Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Beltway Democrats are too often a part of the problem.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

With "Progressives" Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

By David Sirota, WorkingForChange.com. Posted October 3, 2007.


Beltway Democrats are too often a part of the problem.
Advertisement

It is frustrating being part of the progressive movement these days -- truly frustrating. And I say that not because I am on book deadline and exhausted, but because of what I have been reporting on for the book (which is due out in Spring of 2008, for those interested). These past few weeks have felt like a big kick in the teeth -- with these last few days a gratuitous kick in the groin.

Let's step back and look at the effort to end the war. This week we have seen Democratic Reps. David Obey, Jack Murtha and Jim McGovern propose a bill that would force President Bush to raise taxes if he wants to continue spending money on a war in Iraq -- a brilliant political move and commonsense policy. In the face of a recent Roll Call story headlined "GOP Forced to Pivot on Taxes -- Polls Say Issue Losing Power," this proposal is stunning only for how modest it is -- especially considering that even Sen. Joseph Lieberman has endorsed the concept behind it, as has Republicans like New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg and North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones.

Obey has also indicated that as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, he will use his position to block any blank check war funding bill from coming to the floor of Congress. It shows a recognition of the Tyranny of the Tiny Minority that I outlined in my last syndicated column -- the tyranny that means that Congress will need to stop something, rather than pass something, in order to end the war. And stopping funding, incidentally, is an idea that the latest Washington Post poll shows the public supports.

So, what has been the reaction of the most prominent Democrats and antiwar groups in Washington? Bobbing and weaving.

As soon as the war tax plan was floated, House and Senate Democratic leaders rushed to reporters to denounce it. Meanwhile, antiwar groups in Washington swiftly decided to dump tens of thousands of dollars into a brand new ad campaign not supporting the push to block funds, not applauding the effort to wedge the Republicans into deciding between war and taxes, not demanding Democrats go even further, but instead attacking Rush Limbaugh -- a person who certainly made a disgusting and deplorable comment but who has absolutely no power to end the war at all.

The move, of course, was applauded by Washington pundits like Joe Klein who supported the war. To the Washington punditburo, any move that gets media attention and that gets people on screamfests like Hardball (a show that almost no one outside the Beltway watches) is seen as a successful political tactic, regardless of how much of a diversion it is from the goal of actually ending the war, regardless of the fact that most Americans have never even heard of this "controversy" or the Moveon ad "controversy" in the first place. Clearly, the ads are very well-intentioned, but they do nothing to move the ball forward in the effort to end the war, and nothing to keep the focus on ending the war -- an issue that polls show the Republicans are losing on. This is precisely why the GOP is publicly laughing at the whole thing -- Beltway progressives' tactics are the gift that keeps on giving.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, trade, progressive movement

David Sirota is the author of Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government--and How We Take It Back (Crown, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Can you say Mole?
Posted by: afrothetics2 on Oct 3, 2007 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Working for many years in international development assistance, I learned rather quickly that when someone acts in a way that is irrational (i.e. economically disadvantaging) that a game is afoot. Call it acting against one's own or group's interest or insanity, most of the time that someone was getting paid. This is what is happening to progressives and elected officials. Of course, it could be that people have positioned right-wing moles in their organizations who, like the Bushies, use liberal language, but whose actions are anything but!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Can you say Mole? Posted by: Irap14
» RE: Can you say Mole? Posted by: J_Mo
» RE: Can you say Mole? Posted by: mick3
Impeachment is Off the Table
Posted by: mmckinl on Oct 4, 2007 1:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I knew then real progressives were in deep trouble .

I don't understand what that means . Does it mean forever ?
Are there any circumstances under which Impeachment will be considered ?

Just about the oonly Democrat getting things done these days is Henry Waxman , God Bless Him ...

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Impeachment is Off the Table Posted by: Badger1492
» Are you sure? Posted by: ReallyBearish
» When Bush bombs Iran ... Posted by: mmckinl
Canadians and French planned the attacks on 911
Posted by: Irap14 on Oct 4, 2007 2:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The new book Masters of War tells all. The Canadians in an effort to defame the US reputation world wide, get oil and increase the value of it's currency as everyone now knows, working along side several high ranking French officials did in fact plan and carry out the 911 attacks which killed 3000 innocent people. The war mongering Canadians then gave Bush fake photos and assured Bush that the weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. It was all an inside job, so that Canada could control the oil without ever firing a shot. Canadians now suspected of training Iraqi insurgents make IED weapons to be used against the Americans and English. The so called media now covering it all up. A new style of gorilla war, a war of manipulation in the highest. Canadians are responsible for over one million innocent Iraqi women and children. They now have their eyes set on Iran.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» *head explodes* Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» Um...what? Posted by: Tim Brown
» Thanks for the laugh Posted by: Missing Piece
From Neoconservatives to Neoliberals
Posted by: mmckinl on Oct 4, 2007 3:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Corporatocracy and its' adjuncts are alive and well .

