Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Right to Rule Comes from the People

In Texas, considered one of the reddest of the Red States, the proportion of Republicans to Democrats is 60/40. Because of the redistricting, the number of Republicans in office is greater than that proportion. An official of the Federal Government imposed this on a state that had already had redistricting that favored Republicans. When Tom DeLay and other Republicans found out that the Republicans favored in this redistricting still re-elected Democrats, they wasted no time in destroying that bastion of moderation. They would either have the people choose to elect Republicans, or choose not to have representation.

The great irony is that it's the Republicans and Independents who have lost the most choice in the last few years. The Leadership of the Republican party has become increasingly intolerant of those who won't submit utterly to their agenda. You can't deviate from any of the far-right's platforms, whether that's tax cuts, the way we're waging this war (hell, the fact we're waging this war), abortion or homosexuality.

But not everybody holds those views among the Republicans and indpendents. Unfortunately, they let the less moderate among them push them around. Not the least cause of this, is this culture of opposition that's developed among the Right about opposing the Left. Instead of recognizing their brother across the way, the Republican party and it's allies have been convinced that the only way to save America and keep it safe is to keep the rest of us down. In the process, though, they keep themselves down, and by voting for far right candidates, they allow their representation to misrepresent them, and worse, misrepresent where America really stands.

The unfortunate fact is that our leaders have taken the cue to be further to the right than they ought to be. Both sides. They have ransacked our nation's economic support system, given corporate interests too much free reign, and allowed the Republican party in Washington to engage in corrupt and sometimes disastrous behavior with impunity. So far the only brake on all this has been straight public opinion. Unfortunately, propaganda and not real action has been the response of those leaders. They rip our country wide open, then hand us band-aids.

This political system has become alienated from the people whose authority it derives its power from. But regardless of what some people say, the problem is not merely with the politicians. When we stay silent, sit on our hands, and sit down and accept the abuses of power that go on, we become complicit. I'm not telling Republicans and independents that the choice has to be between picking candidates from their own party or from mine, though I would advise them to keep that option open. No, what I'm telling them is that they should pick moderates in the primaries when they want moderates, pick decent folks when they want decent folks, and if their party is not willing to provide them with that, they should make their clamor for those candidates so loud that the corrupt and the lazy in Washington tremble at the thought of gainsaying them. Take back your party, in short, and have it represent you, instead of the other way around.

The Alternative? Wait until the social unrest becomes so profound that the swing is large and (for the time being) permanently left. The right can continue to stomp on the small grassfires for ever, but unless they are willing to do a few prescribed burns, the fuel for political change will pile up, and when the shift does come, the system will be in a supercritical state- meaning that once it begins there will be no stopping it.

I would rather not have that kind of change, and the divisiveness that can spring from it. I would rather, in this crucial time in American history see us united, not wrestling for power nobody will use for the good of all. I want the ideals in the all those civics class textbooks to come to life, and the good be brought out in Americans. Regardles of what happens, I want a government that is responsive to the needs of its people, not oblivious. The Democrats who read this can do this by imploring those that respresent them to stand up for what's right, not to mention what's liberal. The Republicans who read this can help by being the moderating force on their representatives this democracy will allow them to be.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2005 9:26 AM
Comment #89703


A noble sentiment. Fortunately, this country has always been large and diverse. Unfortunately, we have reached the historically repeatable apex of our civilization. Our challenge, in my opinion, is not to see us united in agreement, but united in a common purpose beyond partisan extremism. We need to get beyond the undue influence of entrenched plutocracy and theocracy and return to a decent respect for individual rights and government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not Of the rich, by the rich, for the rich (and Jesus).

Posted by: Dave at November 2, 2005 10:38 AM
Comment #89712

The politicians, on BOTH sides, may not want to realize it, but this country, polarized as it has become, is on the verge of a revolution…possibly a violent one…but in any case a revolution that is being fostered by the unwillingness of the government to actually LISTEN to what the people want. Case in point..the recent Supreme Court decision to allow cities and towns to sieze private property under “eminent domain” laws for private use…not public projects like roads, but shopping malls and other private development. conducted one of their many polls, and 99 PERCENT of respondants were AGAINST THIS! (I have never before seen such a one-sided poll!!) Yet the government says it’s OK anyway. NOT LISTENING! Iraq War? NOT LISTENING! Women’s rights to control their own bodies? NOT LISTENING. Giving away free money and benefits to illegal aliens? NOT LISTENING! Screaming for help when natural disasters strike? NOT LISTENING! Politics here has become an ad-campaign of lies, deciet, and spin-doctoring, and hey, we are not all always that stupid!
It isn’t just the Repuglicans, it’s ALL of them! Oh yeah, and “Land of the Free?” Name an aspect of anyone’s life in this so-called “democracy” that isn’t regulated, controlled, ordinanced, licensed, etc. etc….
We, the people, are getting FED UP! If the pols don’t start listening soon, maybe we’ll start sharpening the guillotines.

Posted by: capnmike at November 2, 2005 10:53 AM
Comment #89714

I must disagree with you. The future of this country depends upon the utter destruction of the Republican party as it is now constituted, essentially, a neo-fascist party. The GOP is so broken and corrupt that it cannot be repaired.

The radical religious right which has taken over control of the GOP will not give up that control willingly. I feel badly for the many moderates in the GOP who have been marginalized and disrespected by the radicals in control.

Social unrest is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, social unrest has often been necessary throughout history to topple out-of-control parties/leaders and to correct corrupted political systems. The price of social unrest as a corrective is small compared to the price of war as a corrective — Germany in the 20th century is an apt example.

The changes that will/must come will/cannot be limited to the GOP. The Democratic party will also have to correct its course, clean up its act, and reclaim its ideals and mission.

As for avoiding division. It’s too late. The divisiveness in the United States is now so acute that nothing short of a lancing will relieve the pressure/pain of that boil.

And consider this: the sooner the lancing is performed, the less painful and bloody the lancing will be. I would prefer not to see literal heads rolling as they did in late 18th century France.

With a lot of hard work, the vision of a liberal constitutional democracy given to us by the Founders of this country will be restored and the monarchist tendencies of the present United States government will be returned to the trash heap of civilization from whence it came.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at November 2, 2005 10:58 AM
Comment #89716

Welcome to a 2-party system. It will always be like this. It has severe agency problems. Economic subsidies shackle our economy, but they will never go away, because both parties rely on them for votes. The first politician to eliminate them will not be reelected.

