this for what it is: PROPAGANDA and BRAINWASHING.
Terry Carlson (5/6)
Ron Paul is who you should have been telling your European friends
about, Bernie. Hey, when this crazy year is about over in November, and
Clinton and Obama have battled it out and are both lying on the ground
bleeding, and McCain continues to blow it with his inane and insane
comments, as if he had any credibility to begin with, who is left to
vote for as president other than Ron Paul?
I venture to wager that your friends in Europe probably know more about
statesman Paul than you do. And maybe they have been urging you to write
about him, but you refuse? The three senators you name have all violated
their oath of office many times over, just look at their Congressional
voting records. Do your friends in Europe feel secure that one of the
three that deny their solemn oath sworn would be someone to be seated in
the Oval Office, when what happens in America ultimately affects them,
for good or bad? I doubt it.
Has Ron Paul, in his nearly 20 years in the Congress ever voted for any
measure that was unconstitutional? No, not once. Ron Paul believes in
the Rule of Law, and his impeccable record as a public servant shows
that. Yep, your friends are right, it is crazy in American politics when
the three least-qualified candidates are promoted as the "only" choices,
while the most qualified candidate is seen as a dark horse. Well, how
long will that last?
I bet your European friends might have already taken notice that Ron
Paul's book, "THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO", is already number one on
Amazon -- the same day it was "officially" released. They might even
have a copy of it already! Ask them next time you write. I bet they will
tell you that you should vote for Ron Paul -- for America's benefit and
for Europe's, also.
Dale Mastarone (5/6)
AtlanticFreePress.com
April 29, 2008
About Bernard Weiner's essay,
Impeachment
Now Or Apocalypse Later?
The argument is always that avenues like impeachment and
prosecution of government officials is counterproductive to
"the nation's healing."
This is a lie.
This nation's healing is dependent precisely upon having the
courage to admit its many sins, and then to set about
repairing them—this necessarily involves prosecuting the
criminals in leadership who have destroyed the reputation of
the United States and drained America of its soul.
But the rot here is not confined to the Bush Administration
or to the Republican Party, unfortunately. Collaborators in
what is ridiculously called "the opposition party" know
this, and will stop at nothing to protect themselves—and, of
necessity, their "opponents"—from any direct light being
shown on these inconvenient truths and crimes against
humanity.
The American public—which is also deeply culpable in this
because off its silent acquiescence and outright enabling of
these crimes—has little stomach for the truth. And even less
desire to face itself in the mirror by facing its leadership
in a court of law.
LaEldritch (4/29)
from RigorousIntuition.ca
The Dems don't have the guts to impeach. If they did, they would have
gone forward with it as soon as they obtained a majority in 2006. Now we
are nearing the end of Bush's term and the exceedingly aggressive Reps,
with help from a compliant media who are in the midst a lucrative
election cycle, would stymie an impeachment effort and run out the clock
while the Bushies keep right on breaking the law.
Besides, Impeachment is a political solution to political crimes. What
is needed in the case of BushCo are criminal indictments.
Sunny (4/29)
from RigorousIntuition.ca
Their reasons for avoiding action might have something to do with the
Dems having as much as 192 million invested (AKA WAR-PROFITEERING) in
this war...
And Sunny, it has nothing to do w/guts, they are complicit.
Uncle $cam (4/29)
from RigorousIntuition.ca
Dr. Weiner:
It is never wrong to do the right thing. Bush-Cheney should be impeached
and tried for war crimes.
It would go a very long way to start a reconciliation with the rest of
the world. ... Impeachment is imperative as a start to regain our once
proud example of justice and leadership in the world. To do otherwise is
to concede there will be no challenge to the outrageous lies that have
put us in the fix we now find this once good and grand country to be in.
DJ Nelson (4/29)
Minnesota
Mr. Weiner:
I have written to every member of the House Judiciary Committee
(Democratic and Republican) who has not gone on record supporting
impeachment hearings asking some of the exact questions you raise. Their
answer "dead silence."
In my view, the only real answer is to remove every last one of them
from office and keep replacing representatives until people are found
(regardless of party) who understand their top job is to ensure
accountability in government.
We are talking Impeachment HEARINGS. Hearings are to investigate
potential wrong doing. If U.S. Representatives don't have any questions
in their minds about potential wrongdoing of this administration by now,
they have no business being in Washington D.C. representing anyone. They
have to be brain dead not to know any of the issues or reasons the
public has called for Impeachment hearings.
The lack of action, the excuses for doing nothing are in fact
inexcusable. No U.S. Representative who supports that inaction has any
business representing the people of this country, period. I think we can
find better individuals than that to Represent us. I think there are
lots of people who would actually work to earn the $165,200/yr + fringes
the members of the House of Representatives are paid.
