Houston Democrats

Yep! We intend to ROCK!!

Congrats to Lyn Wall for getting this BLOG site up and running. Let's all be respectful of each other. It's best to discuss the issues without slandering the person.

Testing 1-2-3. Is thing on?

Looks like we're ready!

Hiya! Gotcha bookmarked!:-)

What a treat! Great job Lyn ... now if only this site, as well as others, can spread the word that we Democrats are out there and want to get the message out we will all be far beter off than we are now! Thanks for being there!!!

Looking good Lyn!

Lyn, I am proud of you. This is a terrific job and I know you will keep us all in shape and on course.
I am forever grateful to have met you.

Your pal Lynn with 2 'n'

Excellente!! Found out about you guys over at DepletedUranium, where I get my current info. I'm a 3rd generation democrat and I live in West Houston in yupster land.

"Congress is America's only distinctly native criminal class." -- Mark Twain

Rock on, Troops!!!

The key to county-wide success for this party is very likely a matter of how well we do in the City of Houston, where we have an electoral majority but participate in a Jim Crow coalition that the other party now dominates.

Here are four things that Houston Democrats should know:

1/ The Democratic Party in blue states derives most of its power from effective organization ofand participation in municipal politics.

2/ Such parties are known for excellence in civil engineering and regulation of public utilities, but have had a poor record on civil rights and management of public health and safety functions of municipal government.

3/ This party was so organized and effective under the segregationists. But, the bond-lawyers revised the City Charter fifty years ago, as soon as it was evident that non-white voters would have a significant voice in the Democratic Party.

4/ So, now, the "Democrat-controlled" City of Houston is largely a source of capital funds for county projects. It still has a poor record on civil rights and management of public health and safety functions of municipal government. But, we have now made taxation unusually regressive and lost control altogether of the City's capital budget.

5/ This self-marginalization, continued deference to the bond-lawyers, and chronic failure in the core tasks of municpal government keeps this party from achieving an electoral majority in county politics despite having a popular majority in the county.

Lyn's the bomb.

Did everyone see in The Chronicle that Chris Bell is going to be on Al Franken Monday? Al isn't on any of the local (wrong wing) talk stations, but you can get him on XM (ch 167) or internet (www.airamericaradio.com) from 11 AM to 2 PM. I'm sure the central topic will be DeLay. It should be interesting

Looks good. Keep up the good work.

Great idea. Good luck. You have a lot of talent on board already.

Awesome. I'm very, very glad to see this -- keep it up! Let me know if you need any help, and I'll do what I can...

Chris Bell will also be on the Ed Shultz show at 3pm today. Listen live at http://www.bigeddieradio.com/listennow.html

I didn't know Chris was going to be on the Ed Schultz Show today. I listened to parts of Big Eddy's show, but I missed Chris. Did anyone hear him?

I am very glad that we have finally started to get organized and this blog is a prime example. Let's make this work.

I intend to be part of this blogger community. Thanks so much for initiating this blog!

I am so happy to see this blog go up. It can only be a help in trying to bring together all the Democrats of Harris County and it can be a tool for greater coordination of efforts county wide. Keep up the good work!

I am totally disgusted by the repeated reports of the U.S.-C.I.A. flying suspected terrorists to countries like Egypt or Syria where they are interrogated and tortured.
There is also a report of how our troops tortured and killed prisoners in an Afghan jail (NYTimes 3-12)
Don Rumsfeld should be fired!
What do you think?

Let's put the R's on the defensive about Social Security Insurance. First, we can remind people that it's insurance! Dubya's polling on this issue is dropping below 40%. If we fight harder, we can make him look even worse just by telling the truth.

Some in H-town have been aware of the HPD Crime Lab - this morning's Chronicle has a brief article about George Rodriguez.

For those whose lives have been shattered by the HPD Crime Lab - the recent Supreme Court ruling on the execution of juveniles is a first - especially for 2 juveniles sentenced as adults because of the crime lab - Nanon Williams and Johnny Bernal.

Look at this roll call:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00049

Congratulations to the D's for sticking together on this one. Four R's voted with the D's: Collins-ME, DeWine-OH, Snowe-ME, and Specter-PA. The lone independent, Jim Jeffords, also voted with the D's.

No D crossed the aisle on this resolution, leaving 50 R's on the record considering SSI plans which might include deep budget cuts or massive increases in debt.