The redistricting in Texas was long overdue. Democrats redistricted Texas 88 times. The last redistricting effort was the FIRST time for republicans. The main factor was the state legislature. How can a state so far to the right have democrats dominate the state legislature? Because democrats continually redistricted. It was long overdue for republicans.


The Supreme Court is not supposed to be considered a legislative body. It is supposed to interpret the constitution. This is why we need originalist justices.

But, I would not say that the government is not listening. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) started the legislative process of eliminating federal funding for any state or locality that uses imminent domain for private development. This legislation is meant to nulify the SC decision. The supreme court didn’t pass a bill saying it was ok, it merely said that the constitution does not prevent it. The role of the SC is not to represent the people, it’s to represent the constitution. Congress represents the people, and this measure to nulify the SC decision will likely pass.

Posted by: jacktruth at November 2, 2005 11:08 AM
Comment #89720

Stephen Daugherty,

There is an easy way to restore a balance of power.
And, then, there is the hard way you elude to.

The truly amazing thing is that voting out incumbents is really the most:
[01] simple,
[02] easy,
[03] quick,
[04] safe,
[05] inexpensive,
[06] non-partisan,
[07] peaceful,
[08] easy to understand,
[09] easy to communicate and share,
[10] and most responsible action to:

peacefully force a balance of power (not simply shift) between government and the people.

But, voters must be responsible and do it.
Doing nothing won’t make it happen.
Nothing else has the peaceful force required to incent politicians to police their own ranks.

Voters must take off their partisan blinders, and see the world the way it really is.
It’s in their own best interest.
The smug, arrogant abuse of power by incumbents is the problem. Like anyone who does a job poorly, they should be fired. Voters should fire them. We’re running out of time. Economic pressures and our many Pressing Problems are culminating to possibly change life as we now know it. 45 years of fiscal and moral irresponsibility are about to catch up with us. The National Debt has grown every year for the last 45 years. Now, we’re borrowing $1 billion per day to pay the $1 billion per day of interest alone !. Soon, they’ll have no choice but to start printing more money, which will be followed by inflation, which will alarm all investors, cause businesses to flee, cause banks worldwide to sell dollars, to stop lending the U.$. government more money, fuel an already falling dollar, and hasten the economic meltdown awaiting us.

Voters can take action now, or suffer the consequences of doing nothing, and allowing history to repeat itself again, forcing us to learn the hard way, again.

And, where’s the media ?
Where’s the concern ?
Where’s Greenspan ?
Where’s the money going to come from ?
Where’s the Department of Public Debt ?
What’s up with the silence ?
Even foreign investors are starting to get nervous about the Catch-22 of investing more and more into the U.$. black-hole.

They’re nervous about both loaning more, and not loaning more. Either way, they’re screwed, and either will shrink their investment, when the government starts printing money (the only choice they have left) to keep from defaulting on the $1 billion daily for interest on the $8 Trillion National Debt.

If (and it’s a big IF) the government stopped now borrowing $1 billion per day, and started paying down the national debt by $1.03 billion per day, it would take 127 years to pay it off.

It’s beginning to appear as though the federal government will never stop being fiscally irresponsible, until they have no other choice (i.e. when economic disaster (they created) has left them with no other choice).

Who seriously thinks the federal government is going to not only stop borrowing $1 billion per day, but also pay down the debt by $1.03 billion per day ?

Not me.

Only the voters can peacefully force it to happen. Vote out all incumbents.

This is the only thing that contains the force required.

The lack of federal government irresponsibility and unaccountability is not just because you, the voter, always fail to accurately judge the character of the candidates.
It’s not because we are all consistently bad judges of character.
It is also the system that is flawed, dysfunctional, and breeds irresponsibility and unaccountability.
That is why it doesn’t seem to matter WHO we vote for.
What happens to politicians after being elected into a dysfunctional system? Seemingly good and well-meaning politicians are powerless to create more responsible and accountable government.
And we, ironically, continue to consider each politician individually and never as one team or one entity, and continue to empower them to continue to use and abuse The People.

But, perhaps the voters are really just stupid sheep, that can easily be brainwashed, seduced by partisan divisiveness, controlled, and tricked to continue voting for incumenbents.

No wonder incumbents don’t want term limits, campaign finance reform, election reform, balanced budget, ONE PURPOSE PER BILL, transparency, tax reform, or accountability of any kind.

And, if the voters don’t start voting out incumbents soon (repeatedly), they can simply thank themselves for refusing to fire the irresponsible and unaccountble elected government (the very bozos they elected themselves), and we will have proved that we all really deserve each other, and deserve the pain and misery we brought onto ourselves, and deserve no pity or understanding.

But, all the middle-to-lower-income-class Americans should be aware that they will be the ones that suffer most, unless they wise up, shirk the seductive partisan divisiveness, and start (via peaceful force) ousting the irresponsible and unaccountable Political Class that is carelessly threatening the future and security of the nation.
The PCs (i.e. the Political Class ), the few that abuse vast wealth and power, and the wealthy aren’t going to suffer. They’ll still be rich. They obviously don’t give a damn. 90% of most elections are won by the candidate that spends the most. Big money backs campaigns, and makes government rotten to the core. the middle-to-lower-income-class Americans don’t really have a voice in government, because they’re duped and brainwashed to continue to vote for incumbents. The middle-to-lower-income-class Americans are actually empowering the PCs to be irresponsible and unaccountble. How can the middle-to-lower-income-class Americans have an equal voice in government when big money buys elections, and the upper 5% of the wealthiest have 59% of all wealth in the nation ?

Only the middle-to-lower-income-class Americans can change it. If they don’t, it’s their own fault.
“I see PC people !

Posted by: d.a.n at November 2, 2005 11:32 AM
Comment #89727

Dr. Poshek
I must disagree with you. The future of this country depends upon the utter destruction of the Republican party as it is now constituted, essentially, a neo-fascist party. The GOP is so broken and corrupt that it cannot be repaired.

No the destruction of a political party isnot the answer to our problem. Removing the current crop of corrupt politicians is. Both patires are broke because of them.
That’s why starting with this Congressional election WE THE PEOPLE need to send a message to OUR EMPLOYEES that we aint goina to take it nomore. We need to vote out EVERY incumbent and replace them with 3rd party or independent canidates. With 435 Representives and 33 Senators up for reelection can you imagine how fast the other 66 Senators will take notice if everyone up for reelection lost to either an independent or 3rd party canidate?