The concern about our political parties is probably correct. We have a
dichotomy of thinking in this country -- Republicans want less
government, Democrats want more government. Seems few just want BETTER
government. Shouldn't that be the universal aim of every Congressional
Member? Size has to do with need and function, not desire or want. We
need sufficient numbers in the public to stand up and say enough is
enough. Vote the bums out who don't get it.
Support people who believe in "good government" of the people, by the
people and for the people instead of, by and for special interests. If
we would hammer and hammer away at that, send donations to those
individuals deserving of our support (regardless of party affiliation)
we will have better government in Washington and things would work lots
better. Let's do that!
I don't feel the Representatives in Congress are interested in listening
anymore. I don't honestly feel they think they owe most of us any
explanations or answers for anything they do. Their attitude is "what
the heck do I care what you think?" Only if many band together can we
replace that kind of attitude and thinking with a new vision of how
government should work.
Peter Wedlund (4/29)
University of Kentucky
from OpEdNews.com
Yes, yes, yes. What you wrote is absolutely right. I sent the website to
my congressmen. Thanks.
Kate Quimby (4/29)
from OpEdNews.com
"But will the Democrats, having been provided with smoking
gun-type evidence of these officials' high crimes and misdemeanors,
take the next logical step to end this continuing nightmare of
law-breaking at the highest levels?"
The Democrats will do nothing. The majority of American people have
proven themselves to be blood-thirsty knuckle-draggers that are
accurately represented by the Bush cabal. America as an experiment in
democracy is dead.
auggiedaddy (4/29)
from SmirkingChimp.com
The Demos as usual have it all wrong. If they don't impeach, it will
make no difference to the Repugs; they will try to impeach any Democrat
for any reason, any time. I have seen an ad the last few days with
Pelosi and Gingrich where she looks like a high school freshman asking
Newt to please, please, like me. I thought she was going to give him a
lap dance. So much for impeachment by these spineless [wimps].
Brandane (4.29)
from SmirkingChimp.com
Bernard:
With all due respect, you write too polite, you're too nice. Get fuckin'
angry. man!!! Like me.... ;)
nedlud (4/29)
from SmirkingChimp.com
Too much anger shuts down the higher centers of brain function.
Turning into a raving fool doesn't help the situation in the least,
Nedlud. He could have ratcheted up his indignation a bit without being
crass...
How about Bernard's ideas? Do you agree or disagree? Words are used to
communicate information. Please use them. I would like to know what you
thought about his ideas. not that he wasn't passionate enough for you.
To me the complicity of key members of the Democratic Party shows just
how far the infection of the coming fascist state has gone. Since 1934,
when they tried and failed to turn us into a fascist state, they have
been working on what they have learned.
Now, since 1980, they have worked on all fronts to make their dream our
nightmare, a reality. The question is when will they use the present
laws to come down on us harder next time. As Naomi Wolf spoke about in
her book "End of America," the dictatorhips, whether right-wing or left,
usually come about slowly and for years may still look free but are
losing by a thousand cuts its life to be replaced by a parasitic
organization. I am waiting for the next shoe to drop.
nightgaunt (4/29)
from SmirkingChimp.com
It is never too late for justice and accountability.
Without impeachment we risk WW III, a stolen election, and a precedent
that agrees with George Bush's assessment that our Constitution is
nothing but a worthless scrap of paper.
With impeachment, we may be able to prevent those things.
Time for Change (4/29)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
It would be best to fight them here and now, rather than here and later.
Or something. Even out of power, these forces will still control the
media. 30% or more of the population will continue to believe their
every word. Severe criticism of an elected Democratic President will
start the moment they take office.
It will be just like with Bill Clinton, 24/7 attacks. I remember during
Clinton's inauguration, the announcers started in on Whitewater.
Limbaugh & Hannity live for this stuff.
Enthusiast (4/29)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
And after all this caution and fear over impeachment, the Dems have done
nothing to see that we have clean elections. With a fair election, a Dem
seems a shoe-in. But we've already seen three stolen elections. What
does it take to wake up the Congress? Do they really wanted to be
awakened?
And I think serious writers like yourself should toss the use of the
word "mischief." Murder and mayhem rise to a much higher level than
that. Every time I see that term used, I remember James Baker trying to
justify for posterity the mess in Florida and all that followed.
Good article. Thanks for your efforts to show us the way to sanity.
puebloknot (4/29)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
I agree with just about everything you say except that declaring
impeachment off the table is not like "fighting with one hand behind
your back."