We already know what to expect of the Democrats .

More military spending , not less . A bigger military not smalller. To be in Iraq in 2013. To give more Arms Aid , not more humanitarian aid . To spend more on Homeland Security not less . More "Free Trade" agreements not fewer . More money to Health Care Companies , not single payer . More money to Big Pharma and Big Ag . More pork , not less ...

A Kinder and Gentler , and Much Bigger More Expensive , Military , Industrial Complex ... More ecologicallly friendy economic destruction at home and abroad ... More Health Insurance for much, much more money ... More Habeas Corpus for less freedom ... Less Iraq for more years ... New and Improved Pork Barrrel Pate' ...
.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big Money = Bad Politics
Posted by: Tim Brown on Oct 4, 2007 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again David Sirota accurately identifies the problem with DC politics - Beltway politicians out of touch with the common citizen and toothless actions in place of effective policies. Check out David Sirota's recent interview with Common Sense Magazine called "Big Money = Bad Politics" here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sirota gets it half right
Posted by: Democritus on Oct 4, 2007 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
David Sirota, a self-described frustrated progressive, gets it only half right with his hand-wringing denunciations of fellow Democrats. What he does get right is the need to block funds for the war. Congress can easily do this by appropriating only those funds used to bring our troops home safely. Congressional Democrats are acting in a craven fashion on this score, being afraid of the GOP accusation that they would then not be "supporting the troops." But 'Dennis Kucinich has the answer to that one. One doesn't support the troops by providing funds to keep them in harm's way. So Sirota is absolutely right in deploring the spinelessness of Democrats in not blocking the war funding.

On the matter of the bill proposing a tax increase to provide war funding, Sirota gets snarled in Beltway traffic by supporting such a bill. This bill is just plain politics. It will go nowhere, and it is designed only to embarrass Republicans--putting them in a difficult position with their tax-hating base. What Sirota doesn't seem to realize is that supporting this bill is inconsistent with efforts to stop the war by blocking its funding. Suppose that the tax-increase bill passes. That would mean, not only that the war goes on with increased funding, but also that we taxpayers are contributing directly to keeping our troops in harm's way. If you're against the war, then you should be against anything that keeps the war going. Passing a "war tax" would keep the war going. Therefore, proposing such a bill is nothing more than a cheap political maneuver--something that Sirota rightfully deplores with regard to getting up in arms about Rush Limbaugh's idiotic statements.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sirota gets it half right Posted by: Intellect
There go my retirement plans
Posted by: Urstrly on Oct 4, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad Sirota's reporting about the affects of CAFTA got buried in his discussion of war funding--although we can see they're linked.

Costa Rica, the new hot boomer retirement destination, is being forced to scrap its health care system to satisfy some US trade policy?!! Have we lost our minds? It's not enough to make life miserable for people in the US, we have to export our misery. Shame on Democrats, and anyone else, who cares about human life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Oct 4, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow.. could progressives FINALLY be waking up to the fact that Democrats are using them just as the Republicans use their religious nutjob base??? That you're only good for a voting booty call and can afterwards be pretty well ignored until the next time they're desperate to get into office?

A flier that used to hang in the art school I went to says it all... Bush's face on one side of the page, Kerry's on the other... a text bubble that extends to both of their mouths and one word in it... Empire.

What you are asking for is anathema to the way their politics opperates and make no mistake Democrats and Republicans are in league despite their mild wranglings to keep control for both and to keep this a strict two party system. Why? Because they aren't really the ones in charge here... the buck doesn't stop with them. The corporate interests they serve are the ones truly in control and who truly dictate policy.... and who truly benefit from the system.