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 2, 2005 11:41 AM
Comment #89736

Stephen and David,

Thanks for the great post. I think what you say is right on the nose. I too am concerned that the swing will be so great it will only continue to divide this country even more.

What I have seen since the 2000 election (* I’ll refer to it as such) is good people, willing to turn their backs and close their eyes to things they never would have before the *election.

Beginning with the *2000 election controversy, The republican right instead of saying, “Hmmmmmmm, something is fishy here and we need to figure out what happened and how.” They said, “Cool!” “My party won!” “HA HA to all those of the left.” “We don’t care how they did it, just that they did it.” “Quit crying about it and just passively let our guys RULE.”

Many of these same people are family and friends I have known my whole life. GOOD, Moral people.
I think perhaps the corruption and deliberate misdeeds (Often criminal or bordering on criminal acts) of this administration are so great, it just seems unfathomable to them. It is easier to to comprehend that at least half of this country is just a bunch of whiny sore losers. Their minds can comprehend this concept so they accept it.

Instead, I, like you, want a country united. As Dave said, we don’t all have to agree on everything. That would not only be an impossibility, but what a dull and boring world we would live in. I want to get back to the roots of this country, where everyone embraces the fact that we are all different. Where we can take a little from our neighbor with us and leave a little of ourselves behind. Throughout the history of this country, the reason we became and have remained such a strong nation has consistently been our UNITY! Though I proudly call myself a liberal, I may very well be a naive liberal, because I’d like to have that back. I don’t know about you guys, but I miss my comrades from the right.

I guess I’ll just have to continue to “love my neighbor as myself” and try to be an exmple of my own beliefs.

A couple of quotes worth remembering for all of us on both the left and right who want unity:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can
change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has”. Margaret Mead

BE the change you want to see in the world.” Mahatma Gandhi

I’ll try.


Posted by: sassyliberal at November 2, 2005 11:54 AM
Comment #89737
Poshek wrote: The future of this country depends upon the utter destruction of the Republican party as it is now constituted, essentially, a neo-fascist party. The GOP is so broken and corrupt that it cannot be repaired.

That partisan statement above exemplifies the real problem.
We must all remove our partisan blinders.
Don’t feel too bad though.
I used to do the very same thing, before I realized what was really going on.
Foolish, feel I did ! : ) … as Yoda would (or would never) say.

Both parties are irresponsible and unaccountable.
Oh, sure, one party or the other is better or worse, more or less, from time to time.
But, bear in mind: the Democrats have gone along with 99% of everything the Republicans have done (especially the pork-barrel, graft, waste, back-room deals, election fraud, and peddle influence).
But, the politicians love it.
The love it when we blame one party or the other,
as the politicians continue to simply take turns gettin’ their’s, votin’ on pork-barrel, graft, waste, peddlin’ influence, rejecting campaign finance reform, reject term limints, and being irresponsible and unaccountable, while we all continue to empower them to continue to use and abuse us, The People.
And, the politicians can afford to be smug and unaccountable. Many are wealthier than the average American.
When the $#!+ finally hits the fan, they won’t be the ones that suffer most for their misdeeds.
The middle-to-lower-class will suffer the most.
And, perhaps they deserve it.
Maybe, someday, The People will learn to recognize and avoid the problem. But, until then, they are doomed to repeat history, and learn the hard way, until the lesson is finally crystal clear.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 2, 2005 12:04 PM
Comment #89751

You have missed the distinction made in my earlier post. There are clear problems within the Democratic Party. However, that party is amenable to and capable of correction. This cannot be said of the GOP. In addition, it is a fundamental error to insulate a party from its people. Whatever the errors of the Democratic Party, its people cannot be compared to those of the GOP.

Historically, so-called conservative movements have been peopled by persons who are best described as evil (permitting myself to use a Bushism). The GOP has come to represent an approach to governance of “the participation of a few and the exclusion of the many,” to the point of becoming a religious dogma.

Finally, the proper role of true conservatives is as a loyal minority force that tempers and perfects societal progress. This is how Churchill understood his place and role in British politics. By its very definition, conservatism is antithetical to the societal good if it controls the political machinery of that society because things change and history so shows. The problem we confront in our discussion, here, is that the GOP today is not conservative by any accepted definition of the word.

BTW, in favor of full disclosure: I am, by birth, British. I have been a professor & political scientist here in the United States for nearly 50 years. I have spent those years studying and researching both the historical and present day manifestations of democratic societies around the world. While there are many differences between societies, there are many similarities and the historical evidence demonstrates a singular process of democratic societal evolution.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at November 2, 2005 12:33 PM
Comment #89752


You say you want to be the change, but yet you pointed fingers only at the right. How is that going to accomplish unity? By looking at it from only one viewpoint, which just happens to be your own, you don’t invite unity at all, but rather polarization.

Its easy for me to see how someone can claim this administration has corruption within it. But its also easy to see how the last one, and the one before it, and the one before that had corruption too. That would mean the problem is with government, as opposed to the party in the White House or Congress.

Its also easy for me to see how many good moral people on the left are simply fishing for something negative about Bush. They’ve found him guilty of being AWOL (despite that the TANG has never even accused him of that), they’ve compared him to Hitler etc. When Iraq voted for its constitution, the news of passage was met with ridicule from the left, rather than the acknowledgement that it was a big step in the right direction. Not the final step, mind you, but a big one.

Sassy, I can understand the angst over the war. I really have worked hard to look at things from both sides, the logic, the emotion, the facts, the conclusions. I’ve made my conclusions, yet I don’t hold those with different conclusions in contempt. I don’t say that they unable to comprehend my viewpoint, or that they have venal interests at heart. No, I simply recognize that their viewpoints and conclusions are vastly different from mine—-no less valid though.

Only when we are able to respect and understand that viewpoints other than our own have an inherent potential for credibility…only then can we truly begin to be unified.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 2, 2005 12:34 PM
Comment #89754

In a way, I am calling for the destruction of the Republican party- but also its rebirth!

I think the sentiment I would put forward is that if we didn’t have the Republican party, we would have to invent it. Ideally, it represents the interests of people not comfortable with the way Democrats and Liberals want things to go.

I knew Dan would put in his two cents. The subject of the entry guaranteed it! While I agree that some incumbents need to be voted out, even among my own party’s rank and file, I do believe that there needs to be positive reinforcement as well as negative- a benefit to doing one’s job. People who want to use their office to do good should have the opportunity to continue doing it, and should not be sacrificed to make a political point.