It is like unilateral disarmament.
Your idea that "those who control the dictionary, the language, control
the world" has never been proven to be true more eloquently then at this
time in history and with this administration.
Sam Ervin (4/29)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Congress will never impeach Bush because they are part of the problem
and, as such, cannot be part of the solution.
With very few exceptions, senators and members of Congress are BushCo
enablers who care only about their re-elections and their continued
access to the corporate money teat. Everything else is just rhetoric . .
.
OneBlueSky (4/29)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Mr. Weiner:
I agree. And I am so tired of these idiotic moderate Democrats that
refuse to impeach because they think they are being tactically savvy.
The truth is that these professional political tacticians and
strategists and advisors are the reason we keep losing elections so
badly.
kenfrequed (4/29)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Why spend our time protesting in DC, only to be ignored? Unless we get
in the streets outside our rep's personal residences, who is going to
care?
We need to mobilize locally& demand national action. Few of us could go
to Washington, but many of us can go to our city halls or state
legislatures or local Congressional offices.
Tell the government that we're fed up with war, torture, corruption, &
special-interest funding our elections & our media.
Strikes have brought civil rights in the U.S. & around the world. Help
make our voices louder than the mainstream media & corporate dollars.
General Strike: 9/11/08 to ? HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES!!
Otherwise Bush & Co will get away with it.
In our system of check & balances, the judiciary has failed & the
newly-elected congress has failed, so it has fallen to the American
people to set things right!
Chris Rice (4/29)
www.votestrike.org
from OpEdNews.com
...Conyers carefully continues to document everything for the
consideration of the next Democratic president, and he has hinted to
some that he will NOT schedule an impeachment hearing until
President-elect Obama is sworn safely into office.
In the meantime, while waiting for his sick fantasy to come true, he
will deliberately let the clock run out on the 110th Democratic
Congress. It's "no sweat off his back". He'll show up for work, have a
few meetings, make a few impeachment and contempt threats, put in his
time to get his pay, but don't anyone ever dare say that he's not doing
his official duty.
After all, he raised his right hand over 40 times to honor and defend
the Constitution, and he should know, better than anyone, how to get the
job done...
By the time he gets ready to stand up, he won't be asked to bother.
Gene Cappa (4/29)
Vietnam War Marine vet
from OpEdNews.com
...I have serious doubts that the situation that exists will lend itself
to evolutionary changes. ... It appears that nothing less than a
revolution is needed. Perhaps it will not be like its historical
precursors, but with fits and starts and organized groups of
single-minded intent coming together ultimately.
Moss Posner (4/29)
from OpEdNews.com
I read your fine article at buzzflash.com. Thank you, sir,
i must say you do a disservice to the people of this nation and the
entire world when you broadcast an article like this and yet you do not
call people to action at the same time.
There is no evidence the Democrats will do anything to slow down the
Bush/Cheney gang; absolutely no evidence. There is no evidence that the
next president can or will cause or allow justice to be done re the
Bush/Cheney gang.
If there is to be true meaningful change it will come from "the people"
who are willing to sacrifice and endure some hardship. People are going
to go to jail or worse before the Bush/Cheney gang go to jail.
Please, a call to action.
J.D. Thompson (4/29)
Bernard Weiner replies:
In other essays, I've focused more on action items. In this
one, I consciously chose to focus on the arguments for impeachment
and how to get the impeachment ball rolling. At the end, in case you
missed it, I wrote that it's likely the Democrats won't move off
their fat dimes unless we the people demand that they do. We need to
"tell them they have to or risk the consequences at the ballot box,
or in the possible establishment of a new, grassroots-engendered
party after the November election that will demonstrate the courage
and passion for ethical and reality-based government that is so
lacking in today's timid, Bush-enabling Democratic Party."
Thanks for writing.
Mr Weiner;
I have just finished reading your article "Impeachment Now Or Apocalypse
Later." A great article. Too bad these things are not being discussed in
the MSM. I am a proponent of impeachment. This administration has
trashed the Geneva convention, committed crimes against humanity, and
they have shredded the U.S. Constitution.
I do not understand the Democrats' hesitancy. The crimes committed by
Nixon and Clinton pale in comparison to what this administration has
done to this country as well as to our standing in the world. Bush's
administration makes what they did look like child's play.
This Democratic Congress has always been afraid of the Republicans. As
far as getting anything done in Congress because impeachment would take
up their precious time? This Congress doesn't do anything but give Bush
what he wants. If impeachment would stop that, maybe it would be a good
thing.
Republicans know that what these guys did was illegal and impeachable.