Our government has become far too large to actually function as any sort of real democracy. Thus we get to choose which of the two corporate-controlled candidates we vote for... then they do whatever they want to do with our economy and by extension our natural resources, our environment, and to a great degree... us as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow... Posted by: monkeywrench
Another blasé exposé
Posted by: anothername on Oct 4, 2007 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Office holders with seniority but not party leadership positions present an argument. The leadership denounces it lest it tarnish the image of the entire party at the ballot box. (Yawn) This is how the game is played. The party gets the idea into the press but can officially distance itself from that idea until public reaction gives them the cover to act without jeopardizing party members who must face re-election.

What I find far more disturbing is that the public repeats arguments it hears from the Beltway insiders and the coastal establishments without realizing that they, the public, know so little about issues that they cannot even understand that they are asking the wrong questions. This goes right back to the problem of media consolidation. Note that I say consolidation, not corporate ownership. The profit demands of corporations do have a significant responsibility for the consolidation, but non-profit news establishments also have consolidated their sources and what information they present to the public.

I don’t claim that the insiders and the establishments are withholding information. I think that they don’t realize how ignorant they are, either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They are Democrats because they are not Republicans
Posted by: sausage on Oct 4, 2007 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My title may seem overly glib but it actually reflects a simple truth about today's Democratic Party.

Many of today's Democratic Party national leadership became Democrats during the tumult of the Vietnam war and Watergate. The Democratic Party of the 1960s and 1970s offered the only scantuary for young, draft-age men of a political bent. For even though GOP politicians characterized Vietnam as a Democratic war, the Republican Party, then as now, fully supported escalating the conflict. Opposition to the war drove many young men and women, think Hillary Clinton, into the Democartic Party fold.

Moreover, a cursory read of the biographies of the leading Democratic presidential contenders, with the exceptions of Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, yields a picture of upper-middle class, suburban and white socioeconomic status, this includes Chicano Bill Richards. Barak Obama is hard to catagorize in this way but suffice it to say his upbringing was culturally "white, middle-class American." In all the cases, however, the "system," economic, social, educational and cultural, "worked" for them. If the capitalism had failed any of them we would never hear of them.

Major national, state and local Democratic politicians, to a man and woman, are very much beholden to the economic system and the social status quo. They don't dare rock the economic boat too much. This is why we are offered these tepid "universal health care plans" that keep pig (that is not a typo) health insurance company bureaucracies firmly in control of our lives. This is why we are spoon-fed b.s. about ending the Iraq occupation and cutting defense spending, with a wink and fingers crossed behind the back. With the exception of Kucinich, Democrats are in lockstep with Wall Street and the military/industrial complex.

David Sirota experienced the Democratic Party's cynicism first hand, when it gave only lukewarm support to anti-Iraq war candidate Ned Lemont then welcomed Joe Lieberman back into its U.S. Senate caucus.

On the local level, my Democratic state senator has sponsored tax credits, tax breaks and tax giveaways for billion dollar businesses in the name of growing the economy. He then turns round and takes advantage of every tax incentive in sight to further his own real estate development business. And it sticks in my craw that a couple of years back a Democratic state representative said she wanted my homestate to lead the national parade in business deregulation!

The only real difference between the Democratic Party and the GOP is that the Democrats at least throw a few crumbs our way once in awhile. The Republicans would have us starve.

I am sick of the Democratic Party's duplicity yet I cannot and will not ever vote for a Republican (well, in truth I did once, Bill Clinton.) So I am given no real choice. The alternatives are either keep voting Democratic, in the desparate hope that someday one of them will "get it right," or self disenfianchisement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Enough with Rush
Posted by: Stellaa on Oct 4, 2007 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cannot believe how much air and blog time the Rush story has taken. Don't you realize this man lives on the notorieity you give him? This he said she said and spending all our energy on that is so distracting and useless. The moronic Congress jumping in on the Move-On advertisement. How Sharia of us to want to comment on people's speech. Truly embarrassing.

I also truly hate all the blather about apologies. How sincere and how meaningul would a Rush apology be? What the heck is the point of such an apology.