The Republican Party, like any other party, is an emergent phenomenon, a standing wave of social organization. It’s composition and membership depends on the behavior of it’s many adherents. The effective control used by the Republican party has been two-fold. On one hand, the Republican party membership has been taught to so distrust outside sources as to encourage them to take their material from much more controllable conservative sources. On the other, they’ve been encouraged not to compromise, not to give in.

The insularity reduces the capability of the rank and file to impose their will. They are reassured as to the radical nature of the policy decisions, despite the harm it does them, and kept from information that might bring the rational minded among them to dissent. Additionally, they are deprived of the knowledge that experience of the other side’s commonalities brings.

jacktruth says that the redistricting was long overdue. Does that justify misrepresenting the political balance? No, the point would be to strike the correct balance, not commit the reverse error that one might perceive in redistricting to favor the Democrats.

This will always be an indirect system, but that means we must be more vigilant as a people. We can’t count on the wise old leaders to take care of us.

We must not, in the quest to seek a proper balance of representation, overdo things. We will have peace and cooperation to the extent we are willing to compromise and recognize our common interests, and to the extent we preserve the freedoms that keep us from maliciously interfering in the civil rights of others. Nobody wins when anybody rigs the system.

What I advocate here is that the Republicans recognize that this system is being rigged to support the radical wing of their party, and this affecting them to the detriment of their best interests.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2005 12:36 PM
Comment #89767


jacktruth says that the redistricting was long overdue. Does that justify misrepresenting the political balance? No, the point would be to strike the correct balance, not commit the reverse error that one might perceive in redistricting to favor the Democrats.

Yea, because that’s what the democrats those 88 times: strike the correct balance. Texas is a highly conservative state, to have a democratic legislature for so many years is the purest demonstration of democratic self-preservation Id does not represent the people of this state. The fact that the redistricting now favors republicans may well be a better “balance” with the ideology of the people.

It always amazes me that it is always up to republicans to comprimise, and the issue of comprimise by choice only comes up when the democrats have no power. Did the democratic Congress comprimise? no. Did Bill Clinton name moderates to the supreme court? no. Did the democratic Texas legislature comprimise on the 88 redistrict efforts? no.

As far as I’m concerned it is/was the role of Rick Perry and George Bush to kick the democrats while they are down until they can prove they can get back up and fight. I did not vote for them so they can comprimise with a weak, irrelevant democratic party.

Posted by: jacktruth at November 2, 2005 12:58 PM
Comment #89769

Where was all this so-called “support” for “the People” during the 90’s?
People we yelling about all this stuff then and the left chose to ignore. Now they are the ones yelling and being ignored.

I’m with the good capn on this and look forward to it. The sooner the better.

“The politicians, on BOTH sides, may not want to realize it, but this country, polarized as it has become, is on the verge of a revolution…possibly a violent one”

Well said sir!

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2005 1:04 PM
Comment #89773

Sure, the Republicans are screwed up now.
In the past, both parties have been screwed up.
Democrats once filabustered to block civil rights. Should that be called evil too.

I no longer hold the opinion that it’s all the fault of one party or the other.
But, politicians would like that very much.
No, the Democrats go along with 99% of everything the Republicans do.
What about that ?
The only time Democrats opposed anything much was blocking Circuit Court judges.

No, parties to blame.
The evidence of that is staggering.
They two main parties are just taking turns being irresponsible and unaccountable.

Later, if Democrats win back the House, Senate, and Presidency, you’ll see the Democrats doing similar things (not always the exact same things). Yes, regardless of whether the left wing or right wing wins, they will still continue to fly in circles.

Sure, there are a few differences, but those few differences really don’t amount to much. That is, they are much more similar than different.

Both parties are irresponsible and unaccountable, which is why voters should start voting out all incumbents. That will get their attention, and it’s the only way to peacefully force a balance of power (not simply shift it). That is, by design, what voters are supposed to be doing…voting out irresponsible and unaccountable government.

Unfortunately, too many are seduced into participation in the divisive petty partisan bickering and demonizing (even calling them evil and wicked). No, they’re not all evil and wicked. That’s a bit of exaggeration and extreme rhetoric. But, they are selfish, careless, irresponsible, and unaccountable, and we, The People, need to correct it using the one thing that we’ve had all along, that is simple, easy,
quick, safe, inexpensive, non-partisan, peaceful, easy to understand, easy to communicate and share, responsible: our vote

(while we still have it).

Posted by: d.a.n at November 2, 2005 1:09 PM
Comment #89777

Does it matters what the Democrats did those 88 times, in terms of what’s right or wrong for what the Republicans do, or are we still justifying things in grade-school terms?

You realize that if the person does get up to fight, the resentment flows the other way. Do you really think it’s in your party’s interests to inspire a backlash?

That’s the direction you’re going.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2005 1:30 PM
Comment #89792


I certainly did not intend to insinuate no corruption from any other administration. I agree with you that indeed there has been.

I am also NOT a democrat. I don’t like the two-party system and won’t declare myself affiliated with either party.

You wrote:

Its easy for me to see how someone can claim this administration has corruption within it. But its also easy to see how the last one, and the one before it, and the one before that had corruption too.

The MAJOR difference I see in the past governments (in my lifetime: Kennedy till present) is that no other administration has fostered such a division among us as a society. The corruption of this specific administration has been, is and contiunues to be on a level I have never seen before. I have such a problem understanding how so many people (like I said, I have known all my life, therefore I KNOW them to be competent, educated, knowledgeable people) are so willing to turn a blind eye to what is clearly in front of all our faces. It seems as though we DO see it, (how can we not?) and intentionally DECIDE it’s ok as long as it benefits a particular side or party.

You may not believe me, but I assure you I would not, WILL NOT tolerate the actions such as what has been perpetrated by this administration from ANY party.

you asked:

You say you want to be the change, but yet you pointed fingers only at the right. How is that going to accomplish unity?

If, by this you mean that I did not address corruption from past administrations, then I can agree. Again though, I have seen nothing from the past to compare to the level of corruption this administration has reached. This is why my concern and my angst is directed toward this particular administration.

you said:

“That would mean the problem is with government, as opposed to the party in the White House or Congress.”

I’m sorry, I truly am…but it IS the party in the whitehouse that has achieved corruption on a level I could never have imagined before.