The Democrats have the truth on their side. They should get out there
and shout it from the rooftops; but they don't have the courage to do
that. So, my question to you is this: If we do nothing now, will these
people ever be held responsible in our courts for the crimes they have
committed? Will they ever be held accountable?
I'm hoping justice will be served. However, I am very doubtful that
these miscreants will ever pay for their crimes.
Sharon (4/29)
Binghamton, NY
Bernard Weiner responds:
The quick answer to your question about accountability: The
Democrats will not do much while CheneyBush are in office unless
their constituents force them to. The longer answer is that the
White House bunker crew may face accountability in the courts --
World Court ("war crimes"), civil and criminal courts inside the
U.S. -- once they've left office.
But I'll believe that when I see it.
Thanks for writing.
Both parties took part in the lying to get America to invade Iraq. Many
Demos took part in no-tell meetings. ...
Reason the Demos don't want to impeach: They liked what Bush ordered.
George (4/29)
Toronto, Canada
About Other Essays and Issues.
I am astounded by Dr. Partridge's brilliant essay
On
Patriotism. It will be given wide circulation
within my tiny sphere of influence. I discovered "The Crisis Papers"
just today, while searching for Teddy Roosevelt's true description of
patriotism.
It should be clear to the intellectual community", the Ruling Oligarchy
(Dictatorship) will allow all sorts of criticism and ancillary AntiWar
activities, like improving the care of our wounded troops; but, it
absolutely forbids any discussion about eliminating the sources of all
combat fatalities and maimings by the very simple act of bringing all
our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. I crossed that
line in "The News Muse" almost three years ago.
I'm really trying to do my share to combat RAMPANT TREASON...
Regards,
Tony Cavalcante (4/29)
RE: Ernest Partridge's essay,
"Adieu, Randi Rhodes:"
Dear Ernest,
While your comments on the firing of Randi Rhodes are valid strictly a
matter of opinion, you nevertheless wrote your piece without knowledge
of the entire picture. Randi's suspension had nothing to do with her
stand-up routine in San Francisco. Rather it was an ongoing contract
dispute over the terms of her employment/deployment. AAR was bound to
its terms with Randi, and unhappily so. The SF performance provided the
magic bullet event - - - or perhaps the pea in the princess's mattress.
Whatever came out in early Blogland, e.g., Huffington Post, Democratic
Underground, etc., was nothing more than p.r. "bubbemeisls" --- ask
Bernie to explain bubbemeisls. Later in the week, Randi herself
attempted to straighten out the facts on Larry King, but Larry cut her
short so he could segue over to the "breaking news" of a
captured-in-Mexico-suspect of a pregnant military woman. Later in the
evening former AAR host Mike Malloy gave Randi the interview Larry
should have afforded her.
The real story here is not whether Randi should or should not be bashing
Hillary Clinton. Randi's style, for sure, does not suffer fools gladly.
A former military enlistee, a South Florida progressive radio host,
Rhodes has hacked through the jungle brush long before Hillary even
considered buying a puptent with air mattresses!
Each Air America host/hostess is a personality in his/her own right. I
relish their separate identities and styles. I identify with each.
Whereas Thom Hartmann's patient parsing of history, politics and the
ethical implications of both is my superego, and Rachel Maddow's
here-and-now escort service through daily political events and
personalities is my ego food, Randi's articulate and well-placed
hyperreactive outrage - - - well, that's my id nourishment. Voila! A
balanced diet!
And, as we knew she would, the cat landed on her feet. Perhaps Hillary
should take a glance at Randi's courage.
Respectfully,
Anita Beckenstein (4/29)
tribecka@socal.rr.com
And while you and far-too-many Americans sit, stand, prance, whine,
shout and dance all with your heads up your assholes awaiting the drop
of yet another fuckin' shoe, your nation slides even more quickly into a
fiefdom of gutless, worthless, numbed and dumbed, useless,
service-industry wankers.
Allow let me shout it out to youse all. It not only looks good on ya'll,
but it is also exactly what youse all deserve:
Have Americans given any thought as to why the rest of the world has
said little about your leaders being bags of shit ?
I didn't think so.
Maybe the rest of the world is like me: let 'em fuck themselves beyond a
reasonable doubt and we'll get to pick up the pieces, not that the
pieces will be worth any more than a passing glance.
SlipOnThru (4/29)
from SmirkingChimp.com
Horse piss.
Youare a naysaying fraidy cat and nothing more.
Of course there will be election fraud. Tell me an election in the
history of this country in which there was no election fraud.
You want Michael the Archangel counting ballots. Sorry. We only have
human beings available, and some of us are sinners some of us are
stoopid, some of us just make mistakes.
