Democrats & Liberals Archives

No Safe Seats

For months political prognosticators have been telling us that only a tiny number of seats in the House are competitive because of red-blue polarization and because of gerrymandering. However, the political wizards did not foresee the current Republican blowout. After many citizens have forgotten the scurrilous Tom DeLay, all America is upset by the sleaziness of Dennis Hastert and the rest of the Republican House leadership. No House seat is safe.

Pollsters have divided the country into blue liberal states and red conservative states, according to whether the people vote Democratic or Republican. However, no state is completely blue or completely red. My state of California, for example, is considered to be blue but we have a Republican governor.

States are divided into districts, each electing a representative to the House. Some districts within red states send blue representatives to Washington; similarly, some districts within blue states send red representatives to Washington.

Incumbents of both parties have made deals to keep themselves in power. They gerrymandered districts so that some always elect Democrats and others always elect Republicans. Tom DeLay became a Republican icon by arranging a redistricting that increased the number of so-called red districts in Texas.

I belong to a district in California that has been gerrymandered so that a Republican named Dana Rohrabacher is always elected. A map of the district looks like a long wild prehistoric animal. I have been told by everybody that Rohrabacher is bound to win no matter what I do. Maybe so. But when I hear how the Republican Party is imploding, I think Democrats have a chance.

Here are a few reason I am against Rohrabacher:

  • He was a buddy of Jack Abramoff
  • He voted for estate tax reduction
  • He says Iraq was part of the war on terror
  • He is against abortion
  • He wanted to treat illegal aliens as criminals
  • He called Ariel Sharon of Israel a terrorist; voted against resolution for support of Israel
I also discovered that in 1988 Rohrabacher went to Afghanistan with the mujahadin!

In today's environment, we should all forget about what the political experts say. Just go and vote the Republican bums out. I'm going to vote for Jim Brandt, the Democratic opponent of Dana Rohrabacher. If you live in a Republican gerrymandered district, you have a chance to express yourself too. Seize it.

There are no red and blue states. There are no red and blue districts. There are no safe House seats. All seats are up for grabs.

Posted by Paul Siegel at October 5, 2006 6:51 PM
Comments
Comment #186556

Nor should any House seat be safe, Republican or Democrat. This Congress has abdicated all of its most important functions and protections toward the American public.

2.4 Trillion dollars added to our national debt since Jan. 2001, which DOES NOT include what we spent on Katrina, the Wars, and 9/11 recovery. Where did all that money go - Republicans spent it and Democrats went right along for the ride - enough of them anyway as to not even raise a headline of dissent.

Democrats who want piecemeal border and national security - shame on you. Border and national security after 9/11 should have been absolute top first priorities. But, you had to play along with Republicans for 5 years before offering up a bandaid solution taking 10 or more years to complete when border security was demanded by circumstance on Sept. 12, 2001.

We know the Republican plan to transfer trillions of debt onto the shoulders of our children. What are Democrat’s plan in this regard - more of the same?

We know Republican’s strategy for perpetual American coffins streaming out of Iraq. What is the Democrat’s plan? Oh yeah, I forgot, you have a million of them, a different one for each Democrat.

No House seat is safe. Nor should any be. Democrat or Republican. The only hope of getting representatives who will put America and Americans first on their priority list, is to first remove all the incumbents who won’t.

V.O.I.D. Incumbents on Nov. 7.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 5, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #186590
He wanted to treat illegal aliens as criminals

Paul, just read this sentence of yours again and think for a minute.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 5, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #186592

David
AMEN!

Living in the Central Valley of California, I have a lot of experience with latino issues. It seems like they protest the US protecting its borders, as if people have a right to enter our country illegally. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with people coming here. I have a problem with people coming to our country illegally. I also have a problem with people coming to our country and expecting it to conform to them, instead of them conforming to their new home. However, the idea that we can just deport them all is ludicrous. Honestly! The economy in my area would collapse. The economy of most of California would collapse. Extensive, comprehensive border reform NOW!

Right now our country is creating lots of problems for itself. Lots of problems that I’m going to have to deal with. And it makes me angry when Bush sends soldiers to die in Iraq. Those guys are only a little older than me. I have friends old enough to go. My cousin is deployed on a carrier in the Persian Gulf. The War-it will be my war. The deficit-I’m going to have to pay it off. Border security-Im going to have to live with the consequences. If someone wants my support he/she’d better have a plan for the future. That future starts now.

Paul
Good gravy I hope Rohrabacher loses. Best of luck to Mr. Brandt. Dan? sounds like an idiot. Boot him.

Posted by: Silima at October 5, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #186601

I live in South Carolina…and trust me, the Democrats, as few as they may be, are polorizing now. The Dem turnout here will be insane. After the Foley problem, I doubt the bible thumpers will be as adament to go to the polls.

Posted by: Shelly at October 5, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #186602

Absolutely no seat is safe.

Jerry Moran in Kansas usually runs uncontested. The few Democrats I know around here think I’m insane to have placed all of my “eggs” in one basket supporting John Doll but I’d rather fight and lose than not fight at all.

I’m leaving it up to others to carry the Governor’s race and the Attorney General’s race. I’m disappointed that the DNC has donated very little to Doll’s campaign.

Such is politics! Far too often the vote goes where the money is.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at October 5, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #186608

Silma, I agree entirely on preserving immigrant labor for Western and Southern agriculture PROVIDED the borders are secured and those migrating to work are coming in via a legal and documnented process. Also provided that they are paid legal wages for legal hours and they are provided port-a-johnnies so I can buy spinach again.


Posted by: David R. Remer at October 6, 2006 12:34 AM
Comment #186611

Rohrbacher represents a district with 46 miles of coastline but has 100% negative ratings on environmental issues. His grotesquely gerrymandered district may be the most distorted in the nation, so seemingly secure that he is the ONLY Congressman to have publically defend Jack Abramoff. Rohrbacher is the poster child for California’s outrageously anti-choice Congressional districting to the extent that the pundits have predicted not a single incumbent will be unseated. His opponent Democrat Jim Brandt is a successful businessman, Vietnam combat pilot veteran, and political moderate. If he indeed “has no chance,” then there is indeed something rotten in our political system. “““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““

Posted by: john Pohlmann at October 6, 2006 12:54 AM
Comment #186612

David Remer,

That all involves the use of “common sense”. Of course that’s nearly extinct in DC. (Not just among politicians either, listen to the press corps)

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 6, 2006 1:34 AM
Comment #186615

Although I plan to vote Democratic in November, I’m not at all confident that the Democrats are able to do much better than the Repubicans. What I’d really like to see is the emergence of a new party that politically is in the center of the two parties that we now have.

Posted by: trublu at October 6, 2006 1:56 AM
Comment #186616
Democrats who want piecemeal border and national security - shame on you. Border and national security after 9/11 should have been absolute top first priorities. But, you had to play along with Republicans for 5 years before offering up a bandaid solution taking 10 or more years to complete when border security was demanded by circumstance on Sept. 12, 2001.