Thanks Mr. Sirota for coming out on these issues or non issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Then why are you bringing him up? Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
Inside the beltway "Democrats"
Posted by: frank69 on Oct 4, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democratic party "inside the beltway" organizations are worthless as far as I'm concerned. I do not support the national Democrats: DNC, DCCC, or DLC. To me, they are Republicans wearing Democratic clothes!
I do support Democrats at the LOCAL level!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Inside the beltway "Democrats" Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
Progressive Democrats need to form a new party
Posted by: Chuck23 on Oct 4, 2007 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Progressive writers like Sirotta need to look beyond the Democratic Party if they want to see true progressive change in this country. How many more times does the Democratic Party establishment have to abandon progressive principles before people finally catch on? The Democrats and the Republicans serve the same corporate masters and support the same imperial agenda. The Democratic Party's criticism of the war is based on its unpopularity and the idea that it's not "working." You will never hear a mainstream Democrat acknowledge that the war was wrong because the U.S. has no right to invade and occupy another nation. That thought is excluded from the debate. Democrat's love war just as much as Republicans; they just like to distance themselves from it when it grows messy.

The need for a third party alternative has never been greater. Instead of villifying Ralph Nader, democrats like Kucinich and McGovern and Lee and the other truly progressive voices should renounce the Democratic Party and form a new party. The Green Party cannot gain traction with its marginal candidates, but if current members of Congress like the ones mentioned above, and Russ Feingold, and the few other honorable democrats out there, were to leave the Party and form a new one, that Party would have instant credibility. I'm sure this idea will be immediately dismissed as impractical, but progressives are just wasting their time and money trying to influence the Democratic Party. Next year we'll all be told that we should support Hilary and we'll pretend that she represents change. But of course this is the same Hilary who votes for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. The Democratic Party has moved so far to the right that what's considered "left wing" now would have been considered moderate Republicanism thirty years ago. It's time for progressives to abandon the democratic party and start a new party, and the progressives in Congress should take the lead in doing this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Add Stephanie Miller to the list
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Oct 4, 2007 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She is an air america radio talk show host that does a morning show. Her show is completely absurd, never touches on real issues. But she'll talk all day long about Larry Craig. As will much of the media. Even though someone's sexuality has no relevance. If every single questionable sex act were to cease to exist, this country would still be just as screwed up. Washington would still be bought off. Nothing would change. So anyone who wastes their time talking about senator Craig is just a fake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rush Limbaugh?
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Oct 4, 2007 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rush Limbaugh has no power to end the war? Are you nuts? If he ceased being a shill and actually became a human being, he could have a major influence in ending the war. They'd prolly pull him off the air and replace him with another shill, but he would still have an effect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Human Being? Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
Progressives throw their votes away
Posted by: peacelf on Oct 4, 2007 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I left the Democratic party and joined the Green Party in 1999, when I realized then that Clinton did not serve the interests of the people.

After a look back through recent history, you could say the same about all Democrats. The only time they ever moved the country in any progressive way forward was when they were forced to by political circumstances: particularly JFK and Johnson and civil rights comes to mind.

Corporate power and manipulation has infected every "progressive" political leader, with just a few exceptions: Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers from Detroit (did I leave anyone out?).

Kucinich is running for president and any so called progressive who votes for one of the corporate-owned Dems is throwing THEIR vote away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These "progressives" either have good intentions that are being thwarted...
Posted by: american on Oct 4, 2007 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or bad intentions that they are cloaking. I favor judging by what one says, not by what one does. By that criterion, the democratic leadership are not progressive. Indeed they are the enemy of all good things America stands for...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes! Where are the progressives?????
Posted by: Shakti on Oct 4, 2007 11:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Other than Alternet, Daily Kos and a few other blogs, I hear no progressive voices in the US. (Edwards is the big exception.) What the heck happened to the Democrats? I have long stopped expecting anything from them.

I'll keep voting Democratic, and will definitely support Edwards in the primary, but my faith is deeply shaken.

Canada anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keep working on that book, Sirota
Posted by: hagwind on Oct 4, 2007 12:04 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because I'm already SICK TO DEATH of smarmy crap about smarmy outfits like Unity08 that don't understand the power dynamics or economic underpinnings of anything. That includes anyone who thinks the big problem in Washington is "partisan bickering" and that the two major parties are "polarized." Polarized, you bet -- like Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Oh yeah, I forgot the stuff about how anyone left of the DLC is an extremist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Better but not best
Posted by: Democritus on Oct 4, 2007 3:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As "American" points out, if defunding were not to happen, then a "war tax" might be second best. But my point is that such a tax has as little chance of passing as does a defunding bill. Why settle for second best?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wake up! Voting doesn't matter
Posted by: moenbailey on Oct 4, 2007 5:13 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a voter for 30 years and as someone who has worked campaigns, I could no longer deceive myself. My vote and your vote don't make any difference. We are a corporately controlled society and our votes mean nothing. My solution was to start StopVoting.org. We are just getting the site up and our lawyer is getting the legal stuff done. "Stop voting, you are only encouraging them!". If the system only exists for huge multi-nationals why should any of us help work or pay for it. Don't believe me check out Truthout.org and Firedoglake.com for the dish on how the DLC destroyed the campaigns of grassroots dems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a fascist party
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Oct 4, 2007 5:44 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and a conservative party.