Quit worrying. We survived Millard Fillmore and Warren G. Harding,
William Jefferson Clinton and, with luck, George W. Bush.
Denny Bonavita (4/29)
Bernard Weiner responds:
You're correct, there always has been, and always will be,
some election fraud. The goal is to cut it to an absolute minimum so
that when we vote, we can have some reasonable assurance that our
votes are being counted fairly and accurately.
The situation today is that the system is so non-transparent and
screwed-up -- voting and ballot-counting outsourced to private
companies (who just happen to be Republican-leaning companies) that
will not permit their software to be properly examined and tested
and whose employees, or other hackers, easily can manipulate the
vote totals without anybody being the wiser. There are plenty of
reasons to doubt the authenticity of the 2000, 2002, 2004 elections.
This is not the kind of election system any self-respecting
democracy should put up with.
Thanks for writing.
Dear Bernard Weiner,
Hi, I read your well-constructed 2006 essay "Twenty Things We Now Know
Five Years After 9/11."
Kinda funny, and pathetic, going forward nothing much has changed. Got
worse actually. But the disease of "imperial mobilization" appears
systemic, and truly bipartisan, and thus your prescriptions would likely
not have worked anyway.
In any case, to see the systemic nature of this disease that crosses
political boundaries in the U.S., in that the thinkers and master
strategists are the same, check out:
"Bin Laden: Key Enabler of
'Imperial Mobilization' ... and nuclear attack on Iran-Pakistan.
Zahir (4/29)
April 22, 2008
Go to responses to Ernest Partridge's Essay,
"Adieu, Randi Rhodes."
Go to responses to other essays and issues,
including Ernest Partridge's extended reply to libertarian critics.
Bernard Weiner:
Klein's book actually comes full circle with regards to Chicago School
economics and its effect on South America. These countries that
initially served as lab rats for Milton Friedman's economic theory, are
now moving steadily back toward social democracy.
When people have absolutely nothing left to lose, their natural tendency
seems to be a coming together for mutual benefit. Witness the
governments of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, to name a couple. Sadly, it
has taken 25-30 years to overcome the effects of the "Shock Doctrine."
habeus corpses (4/22)
From SmirkingChimp.com
One interesting-chilling sidelight that I picked up in "The Shock
Doctrine" was the involvement of Burson-Marsteller (the Hillary-Mark
Penn connection, remember) in doing PR for the military dictatorship in
Argentina in the seventies, encouraging multi-national corporations to
invest there and advance the neoliberal tenets of privatization,
deregulation, and cutbacks in public services. Birds of a feather.
zephyrbag (4/22)
From OpEdNews.com
Corporate Fascism. Because that's what it is.
remo (4/22)
From AtlanticFreePress.com
Dr. Weiner:
Thank you for this summary. Those without time to read her book will
benefit.
grasswire (4/22)
From DemocraticUnderground.com
I just finished reading this book and it changed my thinking. This is
one of the most important books this decade. Highly recommended.
info being (4/22)
From DemocraticUnderground.com
The Shock Doctrine: One of the best and most important books I've ever
read. Maybe THE most important.
Should be required reading for primary and secondary education, but it
never will be unless the current political climate changes dramatically.
Time for change (4/22)
From DemocraticUnderground.com
An insightful review that makes compelling reading -- worthy of the
book, which is saying something.
KCabotDullesMarxIII (4/22)
From DemocratiUnderground.com
"The Shock Doctrine" is a must-read.
There really are people who think "the market" should control everything
and people should be economic slaves to all-powerful corporations. And
they are willing to kill and torture and threaten and terrorize to get
their way. Naomi just gives case study after case study about how it has
already happened -- with US government backing, money, CIA "advisors",
and approval -- in country after country in the last 3 decades.
The first chapter made me weep. The next few made me depressed. A bunch
after that made me quite angry. The last made me feel educated, wiser,
and hopeful. An amazing emotional and historical journey.
ProfessorPlum (4/22)
From DemocraticUnderground.com
Excellent review of an excellent book.
I read it the first week it was released. I couldn't put it down for two
days. This should be required reading at college level in every
university in the nation.
ringtailtooter (4/22)
From DemocraticUnderground.com
Randi is back
No sooner than Randi got the ax by the corporate honchos in New York she
was immediately hired by Air America Phoenix over the weekend. Randi now
joins her longtime friends at Nova M Radio, founders Sheldon and Anita
Drobny, truthseeker extraordinairre Mike Malloy, and Proud to be a
Liberal Jeff Farias. Randi is on the air at the same time 3PM weekdays
CST CLICK HERE www.novamradio.com for a free online stream. Bravo Randi
and welcome home.
