View Story | 488 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I don't have many complaints.
I want to win. You want to beat him, and that's a problem for me, because I want to win. -The West Wing
by AnnArborBlue on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:48:30 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I've noticed.
Guess what? My diary is not a complaint either.
You are batting a thousand here.
by Nightprowlkitty on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:53:00 PM PDT
you're having a hard time getting fired up for this upcoming election because Democrats won't pursue attempts at "justice" that have no chance of success. Make no mistake; with this Congress, investigations can never actually achieve anything, pretty much regardless of the issue. And I find lack of excitement about 2008 a little inexplicable when there is more space between the parties on most issues than ever before. Electing a Democrat, even Hillary Clinton, means some measure of populism, of sanity on global warming, UHC, restoration of civil liberties, an abandonment of the last vestiges of the Bush Doctrine. It seems to me that you're elevating the symbolic over the substantive. The president can't be removed from office, so Democrats aren't going to bother trying. And because of that you, and I think a lot of people around here, can't get excited about a presidential election that has just about everything at stake.
And that's what I find so frustrating about this entire impeachment movement, and it's why I'm lashing out here in ways that probably aren't as constructive as they could be. Impeachment actions, with this Congress, cannot possibly be more than a symbol. Symbols are important, but they're not more important than the concrete issues at stake in this election. So I guess, if people can't get excited for the awesome slate of candidates we have in 2008, what can they get excited for.
by AnnArborBlue on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:02:10 PM PDT
You simply are not getting what I'm trying to say. If you wish to write a diary on the thoughts you have just expressed, by all means do so.
Your comments have virtually nothing to do with what I have said in this diary.
Impeachment is only one of the many problems I am trying to point out here, but as far as impeachment, I'm speaking of the consequences of not impeaching. I don't have the energy to rewrite this entire diary so you will understand. Don't mean to be nasty, honest I don't. But you are way off here and I just can't respond to this any more.
by Nightprowlkitty on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:09:10 PM PDT
them accountable, and at Kucinich being mocked, as disillusionment or disaffection, a lament that the Democratic Party has its priorities seriously out of alignment. And I read the stuff about 2008 as a kind of apathy, along the lines of "how are we supposed to get excited about any of this when we can't even hold these people accountable.
If that's not how it was meant, I apologize. But that's how the tone came off to me.
by AnnArborBlue on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:23:32 PM PDT
Nightprowlkitty is saying that if you fail to hold these criminals accountable, then no Knight in Shining Armor can ever undo the damage to our democracy. The destruction is being done now. "Never mind, have a cup of tea dear" is all the candidates are offering.
And btw, Npk, in 2006 I was looking forward in anger at this mess. You're right to be fed up.
"Our programs are as lawful as they are valuable." -Michael Hayden
by smintheus on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:39:46 PM PDT
... is a great diary. Should have received far more attention.
by Nightprowlkitty on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:47:24 PM PDT
so that posterity can look back and see that not everybody was asleep during the collapse. Ok, I recognize that the internets will be sanitized after the fact...that's why I'm carefully archiving copies of all my blog posts on 5 1/4 inch floppy disks.
by smintheus on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:59:14 PM PDT
longevity of floppy media really sucks, assuming that floppy drives are even available a decade from now.
DVD +R will probably prove to be more reliable than DVD -R, and that's why I make my archival backups on +R.
Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.
by alizard on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 08:26:25 PM PDT
grandbaby, because no one will remember the truth when he grows up, if in fact they ever knew it.
ROAD2DC ... IGTNT
by snackdoodle on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 09:44:06 PM PDT
the point, if any, is that today's technologies will probably be virtually unusable in 20 years anyway.
by smintheus on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:27:07 AM PDT
on whatever generation of optical storage is available in a generation in backward compatibility mode. Terabyte 5.25" optical media is in the lab stage at this point. So you may be playing 4G DVD media on a drive that usually takes 100T disks 20 years from now... but that can be lived with.
I wish that stuff was out now at consumer prices, it takes 15 DVDs to back up my computer.
by alizard on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:10:44 PM PDT
thanks for the link. It embarrasses me to have missed it last year. Eerily prescient.
NPK,
I'm not optimistic, as there are no quick fixes, and few around with the long vision it will take, either in the political arena or the environmental one.
Or, if you really want to bore people to tears, you could talk about limiting population on our own initiative, instead of waiting for it to happen to us.
IIRC, didn't the Chinese "government" pass some "laws" forbidding citizens of China (Comrades all, I'm sure) to have more than one child per couple? Wouldn't you love just love to have the popcorn concession for the show of trying to do that here?
Being a young oldster, I can remember first grasping, as a child, the concept of "world population", sometime early in the 50s, and the figure I remember is 1.4 billion, as if anyone, much less a child, can actually understand the concept of a billion. So, as an adult, I realize the number is over 6 now, four times the amount nearly 60 years ago, and I see directly the manifestation of this, which is more people, and all their accoutrements.
How much imagination does it take to see that we have a problem simply with how many of us there are, not to mention how some of us think?
don't always believe what you think...
by claude on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:48:55 PM PDT
much appreciated. Sad to say, this year's congressional implosion was writ long before last year's election.
by smintheus on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:29:36 AM PDT
Yes indeed, this is all that is offered.