Bill Clinton was the best Republican president since TR - But FDR was the last real Democrat.

(I loved Kennedy, but he was murdered before he had a chance to make much difference - and Johnson might have been one of the greats - but for Vietnam. Big but - thanks to him, we got the precedent for lying us into a war thousands of dead, then the forerunner of the present dictator, Richard M Nixon.)

It is time to form a progressive party and abandon the burned-out hulk of the party that Jefferson founded - but would today denounce.

Hey! How about calling ourselves the Jeffersonians?
What better name for the group that values "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"

We would readily embrace a Green wing - we already support most of the platform.

The alternative seems to be fascist dictatorship or a replay of the French revolution. There isn't a lot of time left to choose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Revolution? Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
Since when
Posted by: Jeanne on Oct 4, 2007 7:25 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
did "Progressive" = "Democrat" ? It's pretty clear that "Democrat" = "Republican-lite" Or, maybe it's cross-dressing Republicans. Whatever it is, Dems resemble Republicans way more than they resemble anything "progressive."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with the comments
Posted by: Missing Piece on Oct 4, 2007 7:31 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love reading alternet comments, it gives me hope for humanity. But, one thing that so many progressives fail to understand is that NeoCons may have had a good reason to commit a false flag and occupy the most military strategic place in the world, and this is why no democrat will pull us out of Iraq untill the oil is gone. Even your dear Kucinich would think twice about it when he understands the ramifications.

If you really want to help humanity the just build an earth home and get off the grid with solar and wind, and help other do the same. Jimmy Carter tried to do this but we all know what happened to him. You all think your progressives but let me ask you, would you vote for someone knowing that it was the end of energy for the masses? Were talking famine and chaos here.

Get off the grid now, and the easiest way to do this is to build an earth home, it requires no heating or cooling the earth is a constant 50 to 60 dagrees depening on where you live. You might as well start now, if you think you want us out of the last area of the world with over half the oil.

Lets be honest with ourselves, hybrids are not helping, its about net energy and getting away from economies bases on growth. Whatever you conserve gets ate up by our growing economy. You think your scared, what do you think the corporations think about peak energy, they control the rest of us with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well Done David..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Oct 5, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope this causes others to register with and comment at your great site Working for Change..

TJ Colatrella aka TJ Stars4Peace..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congress and Bush Clash; Children's Health and the Commonwealth
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Oct 7, 2007 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear David Sirota. . .

I thank you for this discussion. I too think it is truly a struggle to be a Progressive.

I was not elated when the Democrats won the majority in Congress for it was clear to me that nothing would change. Barack Obama touts his objection to the Iraq war from the first. Yet, he continually votes to fund the conflict.

Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table before she became House Speaker. No matter the evidence, torture, telephone taps, secret judgments from the Department of justice Pelosi and her constituents stay the course. John Conyers, who proposed impeachment, withdrew the notion so that he might "progress" to a higher position. Yikes.

Mister Sirota, you make mention of Thomas Paine. As the State Children's Health Insurance Program crumbles, I too was reminded of our founder.

The words of Thomas Paine might help us understand the need to insure all our children, no matter the income of their parents. Please consider; twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache in February 2007. When those most dependent on adults tolerate traumatic pain, and ultimately pass, we must assess the dream, which is now a nightmare. If a parent cannot provide preventative care, or adequately attend to minor medical miseries, we must wonder why . . .
Congress and Bush Clash; Children's Health and the Commonwealth.

It seems we as a society are willing to make . . .
The Sacrifice; Children's Health Insurance Program [SCHIP] Costs.

When we listen to the candidates that reside within the beltway, we cannot help but contemplate . . .
Health Care in America; Uninsured, Underinsured, Universal Woes.

Oh, how I sigh with you. What have we in America, the Progressives wrought? I invite your reflections on mine.

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]