Love ya.
Gene Cappa (4/22)
OpEd News
Responses to Ernest Partridge's essay
in The Smirking Chimp.
Bub-bye,Please don’t mistake me for someone who can tell
the difference between Hillary Clinton and a fucking whore,
but I agree with Mr. Partridge that Randi Rhodes’ departure
from AAR is nothing to regret. Her self-absorption literally
smothered many of her callers, the concept of dialogue was
foreign to her, and her ego constantly interfered with the
basic correctness of many of her political views (except for
her dismissal of 9-11 skeptics). Ta ta, Randi. Good
riddance. She can’t hold a candle to Thom Hartmann.
zephyrbag
Ernest, before you wrote about this you should have
RESEARCHED Randi's explanation. According to Randi this
whole incident was about her contract and the fact that the
new corporate whoreners wanted to amend it. They basically
blackmailed her with the video and she told them where they
could stick it. It worked out fine though because she is now
with a True Progressive radio group,
http://www.novamradio.com/live/
Hillary Clinton is no Democrat. She is a DLCer. Those POS
are not Democrats. They are DINOs and the sooner they are
purged from the party the better for Democrats, Americans
and the world.
Now I love Thom Hartman too for all the reasons you
suggested. I still can't warm up to Maddow though. I've
tried and tried but to me she comes off as an NPRish snob. I
still listen to Rachael when ever I am in the car, but she
is not my cup of genmai cha.
As for Randi's show, ya sometimes it goes places that I care
nothing for, but if it were similar to Thom and Rachael's
show then we would have 9 hours of the same program. Variety
my friend. For those of us who love the info in a certain
format we have Thom and Rachael. For those of us that need
some gossip and a change up we have Randi. I prefer Malloy
though bcause he brings the flamethrower.
You gotta remember, the DLC has just about taken over the
Democratic party. They have marginalized true progressives
and our goals. That makes them the enemy to me. We are in a
WAR for our party, not just our country.
nerfed
Now... who's the snob?
I still can't warm up to Maddow though. I've tried and
tried but to me she comes off as an NPRish snob.
Ahhhh...anti-intellectualism anyone? Well at least it wasn't
because "She's a dyke" like my Conservative acquaintances
complain about.
Rachel is the only listenable show on AAR. Call in shows are
so boring....after the 1st 45 minutes. I'd rather hear
smart, acute news analysis, so I listen to Rachel, who is
about information, not chit chat. Maybe that's why she
sounds like NPR. And the way she uses self-deprecating humor
all the time is certainly not snobbish.
Smartalex
Dr. Partridge
Though I too agree that Randi's departure is mildly
lamentable, I did occasionally find her vaguely amusing.
I do, however, have a minor nit to pick with you. Certainly,
as you say:
"No one has a “right” to gain or keep a microphone
or to demand space in a publication. I have no first
amendment claim on the New York Times to publish my
essays, nor a first amendment claim on Random House to
publish my book. (Alas!)"
However, Randi's unfortunate comment is, indeed, a First
Amendment question. Had Randi made the objectionable comment
using her AAR microphone, AAR would have definitely been
within their rights to suspend or fire her on the spot. It
becomes a First Amendment issue inasmuch as the comment was
made on her time and, I assume, her dime. Was the nightclub
appearance sponsored by AAR? Underwritten by them? If the
answer is no, she had the same right as any other American
to air her own personal opinion. Since I have not involved
myself overmuch with the entire controversy (it simply
doesn't deserve that level of scrutiny), I don't know if she
presented her opinion as that of her employer. If she did,
then again, AAR would have been well within their rights to
terminate her on the spot. However, if the remark was
clearly an expression of her own opinion, I don't see that
AAR had any right, moral or legal, to suspend her.
Let us not get to the point where we endorse, tacitly or
explicitly, 'political correctness' to the point that we
present ourselves as buffoons to the rest of the world.
Putnik1914
Ernest Partridge replies:
Arguably, Randi had a (moral) "right" to speak her
mind at that nightclub, and it was thus reciprocally
(morally) "wrong" for AAR to suspend her for it.
Perhaps, but I'm not convinced of this. What is
clear to me, however, is that this putative "right" was
not a right protected by the First Amendment, which
explicitly forbids the federal government from banning
free speech. ("Congress
shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech").
Whether or not AAR had the legal right to suspend
RR for her exercise of "free speech" depends in large
part on the specifications of her contract with AAR,
about which I have no knowledge.
The following comment by "nerfed" may bear on this
issue. But see also the contrary interpretation by
"micman" which follows.
Clarifications by constitutional lawyers would be
welcome here!