Like I said, maybe I am a naive liberal, but I believed that as a society, we the people, as Americans would have banned together to stand up against what has occured in this country in the past 5, almost 6 years. Instead I have witnessed a split among us that is on a level I believe America has never witnessed in the 200+ years we have been a nation.

You are right in that it is not just one party or the other.

How much more must WE (both sides) tolerate before we re-unite?


Posted by: sassyliberal at November 2, 2005 2:12 PM
Comment #89793

Although I do not have the time to write all the comments I would like, the one important thing I want to impart is this:
Please write to your elected officials and write to them often! You are their constituency and they should be made painfully aware of what you want them to do. This is the beginning of change. The peaceful protest that we can now accomplish easily with watchdog groups that make it easy to e-mail your Congresspeople and Senators. Look for them on the web and sign up for the ones that closely mirror your beliefs. Then follow through with either simply sending the form letter provided or adding additional comments, like I always do, to let them know that you are paying attention. Invite friends of like mind to join these groups and add to the force.
In West Virginia, I have received letter after letter from Robert Byrd, Joe Manchin and others expressing their appreciation of my feedback and stating their positions and thoughts on certain issues. It only takes a few moments and the groups e-mail you when there are important issues that need attention before it is too late.
I often wonder what it will take to see a another revolution in this country. To see the people standing together to say “you are not representing us, and we collectively disagree with you!” It has happened before, and I agree that it is possible that it will happen again in the near future.
I hope that everyone continues to be outraged. And I hope that everyone will continue, or start getting as involved in the process as one can be without being elected themselves.

Posted by: Lisa W. at November 2, 2005 2:12 PM
Comment #89794

The Great Adolf Hitler would have not let this happen he loved his people and the ones that did not care he had murdered This is what the United States needs and I am just the Man to take back America.

Posted by: Albert Garibay at November 2, 2005 2:14 PM
Comment #89803

Stephen: Great and thoughtful post.

Because of our system of government we wind up with 2 parties. Occasionally, a party becomes drunk with power and becomes authoritarian and acts like the Mafia. This has happened to the Democrats. Now it is happening to the Republicans.

The solution today is to remove these power hungry Republicans from power. A third party will not do it. Look at history; it does not happen. The only way to clean up our government today is to replace Republicans with Democrats.

Democrats are not more virtuous. I prefer their principles to those of the Republicans. When first elected, they are likely to follow some of their principles. However, after some time they are likely to become corrupt too.

Let’s not get rid of any party. Let’s keep them to their principles. However, next year vote for a Democratic candidate to keep the corrupters out.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 2, 2005 2:32 PM
Comment #89808


You realize that if the person does get up to fight, the resentment flows the other way. Do you really think it’s in your party’s interests to inspire a backlash?

The resentment has already flowed the other way. I believe resentment between our two parties has been there since the beginning. It IS politics in this country. Some things are worth fighting for.

Anyway, it doesn’t matter if the democrats get up and fight. As long as they have something to fight with, it’s good for America. When they give up the ideas that are sinking them, they will gain power again and we will all be better for it. I see no point in gaining agreement for the sake of agreement. It must make sense. If a minority party can’t gain power back, then they aren’t representing a winning portion of this country and they need to change. If we don’t force them to change, the country does not benefit from a 2-party system.

Right now, abortion is a millstone on the democrats’ necks. When they begin putting pro-life candidates in office and drop it as a central tenet of the party, they will gain power back and that conservative political ideology will have won on that issue. America will win because the democrats are on the wrong side of that issue. America will also win because we will once again have forced comprimise on issues where there need to be compromise, such as spending and taxes. Until then, I’m personally happy holding every other issue hostage until the abortion issue is won by the conservative right.

Posted by: jacktruth at November 2, 2005 2:47 PM
Comment #89879
The lack of federal government irresponsibility and unaccountability is not just because you, the voter, always fail to accurately judge the character of the candidates.
It’s not because we are all consistently bad judges of character.
It is also the system that is flawed, dysfunctional, and breeds irresponsibility and unaccountability.

When 20 to 30 ads a day tell you that one candidate will protect you from terrorists and the other is a Herman Munster looking, medal stealing, botox injecting wimp, who are the masses going to choose. Throw in 112 elevated alerts just prior to the election to reinforce that we are in great peril and you can get anyone to vote for a lying, A.W.O.L., cheerleading baffoon. Its called fear. Fear will make anyone do stupid things.

BTW, has anyone noticed that we haven’t had one single elevated alert after the 2004 election?

Posted by: Pat at November 2, 2005 6:52 PM
Comment #89884

Your argument essentially makes you, as a member of the majority party, the arbitor of what qualifies as a “popular” position.

Abortion is a great example. Most people are pro-choice, though the degree of that varies. You, though, make it out as if this is what’s dragging down the party.

Abortion, bad as it is, is something of a Red Herring. It’s a great big blaring neon sign of a moral issue that hides in its shadows all the question about social justice, the behavior of the elites, and values of peacemaking, forgiveness, and reconciliation that are a much larger part of Christian theology. My challenge to you is this: just how Christian is the Christian Right in Washington? The ironic thing about abortion is that it’s not even addressed in the bible in any direct manner. Like the constitutional law that permits the procedure, it is a thing of our time, a composite built from other laws. Though I hope abortion becomes merely a last resort to save a mother, or an option to the rape victims or victims of incest, I do not like seeing this country up in moral arms over this one hot button issue, and scandalously quiet about other injustices and sins in society.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2005 7:27 PM
Comment #89930


Some people are meant to be admired, but not necessarily emulated. Gandhi was a great politician and a humanitarian, but his non-functional economic ideas kept India backward until just the last few years.

Just to be through, I agree with Christopher Hitchens’ view of Mother Teresa .


Gerrymandering has a long and bipartisan history. Based on party identification, Texas elects too many Republicans. It used to elect too many Democrats. California elects too many Democrats today. Redistricting the whole U.S. probably wouldn’t result in a significant change in congress. You would just have more Republicans from places like California or New York and more Democrats from Texas next year. Next election it might swing back.

One reason districts are less competitive is because of previous attempts to create “fairness” in the Voting Rights Act. If you concentrate enough African Americans (who vote almost 90% Democratic) in a particular district you probably get a minority congressman. But in doing so you also concentrate the most reliable democratic voters in one place and the mirror image of more Republicans into the other districts.

Cynical politicians have figured out how to use a well intentioned law for their own purposes. Incumbents in both parties benefit from the Gerrymandering and they get to take what they can call the moral high ground of ensuring fairness for the disenfranchised. Sometimes they even believe it.