David, I cherish this very rare instance in which you and I agree on an issue. Border security is an absolute disgrace and I admit the Republicans are to be held responsible, but the Democrats seem to want even less enforcement and a relaxing of the laws. I have e-mailed my congressman and senators and even GWB himself and all I get is a smug response which resembles someone trying to explain something moderately complex to a toddler or someone with a mental handicap. It’s really frustrating, but I see no way out of it.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 6, 2006 2:40 AM
Comment #186617

Paul,
Thats right. Nor will those seats the Dems pick up be safe. If they pull the same silly stunts the Reps have pulled they will be out of a job too. The Dems track record on budgets, ethics, entitlements, pandering and on and on, is pretty sad. So you Dems want power? Have at it. Get under the microscope and see if you can keep from embarassing yourselves.

- He was a buddy of Jack Abramoff
OK, vote him out. NO buddy of Abramoff should try to run.

- He voted for estate tax reduction
So? Just because someone dies is no reason to nationalize their property.

- He says Iraq was part of the war on terror
Gee, that’s exactly what al-Zawahari thinks too

- He is against abortion
Who isn’t? Oh yeah, the Dems. Don’t get me started.

- He wanted to treat illegal aliens as criminals
Uh…and?

- He called Ariel Sharon of Israel a terrorist; voted against resolution for support of Israel
Fortunately it didn’t make any difference.

Posted by: Charles Adams at October 6, 2006 2:48 AM
Comment #186619

John Pohlmann,

I was not aware that California had a large pro-life movement, I figured it was a lost cause. I’m sure you won’t see it this way, but thanks for some encouraging news.

With regards to gerrymandering, this seems to be the only truly bipartisan game in town nowadays. Both parties engage in this nonsense as it makes sense to them. Often, without changing the number of seats each holds, they can basically guarantee themselves seats, such as seems to be the case with Rohrabacher. This is just one of the many cases of the parties in general and individual lawmakers serving their own ends rather than ours. Of course, with a 98% re-election rate, I don’t suppose I should feel surprised.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 6, 2006 6:13 AM
Comment #186627

Paul, well said, though I’d feel better if I had more confidence in the Dems; that they’ve learned something along the way. What would really send a message in Nov is a large influx of Independents who unseated members of both parties.

Posted by: Zebster at October 6, 2006 7:59 AM
Comment #186628

1LT B-
Our party may draw districts to benefit themselves, but maybe you should look into the whole TRMPAC operation to see how things work down here in Texas.

It is illegal for corporate money to be spent on elections here in Texas. Tom DeLay raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from Virginia business interests and other non-Texas related enterprises and individuals, and then sent this money to the national party, which sent down an equal payment to the State representative campaigns of Republicans in crucial seats. That allowed them to win and to produce a monstrously gerrymandered redistricting map, one which included a district that stretched from Houston all the way to Beaumont- the distance between Philadelphia and DC. That map was alteration from a map that had been formulated by the courts to favor Republicans. It turned out that while it did, many Republican moderates still chose to favor longtime Democrats.

This map ensured that Republicans would keep a Majority, even in the face of a downturn in their popularity. It also meant that there were a greater percentage of Republicans in the House representing Texans than there were Texan Republicans to be represented.

We may redraw districts to our advantage, but to engineer the manipulation of congressional districts to this degree? We haven’t sunk that far. All in all I think representing communities and the real balance of political influence in the states is a better idea. The more you overrepresent one party, the more you guarantee and eventual backlash from the other side.

By making your side more unaccountable, it also serves to make them less likely to stick to principles, so it doesn’t benefit your own party either. Districts should be drawn to represent Americans, not protect party incumbents.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2006 7:59 AM
Comment #186630

Good post Paul. Several reasons why anyone can win:

1. Typically low voter turnout (probably less than 50% for mid-terms), means as much depends on who shows up as how the voters vote.

2. Many independent/undecided voters means they are not red or blue all the time.

3. “Safe” seats generally meaning the incumbent had a 55-60% margin in the last election, anything can happen in almost any gerrymandered district. That’s just not enought to be truly “safe.”

Posted by: Steve K at October 6, 2006 8:49 AM
Comment #186637

Stephen Daugherty:

We may redraw districts to our advantage, but to engineer the manipulation of congressional districts to this degree? We haven’t sunk that far.

Do you realize what your argument has become? It’s a grown up version of the kindergarten taunt…”You did TOOOO!!!” Your argument is that Democrats do bad things but Republicans do worse. Now why is it that Democrats can’t seem to get elected on that platform>>?? Because the platform sucks, that’s why.

In Texas, Republicans were far UNDER represented. They changed that, and now are OVER represented. Gerrymandering is the issue, and it needs to be stopped. Its not a Democratic or Republican issue—-its fully bipartisan.

I’m open to ideas for stopping gerrymandering. I’d favor something as simple as saying that districts need to be rectangular, to avoid the amoeba-like shapes we have now.

If we continue to point fingers of blame on a partisan basis, we (the people) will lose. Instead of pointing fingers, what are your solutions?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 6, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #186638

Stephen,

joebag pretty much beat me to the punch. I tend to think the reason Democrats don’t do this right now is simply that they are out of power. Where they could, however, they’ve been more than happy to solidify seats they already held. I have no doubt that if brought into power, they’ll do the same damned thing. Joebag is right, this is probably the only truly bipartisan effort out there. Our elected representatives won’t stop it, so I think its up to us.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 6, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #186640

Paul Siegel,

If more people also researched their congresspersons, they might decide to stop re-electing (empowering) irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way, incumbent politicians. It wouldn’t be because he’s Republican too, would it? : )

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA, District 45)

  • Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004) (this should be a Constitutional Amendment???)

  • Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) (Hmmmm…Republicans seem to have a problem with this sort of thing)

  • Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003) (how ridiculous)

  • Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001) (don’t we have more serious problems to adderss)

  • Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996) (This is serious. No respect for the Constitution)

  • Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998) (this will help hasten the decline o public education?)

  • Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997) (Oh, I see … now it’s starting to make sense.)

  • Voted YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994) (Some dumb ass politicians don’t have the foggiest idea what the 1st Amendment is about.)

  • Rated 17% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003) (one way to end public education is to undermine the funding of it.)

  • Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997) (Once again, this dumb ass politician doesn’t get it. Government shall make no laws respecting or prohibiting religion.)

  • Voted YES on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006) (Of course. Most (if not all) incumbents want to restrict third parties and independents. They want to keep your choices limitied. That’s part of how they maintain their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies.)

  • Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) (NO kidding. Imagine that.)

  • Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999) (NO kidding. Can you believe that?)

  • Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006) (Well, what do you expect from someone that has no clue about the Constitution?)

  • Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
    Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
    Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
    Government is too big, too intrusive, too easy with money. (Sep 1994) (Is there something inconsistent about all that? Oh right … Iraq is the front of the war on terrorism? Spending is a problem, but we have plent of money for an unnecessary war? Nevermind both are now slipping away. )

  • Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999) (They want to keep plundering surpluses and undermining Social Security. No mystery there.)

  • Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005) (Capital gains taxes are 10% to 15%, but the average tax rate on most Americans is 21%. Can you say “Tax cuts for the rich?”)

  • Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001) (More of the same. After all, 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more) come from a mere 0.15% of all eligible voters (i.e. the rich)))

  • Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax (“death tax”). (Apr 2001)
    Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001) (It shouldn’t be eliminated. It should be treated like income. Not taxed at a ridiculous 90%; taxed at the rate for that individual.)

  • Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006) (They are in denial, BIG time.)

  • Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002) (Well, there may be an valid excuse for that, since we were ALL fooled (either lied to, or severe incompetence; take your pick)

  • Voted YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001) (Congress is not supposed to make ANY laws respecting or prohibiting religion. Besides, why don’t churches use their own money?)

  • Voted to continue awarding contracts to Halliburton even if the Pentagon’s own audit processes found that more than $100 million of their contractor’s costs in Iraq were unreasonable.

  • (Dana Rohrabacher defended Jack Abramoff. He said “he’s [Abramoff] a good person who’s been unjustly criticized. Rohrabacher was tied to the Abramoff scandal on loan papers, and is a recipient of contributions from Jack Abramoff. But, afterward, as most politicians, Rohrabacher had a strategic plan to get as far away from Jack Abramoff as humanly possible. What a loyalty?)

There’s more, but that ought to be enough.
Unfortunately, watch ‘em get re-elected.
What’s going on? Why are voters so fond of incumbents, no matter how irresponsible and corrupt they prove to be? It appears voters care less about the nation than retaining a cu$hy, coveted seat in Congress for irresponsible, corrupt, FOR SALE, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way incubment politicians. It appears voters are more fond of wallowing partisan warfare and retaining power for THEIR party than the future of the nation. Keep it up much longer, and it won’t matter.

Paul Siegel wrote,

  • He [Rohrabacher] wanted to treat illegal aliens as criminals
The problem with trying to use that argument is that, by a strict definition of the word, someone who breaks the law is a criminal. Now, should it be a felony? No (at least, not the first offense). And, demonizing illegal aliens that are merely looking for work should NOT be the goal. What should be a goal is enforcing the EXISTING laws, prosecute the greedy employers that are breaking the law, and secure the borders. But, hypocritical politicians won’t do that. They (from both parties) want cheap labor and votes (yes, some illegal aliens are voting). They also think they can immigrate their way out of our dismal fiscal problems. How will importing tens of millions of impoverished and uneducated help that? Already, 32% to 46% of illegal aliens receive welfare. 29% of our prison populations (state and federal) are illegal aliens, and they aren’t in prison for mere 1st offense illegal immigration violations. But, politicians prefer to pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other, rather than simply enforce existing laws. BTW, that cheap labor is not cheap. It costs all Americans, on average, after all profits and most burdens are included, a annual net loss of over $70 billion per year.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 6, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #186649

As much as I may hate the way the Republicans have run this country for the past 6 years, I don’t think a Democratic congress will bring much change. Frankly, there could be a 100% turnover in congress and there wouldn’t be significant changes made. The way our system is set up, we are destined for more of the same. Our system is based on self-preservation and greed and the outcome of those two motivations is entirely predictable. Only with true radical reform can we hope for our representatives to really represent us.

Campaign financing: Take this away. Candidates spend too much time raising money anyway. And when they do, they are beholden to someone for it. Publicly financed campaigns will put every candidate on an even playing field, will reduce the influence of powerful contributors, and will save taxpayers a fortune.

Severe penalties for corruption: Someone who has been elected to represent the citizens of this country has an extraordinary obligation to uphold and not violate the laws. Any digression should not be treated on the same scale as a typical citizen’s. The crime should be against the people of the United States and the punishment should be as though the violator has committed treason. Put them on their best behavior. Make them so fearful of the results that it’s not worth the transgression.

Make the president a non-party position: The lack of congressional oversight has much to do with party loyalty. If the president looks bad because of his policies, his bad decisions, or his own corruption, his entire party looks bad and risks losing house and senate seats. If the president had no party affiliation, congress would not have to go along with (or dissent with) the president’s policy and could make decisions based on what makes sense and what their constituents want, rather than on what their party is telling them to do.

It’s unlikely we will get anything even close to the kind of reform that is necessary. Our elected officials will continue to line their pockets, and those of their friends and supporters, and we the people will pay the price for that.

Posted by: Stan at October 6, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #186656

Duane-o said: “It’s really frustrating, but I see no way out of it.”

Vote Out Incumbents. It ain’t no quick fix and will take a couple of election cycles, but, it is the only way to force politicians to align their priorities with the nation’s and the people’s.

I am warmed by the idea that we can agree on an issue Duane-o. Hope lives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 6, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #186658

Stan, if Democrats gain control of Congress, one or both houses, some things will change, some will improve, and some will worsen over what would have taken place had Republicans remained. Differing value and priority sets dictate that this will be true.

The big question is: will the really important and looming problems we face, receive efficient and effective solutions?

For example, I seriously doubt our national debt situation will improve at all.

But, we may change course on Iraq without pulling out entirely leaving the nation to be invaded, which potentially would reduce the cost and loss of life significantly.

Education would probably improve, but, border security would progress more slowly as the divide our resources across a bunch of other immigration programs prolonging the completion of a whole border protection plan.

But, I wouldn’t get too many hopes up for at least 2 years. Regardless of whether Democrats take one or both houses of Congress, I can guarantee you that the veto pen Bush lost in 2001, will be found again in a real damn hurry.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 6, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #186661

…the sleaziness of Dennis Hastert…

I think its rather funny that the Democrats are critical of Hastert but I don’t hear any of them attacking Foley. Of coarse if they pick on Foley they will anger the core of the Democratic party, many of whom think a Congressman having sex with an underage boy is not that big a deal. Since we have the benefit of hindsite on this issue we don’t have to guess if this is true. So then why call Hastert sleazy? What exactley did Tip O’meal do about Gary Studs (actually had sex with an underage male page)? Was it sleazy for Bill clinton to pardon Mel Reynolds? (convicted of a sex crime not just of sending some e-mails). Based on their track record what do you think the Democratic leadership would have done if they were in Hasterts position?
I don’t think the Republicans should run from this issue I think they should use it to point out how the 2 parties respond differently to these types of situations.