Love this idea - a group blog is a great way to help connect up Democrats in the area. As a died in the wool Dem who's spent most of his life in Massachusetts in DC, it's great to find ways to connect with other like-minded folks here in my new home.

I am also a Houston blogger - not strictly political but I as I get more informed about Houston no doubt I will have lots more to say about local politics... www.bythebayou.com.

Cheers,
John

This is my first comment to houstondemocrats.com, but I definitely plan to become involved. First off, I am a young Democratic activist and I am here to let everyone know that people of all ages and walks of life must get behind the movement to defeat the right and restore our country's commitment to social progress and the common good.

My name is Matt Jenkins and my e-mail is jhlmj@aol.com.

I look forward to hearing from everyone on houstondemocrats.com and sharing contributions of ideas with a community of fellow progressives.

Best wishes to everyone,
Matt

You are all invited to our West Houston Democrats - legislative committee weekly meetings at Sandy's Produce Market, on I-10 feeder just east of Dairy Ashford at 11:30am Hot and cold buffet lunch, all you can eat $6.99 We discuss legislation before city council, state legislature and Congress.

Oops! I forgot to mention that the legislative committee meets every Wednesday.

Jimmy Dunne

ABC's Nightline was all about Tom DeLay Thursday. DeLay turned down an inviation to be on the show.
It covered his entire political career from the beginning when he felt there was too much regulation of his pesticide business in Sugarland. He ran for the Texas legislature to work against government overregulation.
He was considered to be a party boy, always joking around during the Texas legislative 180-day session non-stop parties funded by the lobbyists.
He later became like a hotel concierge, taking care of golfing weekends, hotel reservations, travel, etc. for congressmen going on lobby hosted junkets that he arranged.

One pundit said that DeLay was the most powerful member of congress in the last century.

He must have forgotten about LBJ.

Did you see it?

Jimmy

This is the first time I've ever known Democrats to be at a loss for words. We could begin the conversation by rehearsing what we should say to our distinguished Congressional leaders about where in the hell they were when the Repugs were taking the Constitution apart so they could grandstand for their fundamentalist supporters who were busy waving Jesus signs over the helpless, voiceless body of Terri Schiavo. Barney Frank did what he could, but he was a voice crying in a wilderness of mountebanks and charlatans. He could've used some help from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. It doesn't make any difference where they were. There is, after all, the miracle of television, on whose magic screen they could've nailed the Repugs for diagnosing medical conditions on TV and for all kinds of other hypocrisy and mendacity. And they could've kept the whole Senate from voting for that cockamamie bill.

I want to see the Democratic Party stand up for something. I want to see us do a Howard Dean. We had a perfect opportunity, and I think we blew it.

I'm definitely with Y. Dawg on that...however, there's more news on the Schiavo case.

Ron Word of the Associated Press wrote this morning that we have a new appeal in the case. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to grant the parents of Terri Schiavo a new hearing in order to determine if her feeding tube should be reattached. The article reports that it is uncertain what effects this will have on Schiavo, since she's gone thirteen days without nourishment already.

Nevertheless, we should not be surprised to see more GOP political grandstanding and exploitation of this family tragedy.

We as Democrats need to stand up now and say that elected officials who play politics with people's lives and tragedies do not deserve to be our representatives, and that Democrats would offer a humane alternative to the use of family tragedies and ethical dilemmas as political footballs.

But for that to happen, we must let our leaders know that...and they must stand up to the GOP. Since 70-80% of the American people oppose the Republican Congress's game playing, this should gain a groundswell of majority support--but only if Democrats speak out.

Hopefully, every minute of Republican leadership will inspire that many more Democrats to really start being assertive.

Man, I hope I'm not the only blogger out here. My computer shows the blogs ending March 30, although maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

In any event, we as Democrats must stand up more than ever...we're just starting to get a taste of the real GOP agenda these past few months. First there's legislation to allow pharmacists not to sell birth control and emergency contraception...but nothing in these bills about Viagra, is there? Then we get the Texas House passing legislation to forbid same-sex couples from adopting foster children, although fortunately it looks like the Senate has enough sanity to remove this language from the Child Protective Services bill.

And on the federal front...the attack on the filibuster and bipartisan government itself, more anti-worker, anti-consumer legislation than ever--take the U.S. Senate's refusal to raise the minimum wage, along with the bankruptcy bill. The GOP is not the friend of the average worker and consumer.