What all those high-minded people forget is that FDR wasn't just a progressive.
FDR was a progressive, no argument.
But first of all, FDR was one vindictive, relentless nasty son of a bitch.
Just check out how he treated his predecessor Herbert Hoover, worst than dirt. FDR was meaner than a weasel.
And that why he was successful and why his successes endured for so long. He never forgot that winning is also about destroying the other side so it cannot come back.
And this is exactly what the Democrats and progressives need in the White House, a nasty son of a bitch hell bent on inflicting as much pain as possible to the current administration and its supporters.
Otherwise, they'll keep coming back and everything that will be painfully gained will be lost again.
by Farugia on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 08:08:11 PM PDT
He actually tried his best. He used the best recommendations of the best economists he could find to deal with the Depression. He was actually concerned about it. He was just wrong on the issues.
And FDR was mean as hell to him, and it was the right thing to do.
Meanwhile, Bush and Cheney are sociopathic fascists and theocrats, and the Democrats in Congress are trying to be NICE to them. What the hell?
-5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!
by neroden on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:54:56 AM PDT
And that's why I picked Hoover among the casualties of FDR's wrath. It wasn't just brutal. If the next President decided to unleash the FBI on the whole Bush clan, from Barb' to Neal through all the retainers and prosecute every thing down jaywalking as an act of treason, it would be brutal but it'd perfectly justified. This is how you bring down Mafia clans.
But there, with Hoover, it was petty, gratuitous, base and perfectly mean. There was a very nasty side to FDR that explains a lot of his success, the opposite of, say, Jimmy Carter.
Nice guys never win. High principles are one thing but there's a moment when you gotta get results. And lasting results always come with dirty hands.
by Farugia on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:14:45 PM PDT
The Dems won, and there are more troops in Iraq. There have been no meaningful investigations, as the WH stonewalls at every turn, and the Dems respond by sending nasty letters.
I never expected impeachment to get anywhere, but I didn't expect the WH to thumb its nose at the rule of law and get away w/ it. If Joe Citizen blows off a subpoena, there will be consequences, but, when the former WH counsel blows off a subpoena, nothing happens. Barry Bonds may do hard time for perjury, but no one will ever consider bringing perjury charges against AGAG.
Now that AGAG rode off into the (well compensated) sunset, we have a new AG who won't say whether waterboarding is torture even though an internal DOJ opinion already said it was. 2 Judiciary Dems voted to confirm him, and there was no attempt to filibuster on the floor. When the Dems were in the minority, the filibuster was a dead letter, but the GOP is now turning it into an art form.
The list of WH transgressions and Dem cowardice is endless. If you don't know why people are disillusioned, you're not paying attention.
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?
by RFK Lives on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:07:25 PM PDT
The letters are not even nasty.
More like mildy perturbed. Congressional politeness and tradition...yeah I know.
At least if the letters were nasty, I could take a small shred of comfort from that, but no.
Kucinich did NOT bankrupt Cleveland. Feingold didn't vote to impeach Clinton, either.
by zett on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:28:32 PM PDT
phone calls, hoping to get a representative of the Democratic Party, if only a mere paid fundraiser, on the line so I can give them (politely) a message to pass on to whoever it is who writes their script for the day as to why they are getting no contribution from me anymore until I see some actions that represent me.
by claude on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:54:13 PM PDT
You are likely to be the kind of person who refers to McDonald's as a restaurant.
It's called meta-cognitive failure.
by greenskeeper on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:10:33 PM PDT
how soon before the first McDonald's goes up in Iraq?
Even The Best Drummers Get Hungry
by Keith Moon on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:18:51 PM PDT
we bombed it.
Gore works in mysterious ways.
by Dude1701 on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:23:32 PM PDT
by greenskeeper on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:25:22 PM PDT
Golden Arches With a Twist: Iraqi Burger Joint
It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment. Ansel Adams -6.5 -6.75
by Statusquomustgo on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:25:00 PM PDT
Yes, electing larger Blue majorities in the House and Senate, as wll as the WH will be a huge improvement, but the attitude that protecting the constituition with ones heart and soul is counterproductive and having "no chance of success" is allowing the bedrock on which our republic stands to crack and buckle.
Well I've been from Tucson to Tucumcari... Tehachapi to Tonopah--Lowell George/Little Feat
by frandor55 on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:29:50 PM PDT
I think that Democratic leaders are as out of touch as you are to the sentiment expressed in this diary.
It's a shame.
This will go down in history as a missed opportunity. Mark my words.
Political Expediency: Its The New Black!
by BentLiberal on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:49:16 AM PDT
"Electing a Democrat, even Hillary Clinton, means some measure of populism, of sanity on global warming, UHC, restoration of civil liberties, an abandonment of the last vestiges of the Bush Doctrine."
Provide evidence please. I think you're just fantasizing.