Posted by: Carnak at October 6, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #186668

David,
I agree with you that we’ll see some change should the Democrats win control of congress. First and foremost, congress will be less likely to simply rubber stamp GWB’s hideous policies and appointments. Second, perhaps with supoena power, congress will begin shedding some light on how deep the corruption runs. It’s amazing how much has come to light despite the fact that Republicans are stonewalling all attempts at congressional review. I suspect that Abramoff and Foley and Valerie Plame represent just the tip of the iceberg. If congress really delves into the extent of the corruption in re-building Iraq and re-building New Orleans, and the extent of the lies and incompetence that even got us to where we are in Iraq, the Republicans will be in even worse shape come 2008 than they are today.

Nonetheless, I don’t think real fundamental change will come until we completely overhaul our system—one which seems to be built on corporate profits rather than public welfare.

Posted by: Stan at October 6, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #186670

If you want to get fired up, read Nancy Pelosi’s call to arms.
Our new battle cry? “DRAIN THE SWAMP”!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061006/ap_on_el_ge/pelosi_time;_ylt=AsEDCrTU6orkv2BzyiJJBPcEtbAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhZDJjOXUyBHNlYwNtdm5ld3M-

I’ll wait for the usual negative responses from the usual suspects.

Posted by: Observer at October 6, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #186675
David R. Remer wrote: But, I wouldn’t get too many hopes up for at least 2 years. Regardless of whether Democrats take one or both houses of Congress, I can guarantee you that the veto pen Bush lost in 2001, will be found again in a real damn hurry.
True, unfortunately. A slightly Democrat Congress and Republican executive branch is a recipe for grid-lock.

That does not bode well for the next two years. Debt will continue to grow alarmingly beyond control, inflation will continue to grow, foreclosures will continue to climb, the middle-income-class will continue to shrink, median incomes will continue to fall, illegal aliens will continue to pour across the borders by the millions, Social Security surpluses will continue to be plundered, the government and Fed will continue to borrow and print more money, jobs will continue to leave the U.S., the trade deficits will continue to grow, taxes will increase (rather than ever pass fair tax reform; they like the tax system the way they have perverted it), irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians will still carry the water for the big money donors (83% of federal campaign donations come from a mere 0.15% of all eligible voters), and government will continue to grow and grow to nightmare proportions.

Congress won’t ever improve much until voters give them some incentive, and re-electing (empowering) them certainly is not the solution. 90% re-election rates in Congress (98% in the House) is certainly not the solution. Why do voters do that? Because they think THEIR congress persons are good, or they simply pull the party-lever. Voters care less about the nation than securing a cu$hy, coveted seat for THEIR congress person in THEIR party.

Stan wrote: As much as I may hate the way the Republicans have run this country for the past 6 years, I don’t think a Democratic congress will bring much change.
I agree. Only slightly, and only temporarily.
Stan wrote: Frankly, there could be a 100% turnover in congress and there wouldn’t be significant changes made.
Well, I don’t agree with that. It might take several election cycles, but I believe they would finally get the message, if only voters cared more about the nation, than securing a cu$hy, coveted seat for THEIR congress persons of THEIR party.
Stan wrote: The way our system is set up, we are destined for more of the same. Our system is based on self-preservation and greed and the outcome of those two motivations is entirely predictable.
Stan, that is human nature, and any succuessful organization, government, and society must understand that, and implement, and enforce laws to promote Education, Transparency, and Accountability.
  • Education = an understanding of the importance of: Education, Transparency, Accountability, Power, Responsibility, Corruption, and the fundamental human desire to seek security and prosperity with the least effort and pain, and that some will resort to dishonest, unethical, or illegal methods to obtain it;
  • Transparency = visibility and simplification of cleverly over-complicated processes to reveal and identify abusers, create outrage, reduce opportunities for abuse, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
  • Accountability = consequences needed to encourage law enforcement, encourage ethical behavior, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
  • Power = force required to enforce the laws, discontinue abuse, ensure consequences, punish abusers, and discourage abuse and dishonesty; but unchecked Power without sufficient Education, Transparency, and Accountability breeds Corruption.
  • Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability
  • Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability
Voters can not arrive at a Solution, until voters understand the basics, and how to account for the human factor at the root of the Problem. Voters have the one simple, responsible mechanism, right under their very own noses, that voters were supposed to be using all along to peacefully force government to be Transparent, Responsible and Accountable too !
  • Stop Repeat Offenders.
  • Don’t Re-Elect Them !
Stan wrote: Only with true radical reform can we hope for our representatives to really represent us.
It does not have to be radical. In fact, the solution is really simple. The problem is one of choice. Progress is very slow (2 steps forward, 1.999 steps backward). Still, there is no guarantee that the U.S. will be around in 100 years (or less). Voters have the right to vote, but don’t appreciate it, and don’t know how to use it effectively, due to laziness and ignorance (one and the same, sort of). There are two classes of people. One class derives concentrated power from its concentrated wealth. The other class has power only in numbers, and that power is largely ineffective due to their inability to mobilize through organization (such as merely not re-electing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians).

It may all be futile, but we don’t know that for certain. Giving up will only guarantee failure. So, the logical thing to do is try to try.

The solution, if any, must start with Education.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 6, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #186676

by all means the republicans should stand up to this issue. while they are doing that, perhaps they can explain some of the points posed by Stan.

listen once and for all, we didn’t make foley drink, we didn’t make foley type, we didn’t make foley want to have sex w/a child. clinton wasn’t beside him saying “try to have sex with that child”. this was brought on by foley, hidden by the republicans, and those responsible will have to face the consequences. republicans did not learn their lesson from watergate, that is evident. it wasn’t the crime, it was the cover up.

the republican party has sunk to an all time low. this is sickening. the more bs spread around, the more votes they will lose. 2 weeks ago the gop was polished, and well rested. now, they are slinging crap over everybody. spewing defense for an INDEFENSIBLE act. just stop. stop pointing fingers, stop yelling, stop lying. and clean this up! if your congressman was involved, by either cover up or turning a blind eye they need to go. and for the republican party it is up to you to decide - right or wrong. continue to cover up and point fingers or make the people in charge of this situation admit wrong doing, and resign. step down, admit mistakes were made.

if you are the house speaker, you took on great responsibilities with that position. you knew you would be held accountable for the house. now, act responsible, and accountable and resign

Posted by: mar at October 6, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #186679

Shelly,
I live in SC as well, and I sincerely hope you are right about the Dems pulling together here…

