But after an afternoon of partisan sniping, Democratic leaders [in the House] put off that vote because of a competing measure from Republicans that on its face asked lawmakers to declare where they stood on stopping Osama bin Laden from attacking the United States again.
.
.
The episode revealed, once again, fault lines within the Democratic Party over how to tackle national security questions without appearing “soft” on terrorism in the face of Republican criticism.

Damn pussies. They won back Congress despite efforts from the Right to paint them as weak on terror. Damn it.

To quote such an insidious, evil and arrogant man that exploits such people:

“You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.” — George W. Bush

Comment by katy — October 18, 2007 @ 7:06 pm

It is specifically intended to influence the foolish. There are those in this country who actually believe that what they are told by those in authority is the truth, and they never question it. If something says, “Clear Skies Initiative”, they assume that is actually MEANS it is an initiative to clean our skies.

Such people become quite removed from reality, and go deep in to denial when presented with cold, hard facts that destroy their assumptions.

To quote such an insidious, evil, and arrogant man:

“You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.” — George W. Bush

after reading your comment i’m remembering hearing about that
“consitution” party… like most everything else right wing, the name
is misleading, even opposite…

“clear skies”, “healthy forest”, et.al….
.

Comment by Uncle Ho — October 18, 2007 @ 1:17 pm

Yeah, mea culpa. I was wondering if anyone would pick up on it.

Congrats!
It has as much meaning today as in the 70s..

Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — October 18, 2007 @ 1:29 pm

Yes, I know, but as Katy discovered:

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
[…]
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

Comment by katy — October 18, 2007 @ 2:36 pm

I’m pretty damned sure there isn’t a damned thing anywhere in the Constitution that lays out a single damned definition of marriage. If people want to go by the Bible, men can get married to men for financial reasons, and women cannot get married at all without their father’s consent. Oh, and women are property of their fathers, until they are wed, when they become the property of their husbands.

Also, Katy didn’t mention their NUMBER ONE PRINCIPLE:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

And also, right above it:

Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations

In other words, a “Pro-Life”, “Family Values”, Christo-centric agenda. This “Constitution Party” is more like a right-wing smokescreen using the name “Constitution Party” to obfuscate their actual mission. Kind of like naming a Constitution-shredding law the Constitutional Restoration Act, or a war-mongering group the Enterprise for World Peace. You know, the typical Republi-fundamentalist “up is down”, “black is white”, “war is peace” bullsh*t.

Being “pro-life” and anti-gay is not something a pro-Constitution party should be touting as two of their seven primary principles for existing.

So, how about a REAL Constitution Party, not the smokescreen that currently exists?

i guess…

i do wish there were some way to assure intelligent voting…

for all the obvious reasons…
…

The only advertising acceptable would be print and good old “in person” advertising. This would force the sheeple to actually read to know what [...]
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 18, 2007 @ 11:58 am

for all the obvious reasons…

tv ads should be free, with strict rules to assure facts and civility…
…

never mind…
.

Kucinich. Have you been to his page and read up on his views? I truly believe if there was some way for Kuchinich to get his message out there, he would be a front runner. But since he doesn’t have the corporate backing and a gazillion dollars to campaign with, no one ever hears what Kucinich has to say. And the stupid “debates” are another problem. Most of the time if they mention Kucinich, it is only to say that he was there.

Bilbobaggins – completely agree with you here. I voted for him in the primary in 2004, and would vote for him again in both primary and general. Unfortunately, living in Florida, looks like our primary votes aren’t going to mean sh*t anyway. But his platform is one that Progressives say they want…but rarely talk about HIM. I, frankly, find that very odd. I’m a Rush Feingold fan, but he’s not running. Kucinich IS.

Constitution Party, all the way.

Comment by Moderation — October 18, 2007 @ 10:58 am

Already exists.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

You forgot to credit John Kerry for that quote. In 1971 in testifying before Congress.

How do you ask a soldier to be the last one to die for a mistake?

I think this system in screwed too, God knows what the Framers would make of it….Parliamentary systems allow for a far greater degree of diversity, but now you are talking total overhaul of the Constitution, not real likely.

this should scare any democratically minded person:

Plan Would Ease Limits on Media Owners

By STEPHEN LABATON
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 — The head of the Federal Communications Commission has circulated an ambitious plan to relax the decades-old media ownership rules, including repealing a rule that forbids a company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city.

Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the commission, wants to repeal the rule in the next two months — a plan that, if successful, would be a big victory for some executives of media conglomerates.
[...]

.

FCC chairman offers ownership plan
By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer Wed Oct 17, 8:39 PM ET
WASHINGTON – The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is proposing a plan that would wrap up by the end of the year the long-running debate over how many media properties a company should be allowed to own in a single market.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s proposal would allow for public comment on the proposed rules in mid-November and a commission vote on Dec. 18.
[...]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_go_ot/media_ownership;_ylt=AnZ.rZY_l9763zRsqFj4tHKyFz4D
.

but, we all know the corporatists have no desire for a democracy…
…

Comment by Keltoi — October 18, 2007 @ 12:42 pm

I’d rather have heated arguments, and opposing viewpoints, then the drooling nodding in agreement with The Decider that currently occurs. I’d rather have two near-equals conducting battles of wits with one another than a bunch of pathetic sycophants.

Besides which to say, two giants will always butt heads, even when their ideologies are very similar. Such is the nature of such strong-willed, intelligent people when they are in the same room.

The current system of a mere two parties is also unworkable. Everyone should be voting for politicians strictly on their own personal platform, not which one of two parties they happen to belong to. A two-party system is incredibly divisive, and has in part gotten us where we are today. Where we are today is not a place America should be.

I, personally, loathe the idea of political parties as they are today. The modern Republican party is a good example of why. Each member is lock-step with the “party line”, regardless of the wishes of their particular State’s constituents. That is incredibly damaging to the Republic. The Democrats are (currently) considerably better, as is evidenced by the voting record. Always, (R)’s vote nearly unanimously for whatever the PARTY decided is the proper stance, whereas the (D)’s currently vote far more along the diverse lines their constituents demand. So in 2007-08, the Democrats are most assuredly the more diverse, more compromising, overall HEALTHIER political party for the country. And look at the state THEY are in!

Comment by Moderation — October 18, 2007 @ 12:35 pm

I dunno…if such giants of American history such as Jefferson and Adams could not get along and put country before party, it is really hard to see the pygmies we get from both parties these days being capable of doing it.

Comment by Wilco — October 18, 2007 @ 12:03 pm

Paralysis in government to a degree that was unworkable. No one ran against Washington; in the 1796 and 1800 elections you had a Federalist and Democratic-Republican saddled with each other (Jefferson and John Adams) and by the time of the 1804 election the 12th amendment had passed and you had Prez and Veep on one ticket.

The original system was modeled on the election of Roman Consuls, where you had a junior and a senior chief executive who would alternate exercise of power every month, though sometimes it swapped every other day when the Consuls were out on campaign. This rather absurd system led to the massacre of Roman legions at Cannae in 216 B.C.