Frightening. That's why we've gotta fight, and work to turn Texas and the USA Blue!

Don't worry, there are lots of people blogging. There's a "Recently Commented on" section on the left side of the main page where you can connect to the newest comments. I think most readers have started responding to the daily posts on various subjects, but I think it's good to have a place where one can post what they want and not have it necessarily relate to the topics posted on a given day, so thank you for commenting on this post.

You're definitely right about the spate of right wing legislation lately. I'm surprised by how frequently Republicans declare they are for "small government," yet they seem to spend so much time on telling us how we ought to live - what kind of relationships are 'right', who has the right to live and when, who knows how to raise a child correctly, allowing pharmacists to deny someone medicine because they do not agree with its use, and on and on... Then of course there is when a filibuster is right or not, and of course if they don't like it, they don't shrink from simply rewriting the rules to suit themselves. Thank goodness the founding fathers sought to rein in a hyperactive Congress with a judiciary and executive branch. Can you just imagine if Tom DeLay didn't have these other branches to contend with? It's bad enough now, even with these checks, but without them that would be terrifying.

What gets me, is how often the hypocrisy between the we're-going-to-tell-you-exactly-how-to-live legislation and small government is overlooked or at least ignored. The Republican leadership wants to tell us how to live and then they proceed to handout legislation to the credit card companies, pharmaceutical companies, energy producers, and protect companies like Wal-Mart from lawsuits, and then to deny the lowest paid workers in America a simple one dollar raise in pay. It's just repulsive. At least Republicans are ensuring the humble billionaires of America won't become an endangered species any time soon, but nevermind the damage they are doing to the Endangered Species Act or the damage drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will do. Talk about hypocrits on a colossal scale.

Interesting blog . . .

I was motivated to write in after seeing Mr. Olivier speak on television this morning 5/1 w/regards to drilling in ANWAR. I'm curious. How much damage do you Mr. Olivier, expect will be done by drilling in ANWR? What is the nature of this damage? And most importantly, where do you get your data regarding this issue?

With regards to hypocrisy, couldn't each party be called hypocritical? Isn't that part of politics? Why can't the arguement just be framed in terms of what each party's true interests are? I would be curious to see if anyone on this site could tell me what their perceived interests of both the democratic and republican parties are and let's argue that. I already see that "bleeding heart liberal" mindset just pouring through.

If it's bleeding heart to value social and economic justice for everyone over the interest of multi-national corporations, then I guess you can call me proudly bleeding heart. You can read more about what the Democratic Party stands for at http://www.txdemocrats.org/about/platform/. I can't speak for the Republican Party interests except to say that under Republican rule, the wealthy continue to benefit while the economic middle class gets squeezed, and low income people go hungry without health care and other basic necessities.

"I can't speak for the Republican Party interests except to say that under Republican rule, the wealthy continue to benefit while the economic middle class gets squeezed, and low income people go hungry without health care and other basic necessities." ---Sounds like you memorized this verbatim. And as for "social and economic justice for everyone over the interest of multi-national corporations," what in the heck does that really mean? You are speaking in generalities. Let's be even more specific, what is your definition of economic justice for everyone? My definition would be that everyone has the same opprotunity to succeed as anyone else in this country to the best means possible. If there are any inequalities remaining in the system (and there are),they should be eliminated, but not to the detriment of others. So in the mean time , pony up and answer your given challenge(s). Last, I would like to hear what others feel about the democratic stand on issues. Use your own mind/words and don't direct me to a webpage written by the same politicians that we all to some extent mistrust regardless of party lines.

You asked what Democrats stand for and I pointed you to the party platform. You don't know me, but people that do know that I speak for myself. I get the impression you would mistrust any of my sources.

I agree that economic justice for everyone means equal opportunity. But it goes beyond that. The bankruptcy bill recently signed by GWB is a prime example of legislation that favors corporations at the expense of individuals. Amendments to exempt individuals who's bankruptcies are due to medical crises, loss of jobs and even extended military deployment of Reserves were defeated. Pharmaceutical companies were favored in the Medicare bill, with Medicaid being prohibited from negotiating prices.

Can you name one piece of legislation promoted by the Republicans that is intended for the greater good of the general population?

As to our Democratic physiology, our heart may be "bleeding," but at least we have one. I must agree with Lyn that the Republicans give only lip service to the interests of the average American and engage in hypocrisy of the highest order.