Posted by: Linda H. at October 6, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #186684
Observer wrote: If you want to get fired up, read Nancy Pelosi’s call to arms. Our new battle cry? “DRAIN THE SWAMP”!!!! I’ll wait for the usual negative responses from the usual suspects.
It’s hard for me to get fired up by anything Pelosi says. Where have they been all these years. Why propose old ideas now? They’ve been delinquent for years … goin’ along to get along. Nancy Pelosi:
  • Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)
  • Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
  • Pelosi was fined for failing to return excessive contributions from Pelosi’s PACs within 60 days, as required by law
  • Voted NO on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
  • Voted YES on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000) (what about our own $22 trillion in federal debt?)
  • Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003); Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999) (well, it’s a tough issue…now that we’re there, it’s criminal to underfund the troops)Voted NO on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006) (Interesting)
  • Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
  • Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
  • Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
  • Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)
  • Voted NO on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)
  • Voted YES on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001) (she knows who butters her bread)
  • Voted NO on eliminating the “marriage penalty”. (Jul 2000)
  • Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a “Big Spender” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
  • Voted for (bringin’ home the pork-barrel): $4,000,000 for the KIPP Foundation in San Francisco for the KIPP School Leadership Program in the district of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
  • $2,500,000 added (more pork-barrel) by the House for projects in the district of House appropriator Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): $1,500,000 for the San Pablo Bay and Mare Island Strait and $1,000,000 for a San Francisco Bay long-term management strategy.
  • More irresponsible pork-barrel: $5,315,000 for museums and arts programs in the state and districts of House Labor/HHS Appropriations subcommittee members Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Randy Cunningham (R-Calif.) including: $1,200,000 for music education at the GRAMMY Foundation; $1,000,000 for model arts education at the de Young Museum in San Francisco; $290,000 for a Santa Barbara Maritime Museum environmental exhibit; and $100,000 for the Eden Alternative Project at the Motion Picture and Television Fund and the University of California.
  • $42,397,000 added for projects in the state of Senate Labor/HHS Appropriations subcommittee member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and House Labor/HHS Appropriations subcommittee members Randy Cunningham (R-Calif.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), including: $1,704,000 for the Ocean Education Center at Dana Point; $921,000 for the Community Arts Partnership at the California Institute of the Arts in Santa Clarita; $850,000 for music education at the GRAMMY Foundation in Santa Monica; $547,000 for the Riverside Community College District School of Arts; and $250,000 for the American Film Institute for a media literacy project with the Los Angeles County School District.
  • $900,000 added by Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations subcommittee member Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for projects in San Francisco: $750,000 for the Life Learning Academy charter school and $150,000 for the Larkin Street Youth Center.
  • Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), (October 28, 2003) the minority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, said she believes the recent investigation that found hundreds of illegal aliens working at Wal-Mart is nothing short of “terrorizing” that company’s employees.

Pelosi, along with a lot of other irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians need to be replaced. Continually re-electing this ilk will NOT solve the problems. It will only make it worse.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 6, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #186690

republicans - lied about weapons of mass destruction that sent our country into war. our soldiers are dying daily, at an increasing rate each and every day. covered up a page/sex scandal by a “drunk” politician who preyed on children. game set match.

and for bringing up california - duke cunningham - resigned in disgrace. so, if any of the above points were associated w/him try again.

can we get just one republican to admit that the last 6 years have been a total fiasco? will you fight for these people even knowing all the wrong doing? will the moral majority see the complete immorality of this administration? will the soccer moms vote for more politicians who place power above children again? will the republicans stop lying? will they stop pushing fear? will everyone recognize market manipulation?

if you understand this, vote democrat nov 7th.

Posted by: mar at October 6, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #186703
mar wrote: if you understand this, vote democrat nov 7th.

That’s part of the problem.
Will we never learn?
If you really want to help:

  • Stop Repeat Offenders (in BOTH parties).

  • Don’t Re-Elect Irresponsible, Bought-and-Paid-for, look-the-other-way, Incumbent Politicians !

Look at YOUR own congress person? None of mine are getttin my vote, regardless of party.

The reason incumbents enjoy a cu$hy 90% re-election rate is because voters keep blindly pulling the party-lever (i.e. straight ticket), and/or really believe that THEIR congress person is not OK, but everyone else’s congress persons are irresponsible. Right; it’s the other guy’s fault.

Polls show that people think the problem is with someone else’s congress person. Not THEIRS. And, those same people probably don’t have the slightest idea, and have never even bothered to look at how they vote (as opposed to what they say).

Think NEW-COMERS.
Incubments have proven they won’t ever pass common-sense, no-brainer, responsible reforms.
New-comers to congress can never pass common-sense reforms as long as they are always vastly out-numbered by incumbents, who won’t allow new-comers to ever pass any common-sense, no-brainer reforms. Voters are incredulous at the resistance of Congress to pass many common-sense reforms, but keep re-electing those same incumbent politicians.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 6, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #186720

Charles Adams,

It’s funny how you dump on the Dems for a comment about budgets. It is only the Republicans who have given us the biggest debts in US history. Nixion, Reagan and now Bush Jr. Both times the Dems came in and cut the US debt.

Yes, things weren’t always great under Carter or Clinton, but at least they knew how to cut debt. 6 of 8 budgets sent to congress for approvel under Clinton were balanced. Show me the last republican presidnet to submitt a balanced buget to congress.

You fear the democrats as spenders, but no one, but no one spends more money than republicans. Try this Charles, quite your job and get one that pays half what you currently make. Keep your home and all your payments you have now and see if you don’t go into debt. Oh yea, at the same time you take the lower paying job, buy a bigger house, new car and an airplane. Let’s see how that works for you.

GWB and the republican controlled house have increased spending by more than 20% over the last 6 years. They spend money like they can just make it. OH YEA, they do. The republicans have no record to run on that shows they spend moeny any better than anyone else. In fact the last 6 years shows they spend worse than anyone in history.

Posted by: Rusty at October 6, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #186728

d.a.n. - i guess the new cheer for the repub party is vote them all out. all the while you are going to secretly vote your repub people back in correct? good for talking points, but not really going to happen right? listen this is a battle. the repub propaganda is in full swing. the president is out stumping calling us weak, and stomping all over the truth. if we dare question this administration, we are “second guessing”, and we really don’t understand what is going on. get this we do understand, and my battle cry is VOTE THE REPUBLICANS OUT OF OFFICE - here, there and everywhere.

thank you rusty for an honest breakdown of the republican spending habits.

Posted by: mar at October 6, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #186747

“Pelosi, along with a lot of other irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians need to be replaced. Continually re-electing this ilk will NOT solve the problems. It will only make it worse.”

First things first, d.a.n.
I dont HAVE the choice, this election, of replacing the entire lot of them with newcomers. What we DO have a chance for is to return the balance of power that’s been off kilter for years now. I realize it’s your obsession that ALL incumbents be voted out, but I’ll settle for a nice even split for now.
And your list of Pelosi’s voting records didn’t impress. I agreed with half, at least, and like a political hit ad, a vote for a particular bill can be interpreted in many ways.
Anyway, I WAS enjoying your posts, but it seems you’ve gone back to the one issue, cut and paste stuff we’ve read 1000 times from you.
Let me ask you a straight up question:
Would you prefer the House and Senate to go back to Democrat majority, or stay Republican (try and answer without the usual “VOTE THEM ALL OUT” rhetoric.) thanks.

