Escalation battle moves to the states.
By on Feb 15th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Escalation battle moves to the states.
“Frustrated by the inability of Democrats in Congress to pass a resolution opposing President Bush’s policies in Iraq, state legislators across the country…are pushing forward with their own resolutions,” the New York Times reports. “Resolutions have passed in chambers of three legislatures, in California, Iowa and Vermont. The Maryland General Assembly sent a letter to its Congressional delegation, signed by a majority of the State Senate and close to a majority of the House, urging opposition to the increase in troops in Iraq. Letters or resolutions are being drafted in at least 19 other states.” Much more at the Progressive States Network.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Uh oh.. Regressives have discovered Federalism.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:55 pmHey Vince,
February 16th, 2007 at 12:03 amRead some of your kinds’ lovely words here.
Hey Vince,
…some of your kinds’…
No thanks.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:15 amGood for those states, but more pressure has to be put on the federal Congress in DC. House and Senate can cut off funding for the Iraq Fiasco War, but not the states.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:29 amUh oh.. Regressives have discovered Federalism.
Comment by Vince P — February 15, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
Uh oh… Sorry to inform you child, but you Regressives have been using Federalism to oppress Gay People, and minorities for decades. I’m glad to hear that as a Gay man, you’re so proud of your movement’s Regressive and Federalist attitudes on Gay Rights. I don’t want to say it’s stupid to vote against your self interests, because we both know it requires an intellect to exist before one can be called stupid.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:51 amCome on…
…just 48 more states…
February 16th, 2007 at 12:58 amDamn, I love a revolution. And I see one starting. This time we are doing it right. One state at a time. I hear there are 20 more lined up. The three main problems will be Nebraska, Idaho and Utah. Let’s GO true Americans. Lets get rid of this Neocon Trash!
February 16th, 2007 at 1:09 amHere is a resolution Bush might understand.
Mr. President, you are one stupid son of a bitch, we want out of Iraq. If you don’t get us out now, we will put you out and then get us out.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:09 amWhat about a binding resolution to require real education?
To require restoration of our Equal Time and Fairness Doctrine provisions?
What about a binding resolution guaranteeing 100% open, honest, fair and transparent triple hand-counted citizen monitored and verified paper ballots?
To require that every possible diplomatic option be investigated,
tried, and actually used before any permission to seek war powers may be requested?
What about a binding resolution to restore and enforce all of
our constitutional rights?
To assert our American constitutional legal civilian authority over all of our American military and clandestine services?
What about a binding resolution to absolutely forbid and strongly punish any use whatsoever of any government resource,
clandestine or otherwise, for any purely political purpose against any American?
What about a binding resolution to forbid and penalize the
witholding of government resources and/or funds from any American, or the use of any government funds or resources against any American based on their political orientation?
What about a binding resolution to insure that every American receives the exact same standard of wage insurance and medical treatment that our elected representatives receive?
What about a binding resolution requiring all elected representatives and all government officials at every level to accept and only to accept the exact same minimum standard of wage insurance and medical care received by any American?
What about a binding resolution to spend 2 trillion dollars on the immediate development and deployment of renewable,
sustainable, 100% environmentally clean safe independent American energy sources?
What about a binding resolution to publicly fund and strictly enforce fair, inexpensive, open and transparent campaign and
lobbying procedures?
What about a binding resolution to require ubiquitous affordable housing and ubiquitous small and/or green business funding and support?
What about a binding resolution to sharply curtail the size and strictly enforce the efficiency of the smallest possible government on all levels?
What about a binding resolution to mandate ubiquitous public transportation?
What about a binding resolution to immediately censure, Impeach and bring Dick Cheney and George Bush to swift and fair trial for numerous High Crimes and Misdemeanors against We, The People of The United States Of America?
=*=
February 16th, 2007 at 4:33 amWhat about a binding resolution to end corporate welfare?
What about a binding resolution to enforce corporate accountability?
What about a binding resolution to require corporations to operate within strict environmental parameters?
What about a binding resolution to require corporations to refrain from any political influence upon their employees?
=*=
February 16th, 2007 at 4:42 amWonder how many states would like to leave the Union at this point?
February 16th, 2007 at 6:40 amRock-n-Roll
February 16th, 2007 at 7:43 amImagine your company selects you for a long-term assignment to whip an overseas subsidiary into shape. You are successful and achieve measurable results. But the home office focuses only on the negative. You put your heart and soul into the job, but support for your efforts slip. Managers try to cut funding and bring you home early. Is this how you’d wish to be treated? Think our troops enjoy it?
February 16th, 2007 at 8:44 am#13..
February 16th, 2007 at 8:52 amthe root of your employment woes may stem from the concept of
overseas subsidiary
“overseas subsidiary” is a quaint euphemism for exploitation of peoples and resources
telling, the phrase “whip the overseas subsidiary into shape…”
February 16th, 2007 at 8:57 amis illinois on that list of 19?
February 16th, 2007 at 9:01 amthe UofI campus town of champaign passed an anti-war resolution last fall… i was very proud that my daughter’s vote helped that to pass…
…
13. If I screwed up as badly as Dubya has screwed up, I would expect to be fired on the spot with cause.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:06 amIt would appear that these state congressmen and women have nothing better to do than pass meaningless, powerless resolutions. Just like the new Democrat congress in the US. If the people wanted to elect a bunch of people that do nothing but grandstand for the press, they would have gone to Hollywood for their candidates.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:06 amold Red Neck sez:
Oh look…a corporate analogy. How very neoconservative of you.
Successful? Successful at what? Please define terms of success, as they exist at this moment (as neocons tend to reinvent the definition of victory on an hourly basis).
Again, tell us exactly what positive aspects we’re supposed to be focusing on. The newly painted schools, perhaps?
And yet again we see the odious neocon canard, “If you don’t support Chimpy’s insane war, you don’t support our troops.”. Get it through your thick skull, moron: support for our brave soldiers and support for Chimpy’s disastrous foreign policy are two completely different things. STOP TRYING TO CONFLATE THE TWO.
You know, if my ‘job’ consisted of being shot at and trying to avoid being blown up, I might not mind all that much.
Think our troops enjoy the situation they’re in now? Think they enjoy being thrust into the role of ‘referee’ for a civil war, with both sides taking shots at them, while they are redeployed again and again and again, despite critical shortages of vital supplies and a complete absence of any achievable goals? Think they enjoy that, jackass?
And one more thing: I can’t help but notice you’re not over there fighting for what you so obviously believe in. Why is that, I wonder?
February 16th, 2007 at 9:06 am#18
February 16th, 2007 at 9:16 amInterestingly, there have been a significant number of actors of Republican persuasion in high office……Ronnie, Arnold, etc…
…and given the performance of the Republican representative attempts at drama these past few days, the trend is now reversing…. politicians going into show business……
Gee…’old Red Neck’ sure shut up in a hurry, didn’t he?
I hate drive-by trolls…they’re like regular trolls, minus the spine.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:34 amThe red quickly spread to his whole face…
February 16th, 2007 at 10:43 amThat’s the ticket! Maybe all the states with a majority that oppose the escalation and being over there should all secede from the union. Who needs Washington, anyway? What’s that bug-infested hole done for any of us, lately? Maybe to become like the European
February 16th, 2007 at 12:15 pmunion-of-countries would be more beneficial.
The states will band together and show CHIMPya what we’re made of!!!!! DON’T TREAD ON US, CHIMPya!!!!!
February 16th, 2007 at 4:55 pmJason Hee Lee
April 12th, 2008 at 11:08 am