I am currently reading "The Hammer" by Lou Dubose and Jan Reid. This book and my own observations as a lifetime Houstonian reveal that Tom DeLay's actions are a microcosm of the Republican Party in general.

Mr. DeLay and his party talk a good game about family values, Christian ethics, and concern for the working American, while they:

-laud and legislatively support the sweat shops and sex trade in Saipan and other outsourcing capitals

-"hammer" anyone who refuses to go along with their pay-to-play corporate cronyism, such as Republican Rep. Nick Smith, who was both bribed and threatened to support the Medicare bill

-run up staggering federal deficits, and simultaneously bash Americans who become indebted due to catastrophic medical bills, job loss, or extended military service ... all on behalf of credit card companies that were already swimming in billions of dollars of profit

-paint themselves as a party of honesty and fiscal responsibility while setting up a "K Street Project" in which lobbyists are routinely milked for huge campaign contributions and then allowed to write legislation ... while Indian tribes and other Americans are bilked

-produce an energy bill that offers subsidies to energy companies yet does nothing about prices at the pump and neglects to call for higher fuel efficiency standards

-proclaim themselves to be straight shooters yet they "fix" intelligence to fit preconceived plans for war (see today's revelations of a memo leaked to London newspapers about the cynical pre-war actions of Bush and Tony Blair) etc., etc., etc.

Hey Lyn,

If you speak for yourself then why don't you just answer my question on how you would define economic justice? The changes to the bankruptcy bill are merely to make sure that bankruptcy can't be used for personal gain. There is a means test that is done so that if you really are in dire straits, then you should have nothing to worry about.

Corporations exist to provide the general public with products(e.g. drugs) and services which they demand. Why shouldn't they have the same degree of freedom that we as individuals have? As long as they are operating within the law, then I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to earn a buck or two. Would you have big business work for free? Besides, did you ever think that every single constraint you place on a company costs them money? Did you ever think that they too operate on a budget? Welcome to capitalism! There are alternatives, but in the absence of true incentives (yes, money) I don't think you would be enjoying the luxuries that you do in this country.

With respect to Republican bills try,
College Access and Opportunity Act (H.R. 609).
This bill seeks to increase college access for low and middle income class students. This I think would qualify as a piece of legislation favored by Republicans that is for the greater good of the general population.

W/Respect to Marguerite,

I have not even bothered to follow Mr.DeLay as he is just one politician amongst many who all play the same game of political manuevering. That's politics for both democrats and republicans alike. Sometimes you're hot, somtime you're not. Broadbrushing one politician as the sole representation of a whole party does not serve your best interests.

Now, with reference to the heart that you say at least you (meanning democrats)have and the hypocrisy of the republicans . . . Are you saying that democrats always mean what they say and say what they mean? You've got to be kidding me!!! They are all politicans! This is a process of collective bargaining at a table we are not privy to. The objective is to bargain to advance your interests while keeping your party, colleagues, and constituents as supportive as possible so that you are reelected. To say that democrats don't engage in this is ludicrous as they have their own interests at stake.

I refer you to the top of this webpage which states:

"We want to hear from you and have a vigorous discussion of the issues."

So far I don't see any issues being discussed. Just a lot of general whining. I would still love to talk about ANWR,energy policy,environmental policy, etc . . .

As far as the bankruptcy bill goes, I think we will find that in practice, it will prevent many in dire straits from getting a fresh start. I find it hard to swallow that there is justification for giving credit card companies precedence over single parents when it comes to child support payments.

I agreed with your definition of economic justice. But would add that economic justice must include equal access to medical care and education. The health care system in this country is the cause of many bankruptcies.

Corporations that charter themselves outside the United States to avoid paying their fair share of taxes should not be afforded the same benefits as taxpaying individuals. Corporations that harm our environment should be responsible for the costs of that harm. Today, C-Span's Washington Journal had an in-depth discussion of Wal-mart, which is being replayed right now. I would think you, as a taxpayer would be concerned with Wal-mart's practice of advising it's employees how to access publicly funded health care because they can't afford the co-pay for the insurance coverage offered by Wal-mart at their current salaries.

I will have to review HR 609 carefully. Many Republican sponsored bills have euphemistic names that belie their true intent, such as "Healthy Forests" and "Clear Skies".