Posted by: Jack at November 2, 2005 10:29 PM
Comment #89974

Based on party identification? Left to themselves, in the 2000 election, a favorable redistricting to the Republicans still elected Democrats. Why? Because Republicans were comfortable with the people in power. This wasn’t a transition from a Democrat favoring system, but one that favored Republicans.

The only problem was, it wasn’t delivering the numbers the Speaker wanted. Tom DeLay rode the thing the whole time, even using his power to inquire with the FAA about the whereabouts of Texas legislators who fled in protest of the votes. They tore apart the bipartisan accord that had existed in the legislature there, just so that Republicans could get a disproportionate number of seats in the next election. The percentages of Republican Representatives in the Texas delegation exceeds the percentage of Republicans in the state. As much as previous plans were gerrymandered, this one was too. Instead of restoring the balance, here the imbalance was simply handed to the side in power.

I don’t support Gerrymandering. It’s the entrenchment of power in spite of the wishes of the communities in question. Doing that only stores up resentment and distances the congressional delegates from the will of the people as expressed by their communities.

You assume a mandate for power you may have never have, and may no longer have now. Your people have bought a great deal of their power on credit, imposing their will on folks, in hopes that later they will simply submit. If they had governed well, perhaps the bill wouldn’t have come due. Unfortunately, your vaunted Republican majority members are out there in Washington making asses of themselves.

You can either get in the way of that by cleaning house and letting the Republican party breathe in some political moderation, or you can force your party’s agenda some more, ignoring all the errors and crisises until matter turn critical. The difference between this election and the ones before it will be plain: this time, we will vote knowing the extent to which the Republican party has drifted from the average American, a drift we can see in all the criminal scandals, in all the cronyism and continued deferment of responsiblity.

You all continue to blame the slide in your popularity on the media and those subversive Democrat voices. The truth is, you have built your own mass of troubles and done this to yourselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2005 12:37 AM
Comment #89976


I guess we’ll see about that. Howard Dean was trying desperately to avoid the label “pro-choice” the other day. Harry Reid knows that his only attack on Alito is regarding abortion restrictions. Rather than fight the battle, he deflects to 2004 calling for a closed session: a very desparate, last ditch effort to do something, anything. Abortion is a subject that the democratic party won’t let go of, but is afraid to stand behind.

They won’t enter public discussion about it, I guess because they know they are on the losing end. But they need the left-wing votes, so they stay with it. It’s like a drug for them. It’s killing them, but they can’t stay away from it.

We’ll see how it all pans out.

Regarding how it is discussed in the Bible…it is about human life. The Bible has plenty to say about murder. It also has plenty to say about when we were conceived in the mind of God and I doubt you will find in the Bible where it says that we aren’t human until our head actually exits the womb. Life is in the blood, not the lungs. One of the first things that happens in the life of a human fetus is the creation and detectable beat of a heart.

The idea that this is not a human, or that it is only a human if it is wanted, is an invention of man that requires closed eyes, ears, and complete ignorance of mind.

That is why the left is wrong on the issue. I sure would not want to defend the “it’s not a human” position.

Posted by: jacktruth at November 3, 2005 12:43 AM
Comment #90022

Again, a Red Herring. One thing is that people have a genuine interest in what was done by their government to get them into a war they now believe was a fool’s errand. Another is this: Alito is not a strict constructionist, according to some of your own people, but instead an apologists for the imperial presidency.

That’s the real issue here: the unwarranted accumulation of power by the few, and the degradation of oversight and the free flow of information by this government, effectively taking the decision out of the American People’s hands. If the Republican party rank and file knew the extent of their own betrayal, the outcry would be enormous.

What the Republicans have created though, is a culture where the only thing that matters is winning more elections.

I have read the Bible. Yes, human is important. But it doesn’t stop being an issue at birth. What good is saving all those babies from dying unborn, if all you’ve got waing for them is a decaying middle-class, and an economy going downhill with it? What good is preventing abortion if you’re going to spend their tax dollars in deficit, borrowing off of their future hard work?

What good is saving these kids lives, if they are going to be sent to die decades from now in wars that could have been prevented if Bush had done his duty as a president?

What good is saving life, if we’re not going to bring it back to the areas afflicted by Katrina and the lives that were destroyed there?

What good is your piety if you allow a system where the Rich can act like thieves and con-men towards the rest of us?

This is not a Christian society your folks are making. You can’t simply observe one commandment, then forget the countless verses in which matters of social justice, morals, and ethics ring with great clarity. I am against abortion, but I am also against all the greed, spineless governance, corruption, and lack of charity and good grace that the Republican leadership in Washington has come to represent. I am a Democrat in no small part because I think my party at least has principles that point towards a greater society, in many ways, one more keeping with the ethics of loving your neighbor as you do yourself, and being free to love God as you yourself love God, not somebody else. Go ahead and be pious about the fetuses. In the meantime, follow your grace elsewhere as well.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2005 9:38 AM
Comment #90036


By your same reasoning, we should just kill everybody because there is no point to life at all. We have growing deficits. Please kill me. We have a decaying middle class. Please kill me. If I volunteer to join the military, I may die in a war. Please kill me now before somebody else does. I lost my home and family in hurricane Katrina, please kill me. The rich are getting richer (and possibly providing me with a job). Please kill me. You see, it’s about life, not politics. It’s better to live in this society than not live at all. Otherwise, shouln’t we just nuke all of the people that have a rough life and morally justify it as a way to end suffering?

Is it possible that the people that could change all of these things were amoung the billions in this world that were killed before they were ever born?

Posted by: jacktruth at November 3, 2005 9:54 AM
Comment #90048

First, the article I was referring to:
“…Sam Alito is no John Roberts.”

If you don’t like Clemons, click through to the editorial.

Second, my reasoning is not that we should have abortions because things are that bad, but that merely paying attention to that one issue, and forgetting all others is a recipe for misery and despair.

It is about life! But life is more than the beating of a heart! It’s being able to work knowing you can support your children, and not have to worry that your utility company will jack up the costs unfairly. It’s being able to weather a disaster knowing that help will be on the way. It’s about volunteering for the army knowing that you may die, but you will die in worthy war lead by worthy leaders who will ensure that things don’t go to hell!

You can manifest your opposition to abortion, which I have already told you I share, but if you let every other evil be done, can you really stand up and say, “I have done all that I’ve needed to do”?