I'd have thought before 2007 that a Democratic majority could prevent further erosion of the Bill of Rights, but instead they've supported it. I'd have thought they could prevent escalation of the Bush Doctrine via bills like Kyl-Lieberman, but instead they've supported it. (Kudos to the Democrats who have fought against both, of course.)
Given this record, your claims seem ludicrous. Even if we assume the good will of the next President, how on earth to think we're going to repeal the attacks on civil liberties passed with Democratic assistance, stop the warmongering supported by many Democrats in Congress, pass UHC (while the Republicans claim a blocking minority and the Democrats won't use the procedural tools needed to bypass it), repeal the Bush tax cuts (see above), or indeed reverse any of our losses during the Bush administration?
The best I can foresee is a slowdown of the regressive trend. We may get sanity on global warming, but only because the disaster is of such epic proportions that even right-wing nutcases are changing their tune; at this point, we might get sanity on global warming from Giuliani or Romney even.
by neroden on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:50:17 AM PDT
I think you just put your finger on the reason for this diary. NPK has it figured out. Barring fundamental change in our party the country will continue on the course charted for it by George W. BushDick Cheney.
Let me give you something else to think about. Having experienced nothing but success, even in the past year with a Dem majority, what's to keep the "administration" from simply canceling elections? The lesson they've learned from the past seven years is that there is no one to stop them.
Gore to Richardson to Edwards to ?
by creeper on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:28:59 AM PDT
They were given a majority in Congress with the expectation that they would do something other than simply trying to wait out the most criminal administration this nation has ever seen.
I don't remember "We're just going to wait it out" being one of the Democrats' campaign slogans in the runup to the last elections.
We were told that elections have consequences by the Democratic leadership and that meant subpoena power and yet absolutely nothing has come of it.
Conyers was a champion for investigations while in the minority, holding hearings in what was no more than a broom closet pre 2006 and standing up when republicans literally cut his microphone off at times, and yet now he is silent.
Sibel Edmonds got an interview with 60 minutes to try and tell her story, and Henry Waxman indictaed that if not for the republican majority in Congress, she would have a chance to tell what she knows publicly, but now with the Fdemocrats in the majority, Waxman is silent.
Democrats can't stop any legislation in the Senate that gets 51 votes, yet they've cut a deal that requires 60 votes to get their own legislation passed.
All of these issues could be addressed tomorrow if only the Democratic leadership had the will to do so. But they don't. Which makes them either stupid, cowardly, or complicit.
At this point, complicit seems the most logical answer.
"The meek shall inherit nothing" - F. Zappa
by cometman on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:59:36 PM PDT
Actually, I am thinking all three at this point.
"We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom." Stephen Vincent Benet "Litany For Dictatorships" 1935
by LostInTexas on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:18:14 PM PDT
stupid, lazy, or inept. They grab the power in 2008. The Republicans went for too much to soon, couldn't finesse it and in all likely hood will end this election cycle with no winner. This means the Republicans will never see the White House again and we will be slaves of the blue party, comforting isn't it.
by snackdoodle on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 09:50:03 PM PDT
We only had a small window of opportunity to commit the nation to lifting the occupation of Iraq. But Congressional Dems dithered and wasted time, and as of this morning that window has closed. We're in Iraq for good, now, and will leave only if defeated and driven out. The next president, Democrat or Republican, is going to accept the fait accompli delivered today by Bush and Maliki-- permanent US protectorate over Iraq, with permanent garrisons. The movement in Congress to defund and press for withdrawal is effectively dead.
by LanceBoyle on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:18:53 PM PDT
and agreements, think our next president can bail on Iraq and get the hell out.
by snackdoodle on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 09:51:43 PM PDT
He just did all that shit to sell books and get reelected. He never meant to do anything.
Please God, let me be wrong, but that is what it looks like to me.
by zett on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:31:03 PM PDT
of the dem leadership under pelosi/hoyer, telling him to not take action.
guess who the DLC is? HOYER.
just imagine what the house might be had pelosi's choice, MURTHA, had been made the house majority leader. seems to me, she should have put him to a vote, so they could have voted against him. i don't think they would have, but we never got the chance.
that's the problem, too - too much "preplanning", i.e., "we're not going there because it won't pass" logic.
sometimes, you have to go the distance for the principle of it.
OBAMA/DEAN '08
by jj24 on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:44:24 PM PDT
By Hoyer and probably Pelosi.
What's he being threatened with? Don't know, but it must be pretty bad.
by neroden on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:57:16 AM PDT
and changed it.
remember that conyers scandal last summer which surfaced ever so slightly, then fell back into the woodwork?
we've joked that wiretapping ain't just for the raging grannies... and well, we're just pretty naive if we think they aren't spying on their opponents.
i don't know what motivates a guy like conyers but i do know he's got the largest target on his back wrt seeking justice with this admin.
i won't throw conyers under the bus. i want to know more.
by jj24 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:24:33 AM PDT
Bush, Cheney, et al have very little to complain about, either.
As for those of us who actually care about little things like the Bill of Rights, what is there not to complain about? We've been witnessing Democratic leadership support for attacks on the Bill of Rights. Not just fighting and losing, we could tolerate that, but actual support.
by neroden on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:37:23 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 488 comments