I'll jump in on the Tom Delay issue. Many of his activities have been illegal and unethical, as defined by House ethics rules. That his why he was censured 3 times last year by the bi-partisan Ethics committee, and is currently under investigation.

Highlighting our differences with the practices of the right wing is not whining, it's raising awareness and planning effective opposition. The right wing does more than it's share of whining when it comes to the so-called "Liberal Media", which is owned and controlled primarily by conservatie corporate conglomerates and "Activist Judges" who uphold the separation of Church and State.

Marc,

I'm trying to determine if you are merely a troll or someone who has legitimate questions regarding the Democratic Party's stand on the issues. I will try and give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter.

Don't beat up on Lyn. It's not cool and only serves to inflame the group and put her on the defensive. If you want answers to your questions or the opinion of a particular person you might want to reframe the way you ask the questions to begin with.

Regarding economic justice, I feel that every person in the United States who is able to work should be able to find a job and work at that job for a living wage. I feel that CEOs of large corporations make way too much money. I feel that corporations as a whole are given too much power to influence politicians. Corporate money should stay OUT of elections. Corporations SHOULD NOT have the same rights as human beings. Human beings should put controls on corporations. It is the corporate and labor union monies pouring into elections and campaign coffers that are influencing the decisions our politicians make. Our elected officials should be accountable to the people who elected them NOT the corporations. Bush gave the very wealthy in this country ENORMOUS tax cuts. Meanwhile, average wages are falling. People are working more jobs and longer hours for less money. We have record unemployment in this country while corporations are shipping jobs overseas so they can have their goods manufactured by people in India, China, Argentina etc and pay those people slave wages. Then, once the goods are manufactured and sent back to the United States for sale, the corporations DON'T pass the savings on to the U.S. consumer. They are making tons of money at the expense of the American people who no longer have the jobs they once had. We should have a PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX in this country where people pay an income tax based upon the amount of money they make. More often than not, very wealthy individuals and corporations have loopholes they use to get out of paying their fair share of taxes. Corporations should be fined for creating "shell" companies offshore in order to keep from paying U.S. income taxes. The cap should be lifted off payroll taxes in order to help fund Social Security. These are all economic justice issues.

According to a Harvard study, roughly 1/2 of all U.S. bankruptcies are due to unforeseen catastrophic medical bills. Many, many more are due to divorce, death of primary breadwinner, identity theft etc. Credit card companies prey on people with their 0% interest rate introductory offers and then a low interest rate after that UNLESS you're late on a payment. Also, if a customer is only able to pay the minimum payment on a credit card bill his/her balance on that credit card actually goes UP as the principal balance is never touched by the minimum payment and interest is charged on the unpaid balance. Credit card companies frequently raise the interest rate on their cards to exhorbitant levels ensuring that no person would be able to EVER pay off the balance on the card. Several amendments were offered by Democratic senators to the bankruptcy bill that were rejected in Congress:

03-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 42
Schumer Amdt. No. 42; To limit the exemption for asset protection trusts.

REJECTED

03-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 49
Durbin Amdt. No. 49; To protect employees and retirees from corporate practices that deprive them of their earnings and retirement savings when a business files for bankruptcy.

REJECTED

03-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 38
Durbin Amdt. No. 38; To discourage predatory lending practices.

REJECTED

03-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 37
Nelson (FL) Amdt. No. 37; To exempt debtors from means testing if their financial problems were caused by identity theft.

REJECTED

03-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 31
Dayton Amdt. No. 31.; To limit the amount of interest that can be charged on any extension of credit to 30 percent.

REJECTED

02-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 32
Corzine Amdt. No. 32; To preserve existing bankruptcy protections for individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.

REJECTED

02-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 28
Kennedy Amdt. No. 28.; To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing.

REJECTED

02-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 29
Kennedy Amdt. No. 29; To provide protection for medical debt homeowners.

REJECTED

02-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 15
Akaka Amdt. No. 15; To require enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding the consequences of making only minimum required payments in the repayment of credit card debt, and for other purposes.

REJECTED

02-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 17
Feingold Amdt. No. 17.; To provide a homestead floor for the elderly.

REJECTED

01-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 16
Durbin Amdt. No. 16, As Modified.; To protect service members and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers, and to allow servicemembers to exempt property based on the law of the State of their premilitary residence.