Posted by: Observer at October 6, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #186757
mar wrote: d.a.n. - i guess the new cheer for the repub party is vote them all out.
mar, I’m not Republican anymore, and can understand why many have left that party. Ask anyone here. Look at my web-site. But, I guess some people will stoop to any tactic to have their way; to make sure THEIR party wins more seats. That’s what is most important, eh?
mar wrote: all the while you are going to secretly vote your repub people back in, correct?
mar, Nope. I am most likely to vote for challengers (regardless of party). Why? Because that is what will do the most good. Because most (if not all incumbents) are irresponsible. I have already researched my senators and representative. None of them will get my vote, because they are all irresponsible. They all vote on pork-barrel, waste, corporate welfare, and look the other way. I’m disgusted with incumbents in BOTH parties, as everyone should be. But too many are being fooled into perpetuating a 90% re-election rate for congress by vowing to re-elect THEIR incumbents. So, why should WE re-elect any Democrat incumbents? Do you know 10, 20, 50, or 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable? BOTH parties are corrupt, and so are the voters the empower them. Democrats have been fairly silent every step of the way. What about that? That’s why they call ‘em Demopubs and Republocrats. I wish Democrats had TRULY been the obstructionists that Bush accuses them of being. But, a majority of Democrats went along to get along. The point is, ALL irresponsible incubments in BOTH parties need to go. That would be most (if not all). So, why should anyone for for any Democrat incumbent? I’m not going to do that either. There’s a better solution. But, it’s arguments like yours that lets both parties keep taking turns, and enjoying a 90% re-election rate. Only a third of Senate seats are up for election, but allM Representative seats are up for election. If you don’t want to vote Republican (which I don’t), then consider a Democrat or Independent challenger.

Sadly, because of people with blind loyalty for THEIR party, we are about to merely let the “OUT Party” become the “IN Party” and vice-versa. It won’t solve anything. The real solution is to do the one simple, common-sense, responsible thing voters were supposed to be doing all along, always: Don’t re-elect irresponsible incumbent politicians (regardless of party). Then you may see some real reform. Otherwise, newcomers will still be vastly outnumbered by incumbents, and the corruption will continue to grow and grow.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Observer wrote:
First things first, d.a.n.
I dont HAVE the choice, this election, of replacing the entire lot of them with newcomers.

Why not? Are there no challengers?

Observer wrote: What we DO have a chance for is to return the balance of power that’s been off kilter for years now.
Yes, it’s been awful, and getting worse. However, like Stan said above, things won’t improve much, if at all, even if Democrats get the majority. Democrats will get the majority. That’s almost certain. But, how about considering some Democrat challengers?
Observer wrote: I realize it’s your obsession that ALL incumbents be voted out, but I’ll settle for a nice even split for now.
That’s what we always settle for. Been there. Done that. That’s the problem.
Observer wrote: And your list of Pelosi’s voting records didn’t impress. I agreed with half, at least, and like a political hit ad, a vote for a particular bill can be interpreted in many ways.
Well, that explains a lot too. Which ones did you agree with? And how do you justify the other half that you don’t agree with?
Observer wrote: Anyway, I WAS enjoying your posts, but it seems you’ve gone back to the one issue, cut and paste stuff we’ve read 1000 times from you.
Observer, Thanks. Glad you like some of the, but remember, not everyone here is a regular. Not everyone visits here daily. And we are all pushing OUR agenda. We all want what WE want. We are all trying to achieve that with logic, debate, and repetition. Also, they’re easy to scroll past. Hey, I may or may not be a fan of your writing, opinions, or leanings, but recognize your right to write what ever you want. The funny thing is, the way this works is this. Those that agree with a point, want to see more of it. Those that don’t is because the disagree with it. So you might as well get used to it, because you’re like to see a lot more of it.
Observer wrote: Let me ask you a straight up question: Would you prefer the House and Senate to go back to Democrat majority, or stay Republican (try and answer without the usual “VOTE THEM ALL OUT” rhetoric.) thanks.
Observer, I’d prefer a 50/50 split with all irresponsible incumbents replaced with newcomers (that would be most, if not all). However, only a third of the Senate seats are up for election. Balance of Power (as you said) IS important, but that can never happen by re-electing irresponsible incumbents.

You say you’d settle for a balance of power, but what voters don’t understand is that they are merely letting both parties take turns being the “IN Party” and the “Out Party”, and they result is that incumbents enjoy a 90% re-election rate, and that is the biggest part of the problem. It occurs because we are fooled into thinking that we have to vote for incumbents, so that we can keep out incumbents of the OTHER party. Look at past elections. It happens over and over, but

Posted by: d.a.n at October 6, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #186758

…but nothing gets better.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 6, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #186779

“But, how about considering some Democrat challengers? “

Cause that’s a good way to end up STAYING the minority, and we see where that leads to.
In my state, Jack Carter was the suprise winner in the primary. I pray to whatever power is listening that he takes Gibbons seat.

“And how do you justify the other half that you don’t agree with? “

By the fact that I disagree with 99% of the average republican congressmans votes. Thinking your going to agree 100% with the rep from your party is silly.
And since you asked, I LIKE government grants for arts, museums, youth centers, halfway houses, etc. I take it you dont since that featured heavily in your Pelosi criticisms.

”. We all want what WE want. We are all trying to achieve that with logic, debate, and repetition”

I try to avoid the “repetition” part. Having entertainment value is necessary to get people to read your posts.

“Observer, I’d prefer a 50/50 split “

But that would leave the tie breaking vote to Cheney. I can’t imagine a worse scenario.

It occurs because we are fooled into thinking that we have to vote for incumbents”

Well, I can’t control which candidate other states parties vote into the general election. I can only hope that we end the stranglehold the right wing has had as its proven disaster.
Like I said, your point of view has merit, but since that AINT gonna happen right now, I have to root for a Democratic landslide and a counterbalance to the Madness of King George.

Posted by: Observer at October 6, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #186915

Why have we allowed the Republicans to monopolize the security issue, when their record is so transparently pathetically weak?
All we have to do is, every time some Republican calls us weak on security, simply ask, “Where is Osama bin Laden?”
It is a national disgrace that he is still at large 5 years after 9/11. How can GW Bush flaunt 9/11 at us when he has done nothing to kill or capture the perpetrator?

