What I've Been Saying
(But Never Said Quite So Well!)
[BREAK]
Glenn Greenwald gives a brief analysis that, I believe, grants the answer to the cry of "HOW!" that may be uttered by all of us Liberal/Progressives/Democrats on the morning after the Presidential election in '08, if not asked after an earlier election, just a few weeks from now.
Of course, I'm one of those who believes the fix may be in already, with tamper-easy voting machines on the march into precincts/districts/parishes near you.
But, I also held the hope that were enough voters to decide that our Constitution, Bill of Rights and the epiphany in human affairs that was the idea of America held a place of importance in their souls that the sheer number of "NO!" voters to the current regime of Repugnants that hold our ideals hostage, that "fixing" the election through those machines would be too daunting a task.
The problem with that prayer is that in order for the people to come out in large numbers you need to give them an alternative to vote for.
Instead, we give them the psychotic high school bully [Repugnants] or their meek, weak sycophants who stands by, not quite cheering the carnage, but obsequiously holding the bully's coat and books as the bully does the damage.
Senator Russ Feingold tried to get other Senators, hopefully a large group with a good showing by fellow Democratic Senators, to agree just walk away when the bully looked for his coat holder (by simply agreeing to a statement saying nobody is above the law in these United States, but found the coat holders weren't up to such a blatant provocation to the bellowing bully.
So, we're left with a choice of voting for the bully King of the prom, or voting for his cheering section, and hoping that they'll get a backbone and change the status quo.
You can bet the ranch that, in almost every case, nobody gets out of bed early, or wastes precious time from a busy day, to help empower the bully's weak buds.
[/BREAK]
Glenn Greenwald gives a brief analysis that, I believe, grants the answer to the cry of "HOW!" that may be uttered by all of us Liberal/Progressives/Democrats on the morning after the Presidential election in '08, if not asked after an earlier election, just a few weeks from now.
Of course, I'm one of those who believes the fix may be in already, with tamper-easy voting machines on the march into precincts/districts/parishes near you.
But, I also held the hope that were enough voters to decide that our Constitution, Bill of Rights and the epiphany in human affairs that was the idea of America held a place of importance in their souls that the sheer number of "NO!" voters to the current regime of Repugnants that hold our ideals hostage, that "fixing" the election through those machines would be too daunting a task.
The problem with that prayer is that in order for the people to come out in large numbers you need to give them an alternative to vote for.
Instead, we give them the psychotic high school bully [Repugnants] or their meek, weak sycophants who stands by, not quite cheering the carnage, but obsequiously holding the bully's coat and books as the bully does the damage.
Senator Russ Feingold tried to get other Senators, hopefully a large group with a good showing by fellow Democratic Senators, to agree just walk away when the bully looked for his coat holder (by simply agreeing to a statement saying nobody is above the law in these United States, but found the coat holders weren't up to such a blatant provocation to the bellowing bully.
So, we're left with a choice of voting for the bully King of the prom, or voting for his cheering section, and hoping that they'll get a backbone and change the status quo.
You can bet the ranch that, in almost every case, nobody gets out of bed early, or wastes precious time from a busy day, to help empower the bully's weak buds.
[/BREAK]
[BREAK]
Enough from me. Read Greenwald's tome, and please send a copy to your local Democratic leaders.
[/BREAK]
=====
War Room - Salon.comMore Here!Battling Democrats' indifference
(by Glenn Greenwald) Even the most determined optimist would have a difficult time surveying our political landscape today and feeling anything other than a rising sense of hopelessness. Throughout 2004, the country began turning against the president as Americans realized that the principal justification for the war in Iraq -- WMD -- was completely false, and that the war that the Bush administration repeatedly led us to believe would be easily and quickly resolved was, in fact, a brewing disaster. In 2004, the president's approval ratings steadily declined (PDF) as compared with the two prior years, but he was nonetheless reelected after an intense and frighteningly efficient Republican campaign. Ever since President Bush's reelection, his approval ratings have descended even further, almost to historic lows. Most of the country has spent the last two years thoroughly dissatisfied, even disgusted, with the president and his party because of a mixture of ineptitude, corruption and deceit in virtually every realm. Yet now, Bush's political prospects have been gradually improving again as Americans are subjected to a relentless propaganda campaign of fear-mongering, underscored with the standard assault on Democrats as weak losers who are in cahoots with America's enemies. Iraq has all but disappeared from public view. In its place is one scary discussion of terrorism after the next.- - - SNIP But nobody did that to the Democrats. They consciously absented themselves from our political dialogue because they were afraid to take any position, and opted instead to anoint John McCain as their proxy. We literally don't even know the views of the Democrats on these interrogation issues because they haven't told us what those views are. Isn't that just unfathomable? The Democrats have been and will continue to be equally mute and invisible on the warrantless-eavesdropping legislation. Recall that after the New York Times revealed that President Bush has been violating criminal law for the last five years by eavesdropping on our conversations without warrants, Sen. Russ Feingold wanted to have the Senate do nothing more than simply express the sentiment that the president ought not to violate the law. As Feingold explained when he introduced his censure resolution, if the Senate does nothing once it learns that the president is acting illegally, then it is, in effect, expressing its approval for presidential lawbreaking. That's all Feingold wanted to do -- just have the Senate express its opposition to Bush's deliberate violations of the law. And yet only a small handful of Democratic senators supported him, while the rest either mumbled something about its being premature or outright attacked Feingold for introducing his resolution. Democrats were unwilling even to criticize the president for breaking the law when spying on Americans because they were afraid of being depicted as allies of the terrorists. That, of course, is same reason they chose to hide behind John McCain and Colin Powell rather than participate in any meaningful way in the debate over whether America should torture people.