REJECTED

FYI: MBNA was the largest single contributor to the Republican Party. This bankruptcy bill was crafted to reduce the ability of the existing bankruptcy laws to protect the consumer from predatory lending practices. It also shores up the capabilities of predatory lenders like MBNA to collect from consumers who are already suffering severe financial hardships.

The stupid ass bankruptcy bill DOES NOT reform Chapter 11 bankruptcies which are primarily used by BUSINESSES:

Chapter 11 Bankruptcy - Typically used for business bankruptcies and restructuring. It is not commonly used by individual consumers since it is far more complex and expensive to pursue. It allows businesses to reorganize themselves, giving them an opportunity to restructure debt and get out from under certain burdensome leases and contracts. Typically a business is allowed to continue to operate while it is in Chapter 11, although it does so under the supervision of the Bankruptcy Court and its appointees.

The current bankruptcy bill only "reforms" Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies which are filed by INDIVIDUALS:

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy - The most common type of bankruptcy proceeding. It is a liquidation type of proceeding (as opposed to a reorganization proceeding). All of the debtor's assets, with the exception of "exempt" property, will be sold, and the proceeds will be used to pay their debts. If the proceeds are not enough to pay off all the debts, unpaid amounts on "dischargeable debts" will be discharged.

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy - Known as reorganization bankruptcy. Chapter 13 bankruptcy is filed by individuals who want to pay off their debts over a period of three to five years. This type of bankruptcy appeals to individuals who have non-exempt property that they want to keep. It is also only an option for individuals who have predictable income and whose income is sufficient to pay their reasonable expenses with some amount left over to pay off their debts.

Obviously, the Rethugs who crafted this bankruptcy bill think INDIVIDUALS are the only ones who ABUSE bankruptcy law. God knows, the CORPORATIONS couldn't possibly be abusing bankrupty law, and therefore, CORPORATIONS need PROTECTIONS under the law. What a load of horseshit!!!

Every single amendment that I pasted above was REJECTED by every single REPUBLICAN senator and some REPUBLICAN LITE DEMOCRATS voted against these amendments also. So, I'm not cutting the Dems any slack here, Marc.

Your question as to why corporations shouldn't have the same degree of freedom as individuals is asinine.

Read this piece from ReclaimDemocracy.org very carefully:

Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.

But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

Did you read that piece carefully, Marc? Corporations are setting the agendas in Congress and helping to craft legislation with their unlimited MONEY!! Our legislators aren't crafting laws designed to protect the citizens of the United States. They are beholden to the CORPORATIONS who fill their campaign coffers. Wake up and smell the coffee, Marc. Our constitution was NOT designed to serve corporate interests but rather to hold corporations accountable for their actions to WE THE PEOPLE. Many corporations are NOT operating within the letter of the law. There should be constraints on big business. Are you suggesting that large corporations just run willy nilly all over the place and do whatever in the hell they please and be answerable to no one? I hope you are not of that mindset.

Here is a copy of an article from Congressman George Miller from the Committee On Education and the Workforce website regarding HR 609 (College Access and Opportunity Act). Congressman Miller is the Ranking Member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. As you will see, Congressman Miller has some problems with this Republican backed Higher Education bill:

Wednesday, February 2, 2005

WASHINGTON, DC -- Representative George Miller (D-Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House Education Committee, issued this statement today after House Republicans introduced their new legislation to reauthorize the Higher Education Act:

"This past Congress, Chairman Boehner and I agreed on many issues and disagreed on many issues. I don't expect that this Congress will be any different. I hope that we will be able to work together to put students and families first and to make college more affordable.

"Despite numerous reports of fraud and abuse in the student aid programs within the for-profit college sector, including a very disturbing report on "60 Minutes" just this past Sunday, this legislation still contains provisions that I opposed in the last Congress. These provisions could have the effect of making it easier for bad actors to defraud students and fleece taxpayers.

"I'm also deeply concerned that the bill would cap the maximum Pell scholarship at only $5,800 through 2013, despite the fact that the Pell is worth $800 less, in real terms, than it was 30 years ago. College costs have grown substantially, but Congress has failed to adequately assist low- and middle-income students.

"Eliminating the low fixed rate consolidation benefit and raising the interest rate cap on student loans, as this bill does, would make college even more expensive for students. Finally, this bill fails to completely close the harmful 9.5 percent loan loophole that leaves taxpayers on the hook for more than a billion dollars in excessive subsidies to banks that make student loans.