Mine is a politics of life, but not just unborn life, but life throughout, and the justice, fairness, and generosity of spirit and of economy that is needed to make that life bearable, even enjoyable.

Mine is built on the proposition that the greatest good is that which makes life bearable and enjoyable for the most people. Mine is also built on the proposition that the most lasting and effective laws are those that have been agreed to rather than forced upon those expected to follow them. It is better that we work towards our goal by compromise, and by making Abortion an unnecessary option, rather than by heaping scorn and abuse on those who haven’t yet come around. In case you didn’t know, heaping scorn and abuse on people for their sins is not what Jesus teaches. We are expected, having been forgiven for our sins, to be willing to forgive others for theirs. That lack of forgiveness in today’s Christian culture is one thing that puts the more secular in society off.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2005 10:38 AM
Comment #90063


I agree with you. That there are other issues that have great importance. I also think there needs to be collaboration between schools of thought on those other issues. Democrates can’t do it by themselves any better than Republicans can (though we may differ on who does it better). My main point to this whole discussion is that abortion is the issue that divides the country more than anything else. Until the democrats come the the correct side of the issue, they won’t have a say in these other issues and we all lose.

And quite frankly, if a person reasons that a fetus is not a human, I’m not sure that I trust thier reasoning on many other matters.

But that’s me.

Posted by: jacktruth at November 3, 2005 11:26 AM
Comment #90229

Some of the proponents of abortion do consider the fetus a human being: They consider it part of the mother, and therefore subject to any of the procedures that the mother might be put under. Nobody cries foul, they might say, when somebody removes a gall bladder from a woman.

Others do not look at the potential of the fetus to become human, but only look to its current state, which is not viable outside the womb.

I doubt most people who take that side look at it in terms of killing a human being, but rather from the point of view that the current state of the unborn child is the determining factor.

Take note that even with Roe Vs. Wade, their are curtailments to abortions past the second trimester. The debate comes in terms of what the child is before that point.

If you come at these people thinking they’re evil they will have no problem with assuming the same of you. If you come at them more reasonably and explain your point of view, if you don’t show signs that you’re a fanatic, and therefore not a person they can reason with in return, then you might make headway where otherwise people would balk at your point of view.

I think one first step is that we present Christianity in more than the narrow two issue fashion it’s usually protrayed, or in terms of battling adult content in the media. As The Passion of the Christ shows, adult content is not necessarily the problem, and the bible has more than its share of moments where figuratively, you put your hands over kid’s eyes.

What we need to present is the full array of Christian Values. Bashing gays and picketing abortion clinics only demonstrates fanaticism. What we need to really demonstrate is that Christians beliefs can let the steam off, while at the same time enforce a standard of good honest behavior. I believe it’s possible to do that, to render Christianity in a positive light.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2005 6:52 PM
Comment #90335

Albert Garibay
The Great Adolf Hitler would have not let this happen he loved his people and the ones that did not care he had murdered This is what the United States needs and I am just the Man to take back America.

Yeah, he had people murdered alright. 6,000,000 Jews, and who knows the number of those that didn’t agree with him.
NO! This IS NOT what America needs. And if you’d use this method to “Take America back” YOUR NOT THE MAN FOR THE JOB! Your nothing more than your hero Hitler. A murdering coward.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 3, 2005 8:45 PM
Comment #90442
Nobody cries foul, they might say, when somebody removes a gall bladder from a woman.

Others do not look at the potential of the fetus to become human, but only look to its current state, which is not viable outside the womb.

I doubt most people who take that side look at it in terms of killing a human being, but rather from the point of view that the current state of the unborn child is the determining factor.

Take note that even with Roe Vs. Wade, their are curtailments to abortions past the second trimester. The debate comes in terms of what the child is before that point.

Don’t you see that we wouldn’t even be having these discussions if people weren’t trying to defend abortion? Without the desire to get out of something that you got yourself into, is there a reason to try to determine how long you can go before declaring the humanity of an unborn baby?
The pro-choice movement is about birth control and nothing else.

But the choice to have a baby comes before conception, not in the first or second trimester of life. There is no mystery to that. If it’s a human at 24 weeks, it is a human at 22 weeks.

I’m frankly worn out with being understanding of the other side. I lost my interest in that when Clinton vetoed partial birth abortion. The left will not discuss or consider any legislation that restricts abortion. They were resistent even to medical regulations on abortion clinics. For the longest time, they had less regulation than even veterinary clinics…all thanks to the left. If you want to look at comprimise and the need to open mind, start on the left.

I think that if we allowed some reasonable legislation like regulation, PBA bans, required presentation of pregnancy solutions, you wouldn’t have as much push from the right on the courts. But the democratic party opposes all of these things. That is why the conservatives in the country are in a push for power and why they are winning it.

Today, I read that the 9th district court has ruled that parents do not have sole right to decide how thier children are educated about sex. Good job left-wingers! Another victory for the anti-family party.

Posted by: jacktruth at November 4, 2005 9:54 AM
Comment #90457

An interesting read on this subject:

Abortion without Roe

Posted by: jacktruth at November 4, 2005 10:29 AM
Comment #90513

Some may ignore the humanity of the child (or at least it’s potential) when they seek an abortion, but some may simply interpret things differently. Keep in mind, I advocate the opposite, but consider that many cultures advocated human sacrifice for centuries. Did they consider it evil? No. They could not sustain it against the values of their culture.

It’s not even that such a culture would devalue life, even. A human sacrifice could be considered all the more sacred for the fact that life was valued so highly. Even with today’s abhorrence of ritual religious human sacrifice, Christians can speak of sacrifice of Jesus being great since he gave his own life. We can also say the same of our soldiers.

We would see a ritual sacrifce as a waste or worse because we do not see the value of cutting that life short- we don’t believe in other Gods, or we believe the ones they sacrifice to are evil, and therefore undeserving of that life.

The more secular among us believe that the less fully formed embryo or fetus is not yet distinct enough from the mother in terms of its life to be considered an individual life. That being the case, other priorities take precedent: People might seek the abortion in light of an inappropriate father, bad economic situations, or simply the lack of willingess to become a parent. In arguing against abortion to these people, you’re arguing the reduction of the freedom to make decisions in ones own life, from their point of view.

As for PBAs, they are a rare, risky procedure, misrepresented both in time and manner of use.

As for the court decision, I think the real question is whether one person can determine the educational curriculum for an entire community that doesn’t agree with them.