AAR could not fire Randi, it was part of her contract. AAR
was trying to re-negotiate that. They wanted that clause
gone and she wouldn't budge. That is why all of this
happened. Corporate politics at work.
It should concern us though because now we have corporate
interests pushing out our only voices for more "Party
friendly" ones. Just as the DLC took over the Democratic
party, so too are forces who do not have our interests in
mind taking over AAR.
nerfed
Yes, Randi framed her departure as a dispute over details
in her contract and a freedom of speech issue to save face.
But, the reality is that she was performing at an event
hosted by an AAR affiliate which was advertised and promoted
as a night with an AAR personality. AAR paid for her trip
expenses. She was not their as Randi Rhodes, the individual
with an opinion. She was there specifically as a
representative of Air America Radio. I dare anyone reading
this to use abusive language at a company event and not
expect admonishment from management back at the office.
Simply put, she quit because she refused to apologize for
her comments. Her ego got in the way. Her contract may have
protected her from dismissal. But, AAR had no obligation to
put her back on the air either. No apology, no air time.
Randi has become what she has railed against for years. If
she was allowed to continue unchecked she'd probably take to
smoking cigars and popping pain pills.
micman
Partridge is wrong more than he is right; it's amazing
that he still manages to have anyone take him seriously
(hint: think 09/11).
Randi Rhodes is back on the air with the same affiliates she
had at Err Amerika.
Once again Err Amerika has shown its true colors, and they
are not liberal or progressive. They shat on Mike Malloy and
tried a similiar unethical tactic with Randi.
Well, guess what? It did not work either time.
Here's a prediction Partridge should ponder: Nova M is the
true liberal radio network and Err Amerika is DLC Radio lite.
I bet they don't last another year. Who will they replace
Randi with? Faux progressive Ed "blow hard" Schultz?
Please..........
azblindrage
The way rhodes was treated reminded me of the way lenny
bruce was persecuted in the '60s. suspending rhodes for
off-the-air remarks made during a stand-up comedy routine
was not a happy moment for a supposedly progressive news
organization, or for a good percentage of its audience.
Tenzing
|
Selections from the 41 Responses to
Ernest Partridge's essay in Democratic Underground.
Hey there Ernest.
As long as there are right wing attack dogs on the RW radio, we
should have liberal attack dogs as well.
That way, Randi gets to put on the spiked collar and get in the
pit for whoever is our candidate in the fall. The candidate does
not have to.
In the primary season, ideally we should not attack our own. But
Randi only chose sides after HRC had praised John McCain over
Obama.
No one has fired HRC yet. For perspective, the wide stance party
is also locked in a intermural struggle, and nothing done so far
on our side comes even close to the vitriol on the right. They
were able to squash it for a pseudo unity. And look what they
have now.
Without Rupert Murdoch, Jessie Ventura could beat him with the
English language tied behind his back. And here it is April, and
the McCain fiction is slipping.
When it is John vs. a Dem, I want Randi Rhodes to be as bad as
she wanna all over that warmonger's ass. .
America, as good as the third world gets!
realpolitik
I used to like Randi. She lost me on this one tho. Hope she
cools off and gets it together.
susankh4
Well, she may be rated the "top liberal" on the air, but you
don't need to stray too far from the liberal court that we are
to see that some people behind the microphone need to EVOLVE in
their methods of the message...
What was the point of that stand up routine? It was cheap and
unfunny. If it was to slap down Hillary for being the chump she
is to allow a total destruction of her campaign, she didn't do a
very good job of it. I guess that's why Ms. RR isn't a stand up
comedian.
Meanwhile, Randi has found NovaM (I can no longer afford being a
$100.00 founder member, sorry guys....) and we'll keep hearing
her talk over her callers many days, she'll make us think while
not being pissed off. Ultimately, RR will eventually "get" that
she, too could need to look into the mirror.
MrMickeysMom
I think your attitude might be called "elitist"
I'm sorry that you find Randi too confrontational, but she has
impeccable political instincts and is very entertaining. Randi
is correct: Hillary is a republican and a disgrace to the party.
She is purposely tearing the party apart. It is time for all who
call themselves democrats to face the facts and quit pretending
that she should be treated with kid gloves.
bbgrunt
Ernest Partridge replies (in the 14th message):
Eyes on the Prize, please!
Anyone notice?
None of the above dozen posts mention McCain or the GOP, or
the urgent question of how the fall campaign might best be
conducted. The bulk of my essay was about that question.
Typically, almost all the comments were about the messengers
(RR & EP), scarcely a word about the message.