Posted by: Dragon at October 7, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #187016
Observer, I can only hope that we end the stranglehold the right wing has had as its proven disaster. Like I said, your point of view has merit, but since that AINT gonna happen right now, I have to root for a Democratic landslide and a counterbalance to the Madness of King George.
There is another way, if ever enough voters remember the one simple, common-sense, responsible, non-partisan thing they were supposed to be doing all along, always. Don’t re-elect irresponsible incumbents. See, what voters (take yourself for instance) fail to realize is that Republicans are going to do the same thing, and re-elect their incubments too! Thus, the end-result is 90% re-election rate in Congress (98% in the House). They have if all figured out. Voters have not yet figured it out, and keep re-electing incubments of THEIR party. So nothing gets better. Posted by: d.a.n at October 8, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #187203

To those who take the polling of future election seriously you will be very disappointed come November 8th.On election day 2004 the polls had George Bush packed and headed back to Texas.As we all know G.W. still today hangs his hat at the White house.Sex scandal’s do not threaten live’s war’s Do.This is what seperates the Dems. from the Republicans.Republicans work on issues like Terrorism and the ecconemy Democrats work on ways to destroy the ecconemy and ways to protect the Terrorest from the President and the American People.If you want your taxes raised and you want to lose the war of Survival Vote Democrat across the board.If you want to Survive And want your Grand-children to grow old in a Respectfull Country Vote Republican across the board.Its easy Survival or Beards and Turbins.You make the Call on November 7th!

Posted by: PETRO at October 9, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #187216

PETRO,
Are you really George Bush? Or Cheney? Or Rumsfeld.
Seems like Bush was on TV saying the very same thing.
Democrats are soft on terror.
Iraq ia the front of the war on terror.
Iraq ia making us safer.
There weren’t any polls in 2004 showing Bush was going home.
The war in Iraq is not a war of survival.
What it is … is an unnecessary war; a war started on either flawed intelligence, or out-right lies (take your pick). No WMD. No trace of WMD. Now we have 2743 U.S. troops dead (as of 09-Oct-2006), 20468 wounded and maimed, and 48,693 Iraqi deaths.

Fortunately, most Americans are not buying those lies any longer. I just hope voters vote-out Republicans and Democrats alike that got us into that, and perpetuated it, lied about it and painted a rosy picture all along the way, lost focus on Afghanistan, and contributed to numerous blunders along the way.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 9, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #187226

d.a.n. When a bomb goes off in your local mall and maybe a family member dies in the explosion I hope you remember the words you just wrote!Check your fact’s the polls had G.W. losing by 3oclock election day.Had him losing big time.Polls are unreliable and most people are too busy working or doing constructive things and have no time for polls.Polls are for the most part answerd by women at home watching soap opera’s and Democrat men with nothing to do but blog on the Net.Talk to me November 8th if you Dare.

Posted by: PETRO at October 9, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #187233

d.a.n. there is no such animal as a rosy picture of war.Let me enlighten you.War by its very definition is death and destruction.There is no easy button when it comes to war.One thing for sure a war has never been won by retreating.We live in a world that wants fast food fast cars fast women and fast talkers.As G.W. has said its hard work.The Democrats you can not blame because they know not what hard work is.You should thank your lucky stars for a President with the backbone of George Bush he will save your bacon despite your weak work ethic.

Posted by: PETRO at October 9, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #187405

PETRO,
That’s a lot of nice spin, but unfortunately, that’s all it is.
Four words for you: Hook, Line, and Sinker
Or, two words: In denial

PETRO wrote: d.a.n. When a bomb goes off in your local mall and maybe a family member dies in the explosion I hope you remember the words you just wrote!
Pure nonsense. Pure fear mongering. Or, the result of some really good brain-washing? Uhhmmmm … by the way, what’s going on in Afghanistan these days, eh? Seems like your buddy, G.W. lost focus on the real terrorists. Care to comment on that stupidity? That stupidity has cost the lives of thousands of U.S. troops, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people.
PETRO wrote: Check your fact’s the polls had G.W. losing by 3oclock election day.Had him losing big time… . Talk to me November 8th if you Dare.
In 2004? Not by any polls I saw.
PETRO wrote: Talk to me November 8th if you Dare.
Sure. Why not? What’s the dare?
PETRO wrote: d.a.n. there is no such animal as a rosy picture of war.Let me enlighten you. War by its very definition is death and destruction. There is no easy button when it comes to war. One thing for sure a war has never been won by retreating.
War is death and destruction? Wow, you’re very insightful. Thank you for that enlightenment. Did you figure that out all by yourself?

Right, it’s hard work, eh?
Nevermind Bush got us into an unnecessary war to begin with, based on incompetently flawed intelligence or intentionally inflated and trumped-up intelligence (take your pick).

PETRO wrote: We live in a world that wants fast food fast cars fast women and fast talkers. As G.W. has said its hard work.
Are you sure you aren’t G.W., Cheney, or Rumsfeld? No one would accuse Bush of being a fast talker, the way he mangles the English language.
PETRO wrote: The Democrats you can not blame because they know not what hard work is.
PETRO, I don’t know where you get your information, but a good many Democrats went along with the invasion of Iraq. But, as to blame for a good many things, both Democrat and Republican politicians are pathetic, but WE keep re-electing them.
PETRO wrote: You should thank your lucky stars for a President with the backbone of George Bush …
Why?
  • Thank Bush for starting an unnecessary war, killing hundreds of thousands?
  • Thank Bush for the deaths of 2747 (as of 10-OCT-2006) U.S. troops in an unnecessary war?
  • Thank Bush for the 20,468 wounded and maimed (as of 10-OCT-2006) U.S. troops in an unnecessary war?
  • Thank Bush for poor planning that resulted in more lost lives of U.S. troops?
  • Thank Bush for no WMD?
  • Thank Bush for no body armor for our troops, while him and congress voted on pork-barrel, corporate welfare, and bridges to nowhere?
  • Thank Bush for ignoring general’s recommending more troops to get the job done correctly?
  • Thank Bush for deriding “nation-building” during the 2000 debates, then engaging American troops in one of the most explicit instances of nation building in American history;
  • Thank Bush and Rumsfeld for awarding multi-billion dollar contracts to Halliburton in Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food;
  • Thank Bush for telling Americans there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda;
  • Thank Bush for trying to fight a war “on the cheap”?
  • Thank Bush for Rumsfeld who let military policy be shaped by politicians instead of military conditions?
  • Thank Bush for alienating our allies?
  • Thank Bush for his childish go-it-alone attitude?
  • Thank Bush for ignoring warnings of Bin Laden attacks prior to 9/11?
  • Thank Bush for killing 48693 Iraqis?
  • Thank Bush for running up record debt?
  • Thank Bush for ignoring the borders and ports, and refusing to enforce existing laws?
  • Thank Bush for imporing poverty and disease for cheap labor and votes?
  • Thank Bush for 6 cases per day of eminent domain abuse (legal plunder; tens of thousands of cases since 1998), and the Supreme Court that rubber stamped it?
  • Thank Bush for a new, vast, mismanaged Medicare Prescription Drug plan?
  • Thank Bush for not leveling with Americans about the cost of Medicare (Bush told Congress his new Medicare bill would cost $400 billion over ten years despite conclusions by his own analysts the bill would cost much more) ?
  • Thank Bush for these 99 blunders?
  • Thank Bush for continuing to plunder and mismanage Social Security?
  • Thank Bush for massive pork-barrel, corpocrisy, corporatism, corporate welfare?
  • Thank Bush for losing his veto pen?
  • Thank Bush for growing government even larger, to nightmare proportions?
  • Thank Bush for fear mongering?
  • Thank Bush for looking the other way?
  • Thank Bush for growing poverty?
  • Thank Bush for rising inflation due to massive borrowing, spending, debt, money-printing, and in general, fiscal and moral bankruptcy?
  • Thank Bush for a healthcare system that is increasingly expensive and deadly; killing Americans due to growing corpocrisy and corporatism resulting in pill pushing pharmaceuticals and a complicit FDA that is killing 106,000 people per year, and medical mistakes that are killing 195,000 per year.?
  • Thank Bush for reducing action against improper drug advertising by 80 percent?
  • Thank Bush for a government that is increasing FOR SALE, and bought-and-paid-for politicians that care more about getting re-elected than the welfare of the nation?
  • Thank Bush for 83% of all money from political federal campaign contributions ($200 or more; year 2000) that come from a mere 0.15% of all 200 million eligible U.S. voters. Government is FOR SALE. Thank Bush for that?
  • Thank Bush for energy vulnerabilities, despite the DOE and it’s $24 billion annual budget (that’s 64 million per day)?
  • Thank Bush for the Pension Benefit and Guaranty that is $450 billion in the hole?
  • Thank Bush for Kartrina and FEMA?
  • Thank Bush for the rising cost and falling quality of education?
  • Thank Bush for rising foreclosures for the last two years?
  • illusions
  • Thank Bush for falling median incomes since 1999?
  • Thank Bush for signing a report endorsing outsourcing with thousands of American workers having their jobs shipped overseas; ?
  • Thank Bush for under-funding health care for troops and veterans; ?
  • Thank Bush for doing nothing about election fraud?
  • Thank Bush for trying to use terrorism and fear to rally his base voters?
  • Thank Bush for all that?
PETRO wrote: … he [George Bush] will save your bacon despite your weak work ethic.
PETRO, You believe that Bush gives a damn about you? What do you know about my work ethic? Your statements have no credibility whatsoever. You provide nothing but opinion for any of your conclusions. You are in denial, just like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. You obviously can not grasp reality, no more than Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. It is futile to try to use reason and logic with such brainwashing and closed-mindedness. You provide nothing but opinion and empty rhetoric. No facts or data. Why not? Because facts and data might shatter your delusions?
  • Posted by: d.a.n at October 10, 2006 12:36 PM
    Comment #187469