This is broader than just what you or I believe. In trying to move people from their opinions, you must know where they start from.

As for the push to power, keep in mind most Americans favor abortion rights of some kind. Don’t assume that’s the main factor.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2005 2:21 PM
Comment #90546

I don’t feel the need to “understand” where the other side is coming from any more than they feel the need to “understand” where I am coming from. I have seen very little attempt from the left to move right. This type of empathetic exchange must come from both sides, if at all. I have seen far to much hatred from the left to believe they are anywhere near where you are. And I doubt where you could site any examples.

I see no point in the right moving left while we have control of all 3 legislative bodies and are starting to stack the courts. If the left wants a say in the future of the country, they can start by winning some elections rather than pleading for mercy out of weakness and irrelevance.

I know a lot of people see that language as counterproductive, but it is the same language that the democrats will use if they ever have full control. It is the way politics are supposed to work. The change comes from the ballot box, not the party leadership. The ballots are coming up with conservatives. It is thier job to be conservatives, not pander to liberals.

I do understand the left side of the argument, but I don’t think it’s valid enough to yeild political ground to. Murder is immoral even if people don’t think that it is. I really don’t care what the murderer believes about thier crime. I see no difference between murder by ignorance and abortion by “I’m not sure if it is a human.” Neither one should be dismissed.

I think you are wrong regarding that court case. That is about parental consent for individuals, not about parental control over the system. But admittedly, I have not read through the information completely.

I won’t even start on government run education systems.

This has been a good discussion.

Posted by: jacktruth at November 4, 2005 3:54 PM
Comment #90552

Understand your opponent so you can choose your rhetoric to match those you have to convince.

Consider the good and evil of a government as a whole, or decide to trade one good (anti-abortionist views) for a whole bunch of evils (lying, corruption, social injustice, defeate in the war on terror, etc.)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2005 4:10 PM
Comment #90557
Consider the good and evil of a government as a whole, or decide to trade one good (anti-abortionist views) for a whole bunch of evils (lying, corruption, social injustice, defeate in the war on terror, etc.)

There’s a big difference. Very few normal citizens have access to the information required to make some of these determinations.

I could make a long list of evils of the Clinton Administration and add veto of the PBA ban on top of it. So to say that I can elect a pro-life candidate and have the rest of that go away is a ridiculous notion that is not supported by history. Nor am I convinced of the democratic rhetoric on these “other evils” that you refer to.

Posted by: jacktruth at November 4, 2005 4:36 PM
Comment #90570

So to say that I can elect a pro-choice candidate and have the rest of that go away is a ridiculous notion that is not supported by history.

Posted by: jacktruth at November 4, 2005 5:26 PM
Comment #90620

We were hearing about these things long before the story forced its way through the Republican bubble. This was not a big secret except to the people it would matter most to.

All you have to do is learn first and listen to the defense next. The Republicans let themselves be preemptively reassured, and that has unfortunately allowed a dangerous level of ignorance to develop.

Now, In the end, you don’t have to vote for a Democrat. In fact, my posting says that’s not really the point. Vote conservative, as your beliefs make it appropriate, but don’t vote from ignorance, and don’t protect these people just because they run on that kind of platform.

Vote Republican, as you wish, but don’t vote for folks like Bush. Have higher standards. Get somebody who agrees with you on abortion and can run the rest of things. Why should you do this? Because it will make it easier for your political point to win out. If people associate opposition to abortion with a party that has demonstrated profound incompetence, recklessness, and corruption, how much does that improve your chances to get people to your side?

Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene puts forward the notion that the genes that succeed best in evolution are those that manage to latch on to the best collection of other genes, which together manufacture the best vehicle for the collection.

Likewise, it is easier to push one idea when you surround it with a bunch of good ideas. Right now, the Republican party’s good ideas are not keeping good company.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2005 8:51 PM
Comment #90732


The last two democratic presidents were clinton and Carter. Carter set new standards of incompetence and Clinton was as crooked as he weas oblivous to threats to the US.


Evolution is a crock. Your intelligence rating just plummeted.

Posted by: jacktruth at November 5, 2005 7:58 PM
Comment #90830

Do you believe in breeding? Breeding proves that you can create dramatic changes in body form and characteristics merely by choosing the correct creatures to have continue the pedigree.

Evolution does this, but instead of relying on the intelligent guiding hand of man, it relies on the forces of the environment itself over long periods of time: geography, climate, and interaction with predators, prey, competitors, symbiotes and parasites.

When such forces or the adapations they inspire separate breeding populations from one another, new species arise as their lack of interchange of genes causes new changes to remain unshared between the divided populations.

Now, you can call me stupid just out of spite, but I hardly believe an belief in evolution qualifies me as such. It’s an intuitive theory, when you’re not examining it unaware of it’s full workings.

As for the politicians? The last four elected Republican presidents were Bush, Bush 41, Reagan, and Nixon. My only answer is: nobody’s perfect.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2005 6:55 PM
Comment #90864

I entirely agree with Stephen who says that the Republican Party is a neo-facist grouping. I often wonder what people like Condi Rice are doing in that party. Are they mad? Whilst the rest of the free world, Europe in particular, are modernising, the Republicans in the United States are preaching Conservatism. For God’s sake, we are not living in the age of Henry the Eighth! The sad thing is that at least half of the electorate of the United States are gullible enough to believe in that horse dung.

Posted by: Philippe at November 7, 2005 2:10 AM
Comment #90935

CapnMike pointed out how the Government needs to get back and listen to the people. The example he used was from a recent decision from the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain where a municipality may take your propeerty and sell it to a private business in order to increase that municipalities tax base. A simply horrible decision. Well, it looks like Congress agrees that it’s a horrible decision and they have just passed a measure that would stop all Federal funds for any state that uses that power. This does seem like, at least in this instance, the government is listening.

Posted by: Dr. Jimmy at November 7, 2005 9:28 AM
Comment #91121

How can the people rule themselves if they are too incapacitated to correctly choose their leaders? Would you let an entire society dismember themselves simply by sacrificing a greedy yet effective political agenda?

Posted by: Demosthenes at November 8, 2005 11:19 AM
Comment #91123

How can the people rule themselves if they are too incapacitated to correctly choose their leaders? Would you let an entire society fall apart because they choose to sacrifice a greedy yet effective political agenda?

Posted by: Gerro Niska at November 8, 2005 11:21 AM
Post a comment