"There are other parts of this bill such as elimination of some of the excessive lender subsidies that are positive steps. I hope to work with Chairman Boehner to find common ground where we can. But I will oppose any changes to the law that raise the price of college or loosen controls on fraud and abuse, and I will continue to fight to make college more affordable."

With regard to future posts, Marc, it will serve you in good stead if you phrase your questions and/or concerns in a more amicable fashion as opposed to lashing out at a particular blogger.

Mr. Charendoff:

Your misguided advocacy of rights for corporations misses a key point in differentiating 'real' Democrats from Republicans. Since the mid-1950's corporation's share of the total tax responsibility has flipped; ie: since that time, individual taxpayers share the majority of the total income tax load. Prior to the 50's, corporations carried the majority of the load and appropriately so. Corporations enjoy a disproportionate influence in both the electorial process and the legislative process. And the Democratic Party, under the leadership of 'Republican-lite' Dems, has been right in the belly of that beast,pandering to their "needs" at the expense of ordinary citizens,allowing our Party to be saturated with the influence of, in particular, multi-national corporations. This is not the first time in our contemporary history this has been the case: Teddy Roosevelt saw it in his adminstration and began a series of progressive reforms to curtail corporate influence. FDR, to dig us out of the corporate sponsored depression hole their greed and excess created, instituted with his legislation further reforms to curtail their excesses. We are right back in that cycle again and sadly, Democratic administrations since Truman have contributed to this continuously recycling problem of greed and excess at the expense of citizens. Even locally some of our 'best and brightest' liberal Democrat legislators were right in the middle of the culture of pandering to Ken Lay and Enron, among other practitioners of economic excess. 'Real' Democrats advocate a position of economic justice which puts people above corporations in the arena of public policy;ie: fair labor bargaining rights,
campaign finance which keeps corporations out of the equation and puts individuals at the center of that process, restrains corporate influence over legislation and public policy (the alternative being classical Republicanism),guarantees health care for all citizens via public financing vs. corporate insurance gouging, finances free public education without exemption of corporations from taxation to fund these systems,provides municipal services of basic needs for civic infrastructure without exempting corporations from their share of this responsiblity or privatizing such services to benefit corporations, to mention a few. The Democratic Party's primary failure to advocate the economic rights of ordinary citizens over the 'rights' of corporations and wealthy plutocrats has led to our disconnect with the 40% of America not voting and a significant share of low income voters supporting Republicans who have capitalized on our failure to address systemic needs and reforms therein. Republicans have filled that ideological void by coopting our Democratic tradition of populism, cleverly and deceptively twisting it to demonize liberals as elitists (and we have given them plenty of fodder) and posing as the advocates for just plain folks and their needs. The answer, Marc, is a new, radical Democratic Party advocacy for massive curtailing of corporate power over our governmentamd national and international economic system, taming laisse fare capitalism with regulation, penalizing anti-American corporate policies, restructing the balance of taxation to cause corporations first of all to pay their taxes and pay their share based on the income their earn just like us ordinary citizens. Also, holding corporate boards to criminal and civil penalties when they violate the principal of "do no harm" to our society and rewarding them when they do good. Finally, empower stockholders of public companies with the democratic power that was originally intended for them to hold managements and boards responsible for performance and good public citizenship. Stan Merriman Chair Emeritus, Progressive Populist Caucus of the TDP

To Marc Charendoff,
You said, "I have not even bothered to follow Mr.DeLay as he is just one politician amongst many who all play the same game of political manuevering. That's politics for both democrats and republicans alike. Sometimes you're hot, somtime you're not. Broadbrushing one politician as the sole representation of a whole party does not serve your best interests." Charendoff, if you can't assume that the goddamn majority leader of the House of Representatives is not representative of his political party, you are politically naive or just a dumbass to the max! You are either not involved in the democratic process of, oh, let's say VOTING, or you are as Republican as the night is long in the arctic in December! I tend to believe (after reading your posts) the latter. In which case there is no point in addressing you any further! Buh, 'Bye.

"dumbass to the max!" ---- Nice. If I DO assume that Delay represents the rank and file of every republican, can I assume your resorting to name calling represents the mindset of everyone on this board? I mean fair is fair right? I used to listen to Rush for awhile until I got sick of him. However, he did make the point of pointing out that when liberals get pushed against the wall, they can get quite nasty. I guess in that sense you proved him correct, and I wasn't even pushing, just presenting a point of view.