    d.a.n. The fact is we are at War!Do you as an American want to win this War or do you want to Lose this War?Who Is the enemy?Those who want to Destroy us Or those Who are Dying to protect Us?Call me Old fashioned But I love My Country And I love My peacefull Country man and all Humans who are peacefull No matter what Country They come from!

    Posted by: PETRO at October 10, 2006 4:39 PM
    Comment #187513
    PETRO wrote: d.a.n. The fact is we are at War! Do you as an American want to win this War or do you want to Lose this War?
    PETRO, Things could have turned out MUCH better in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, politicians screwed it up, and will continue to screw it up. There is nothing to win in Iraq. We invaded that country unnecessarily. I want all our troops home now.
    PETRO wrote: Who Is the enemy? Those who want to Destroy us Or those Who are Dying to protect Us?
    PETRO, Those that attacked us are the Taliban and terrorists in Afghanistan. Not Iraq. We are creating enemies by invading nations without a good reason. There was no WMD in Iraq. We were not justified to invade Iraq.

    I want our U.S. troops home, now. That’s not cut and run. Iraqis will have their civil war with or without us. We’ve done enough, don’t ya think? There are now 48,693 Iraqi deaths, 2747 dead U.S. soldiers, 232 coalition troop deaths, and 20,468 wounded and maimed U.S. soldiers.

    How many more will it take to prove Bush and Rumsfeld didn’t make any mistakes? ! ? ! ?

    PETRO wrote: Call me Old fashioned But I love My Country …
    PETRO, So, you are now going to try and play the Patriot card? So, anyone that disagrees with you is a traitor? If you love your country, you should become more informed. Haven’t you heard? There was no WMD. There was no good reason to invade Iraq, and nothing in Iraq is worth more of our U.S. troops lives. The U.S., having made one hell of a royal [explicative] mistake by invading Iraq, then tried to bring order. However, Bush and Rumsfeld screwed that up by trying to do it “on the cheap”, by trying to make military decisions based on politics instead of military conditions. Rumsfeld screwed up BIG time. And Bush can’t fire him, because that would be admitting a mistake, and for Bush and Rumsfeld, nothing is more important than NEVER admitting a mistake. Not even the nation. Not even the additional lives that will be lost trying to prove Bush and Rumsfeld are right. They are in denial. PETRO, Do you want to be like them? Research more. You aren’t bringing many facts to the discussion. Just your opinion. Sorry, but that ain’t enough.
    PETRO wrote: I love My peacefull Country man and all Humans who are peacefull No matter what Country They come from!
    PETRO, Are you for real? Or, are you some sort of shill? If you really love humans “No matter what Country They come from!”, then you should also feel badly for the 48693 dead Iraqis too. And, the U.S. has lost 2747 U.S. troops. And the U.S. has 20,468 wounded and maimed. All because Bush and Congress, based on irresponsibly inflated and flawed intelligence, invaded Iraq unnecessarily. Iraq was NOT a significant threat. The Taliban in Afghanistan were and still are. Bush and Rumsfeld lost focus of the real threat. Did you read the list above? No matter which way you cut it, Bush and Rumsfeld screwed up BIG time. That is simply the truth of the matter. And I do not wish to waste one more American life trying to help Bush and Rumsfeld made no mistakes, since that is clearly not true. It would be laughable, if it were not so serious. Bush, Cheny, and Rumsfeld are directly responsible for the unnecessasry deaths of of tens of thousands of people.

    Iraq is not making us safer. That is a lie.
    Iraq is not the front on the war on terror. That is a lie.
    Afghanistan is where the terrorists that attacked us were, and still are.
    I’m not a Democrat, but listening to Bush call Democrats the “obstructionist party”, the “soft on terror party”, and the “cut and run party” makes me sick. Bush makes me sick. He’s using petty partisan warfare to try and fire up his voting base. And you want to know something else that’s sick? I voted for that stupid, lying jerk in 2004. But, I’m no longer a Republican. I’m also not a Democrat. I’m Independent. Why? Because both parties are [explicative] up. They both contain mostly (if not all) irresponsible, greedy, corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way incumbent politicians. Look at the sort of thing Congress and the President are voting on while our troops are dying, going without body armor, and risking life and limb. If that doesn’t upset you, then nothing will.

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 10, 2006 7:28 PM
    Post a comment