If that is to be the tone of the campaign -- personalities
(McCain as a "maverick," a "straight talker," a "war hero"
and Obama as "an elitist") rather than issues (the economy,
the Iraq war, habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, war
crimes), then we are sure to lose.
Remember? "Who would you rather have a beer with?" "Which
candidate in the debate came across as more likeable?"
Sighs, earth tones, "inventing the internet," wind surfing,
and of course, "elitism."
Play by GOP rules in the GOP ballpark, and we lose.
And the Dems, poor chumps, are taking the bait.
Pause for a moment. Reflect. Change course. Then WISE UP!
That's basically what I asked Randi to do.
With the results, alas, that you can read above.
Ernest Partridge
Thanks for this.
Play in the GOP ballpark and we ALL lose.
Save our democracy. Boycott all corporate broadcast news, press,
and their advertisers
corkhead
Would you expect us to pay much attention while you are
calling us "POOR CHUMPS"
Are your words of description giving away your true feelings?
The problem with Randi is she has a pretty good outline of who
we are dealing with, how this current primary relates to the G.E.
and how she seems to be on the mark about sniffing out people
involved with treachery (who do think got her fired anyway?). I
have listened to Randi off and on for few years and her
highlight on personalities didn't seem to exceed until Hillary
went to the negative GOP type of attacks a few months ago. Randi
is just a lieutenant fighting on one of the battle grounds. A
battle ground knee deep in mud where coming out clean probably
never was an option.
nolabels
Ernest Partridge replies:
If you thoughlessly play by the GOP's rules and adopt GOP
frames, then you are a "chump."
No apologies from me.
But if you are a democrat, progressive, liberal,
independent, and perchance even a Republican, who focuses on
issues, not personalities, if you march to your own drummer
and not the lead of your adversaries, you are no chump.
Non-chumps: Maddow, Hartmann, Kennedy, Papantonio, Flanders,
Olbermann, Sanders, Kucinich, and many more. Also, to be
sure, Obama.
So Randi landed on her feet, and is back in action. Good for
her!
If she is the same Randi and has learned nothing from this
incident, then she remains less a significant voice than she
might be.
But if her rough edges have been honed down a bit, she will
serve the cause far better.
"Nolabels" responds:
So more of a descriptive than an actual pejorative, fair enough.
That has been my beef since about forever also. I would
apologize to you for thinking you might be identifying with the
ass-kissers but can see you have purpose and that has nothing to
do with any of that. I was not offended being penciled in as a
chump just concerned your real reasoning was not being stated,
thanks for clearing that up
Btw, my favorite of people who get to the point from the above
list is a toss up between Obama and Flanders. I also can see you
respond to others posts when they might not be expecting one. If
you hang around long enough around here, you too will become
jaded and blow off other inconsequentials like me
nolabels
As usual, Mr Partridge, you make complete sense to me.
I have been appalled at the number of people defending Randi's
comments. I cannot STAND Hillary Clinton, but calling her a f---ing
whore? Indefensible , as far as I 'm concerned ... Your analysis
re: playing ( yet again) right into the republican "strategery"
is right on the money. The anger of some of the replies to your
OP , (and I've been reading your posts for awhile and consider
you to be an important, intelligent voice of and for progressive
values), shocks and saddens me . For the love of god, when will
we progressives stop aiming our figurative fire at each other,
and focus on the real enemies of everything we love and cherish
about our country?
In solidarity with you all, whether I've agreed or not with you.
abq e streeter
Well, isn't that the point?
We should stop sabotaging our own. AAR is NOT the mouth of the
democratic party. It is a liberal and progressive outlet. Randi
is a liberal. Randi is not connected to anyone's campaign. The
minute you chastise her and apologize and say Randi was out of
line (at a private, stand-up comedy routine) you are sabotaging
liberal voices.....just like Hillary condemns John Kerry because
he has a slip of the tongue while telling a joke. pot meet
kettle.
bbgrunt
I'm sabotaging liberal voices because I condemn calling a
presidential candidate a f-ing whore?
My god, what has become of us?
abq e streeter
How many conservatives do you hear condeming or apologizing
for Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Coulter, etc?
Letting right wing forces dictate what we discuss is falling for
their distractions. You don't have to like what she said at a
PRIVATE VENUE at a COMEDY CLUB, but you don't have to fall all
over yourself being outraged about it either. Save that outrage
for policies that kill millions and encourage social darwinism.
bbgrunt
Silly me; holding progressives to higher standards than
Limbaugh, Coulter etc.
abq e streeter
You say what I feel about Randi. A dose of Randi goes a long
time, although I agree with her 100% of the time. She does have
an annoying way of speaking. I l | |