Hey Lyn,

-If you feel (like Kris) that I was "beating up on you" please let me know and I will apologize.

-As far as "inflaming the group" is concerned, I will assume that you are all adults and are relatively thick-skinned. However, I promise to refrain from childish behaviors that I have seen from others in your group who shall remain nameless (Ron).

Could you explain exactly how credit card companies are given precedence over single parents when it comes to child support payments?

I'm glad to see we are beginning to come to an agreement on economic justice, but when you describe equal access to medical care and education, how far would you say the government should go to make that happen? Would you recommend socializing medicine? W/regards to education, how inaccesible is it really? I went to college here at UH and know plenty of people from a VERY diverse group that manged to get through one way or another. My own recent college education took an exceptional amount of time and wasn't without financial hardship (I have a wife and child, but I made it a priority and it happened. It seems to me that if you really want an education you can get it.

This one is more for Kris and Stan . . .

In your posts, I see a recurring theme as to the evils of big buisness and how they set the agendas and squeeze out the little guy.While I do agree that at times the corporations have more immediate access to our political system, I feel compelled to remind you that we still have the votes AND the consumer coin purse.

With regards to the corporations, again they exist to meet a consumer demand and they are not going to operate for free. If you own a 401k, IRA, or any other retirement investment vehicle you initiate the corporate drive to grow (why would you want anything but??). Think about plastics. We all drive the demand for plastics, yet there is also a public outcry against the environmental effects that are produced in malking the product.The corporation did what it could to meet a public demand at price the public would pay. 10,15, 20 years later, as environmental effects are uncovered, they do the right thing by retrofitting their plants to the tune of millions of dollars. Who is supposed to pay for that? And this pressure is exerted at the same time they are still under pressure from stockholders to produce and make profit.These same companies also work under a budget just like you and me. They do not have limitless resources. So one of the ways the ways they reduce pressure is by gaining access to the political process. This is a way to dampen the ever vascillating nature of the American consumer.If you really want to send a message,don't buy a company's products.If you can't come to terms with that, then, yes I agree there should be minimal regulation to ensure a company plays within the rules. In the end, I believe "We the People" set the agenda by what we demand (i.e. where we put our money).

Hi Marc

It is very sweet of Kris to be concerned, but no, I did not feel like you were beating up on me. I do have thick skin and welcome the discussion. I will not get into name calling, and, as moderator, I will approach commentors privately if I feel they have crossed the line.

The new bankruptcy law does not exempt child support or foster care payments from the means test definition of disposable income, and does not exclude alimony and child support payments received within six months after filing for bankruptcy from the property of the estate. Since divorce is one of the life changes that often forces someone into bankruptcy, that just makes it harder for a bankrupt single parent to take care of the economic needs of their children.

I applaud your hard work to complete your degree. Did you take advantage of any loans or grants to fund your college costs? Do you realize that changes to higher education funding in Texas have been passed out of subcommittee that would disqualify your education for certain loans and grants? The new law penalizes students who take more than four years to complete college. I wrote about it here: http://www.houstondemocrats.com/archives/2005/03/sb_31_a_messing.html. The Texas Legislature information on the bill is here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/db2www/tlo/billhist/billhist.d2w/report?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=S&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00031.

We have 1.4 million uninsured children in Texas. Funding to CHIP was not restored this session, leaving 175,000 children that were otherwise elgible for state sponsored health insurance uninsured. Since every state dollar for CHIP is matched by $2.65 cents in federal funds, by failing to provide slots for 175,000 otherwise eligible youngsters the state is passing up over $330 million in federal dollars. More here: http://www.houstondemocrats.com/archives/2005/04/house_budget_fa.html

Actually, I went to school under the G.I. Bill after 8 yrs active duty in the military. The G.I. Bill has been significantly weakened over time, but I can't say that I would have wanted taxpayers to pick up the slack even though it would have made my life much less complicated.
W/regards to the four year limit, I can't say that it is such a bad thing. Even the G.I. bill has a limit on how long you may take to use its funds. This is money that the government can otherwise use for other competing programs.

As for healthcare, that is indeed sticky. And having a daughter that just came through a fight with cancer last year, my wife and I saw the end bill come out to $275,000 (no surgeries, just chemo only!). What would we have done without insurance? We'd be on the street. No arguement. But to turn around and say that taxpayers should pay for it? What would have to be given up? I have nothing wrong with helping the disenfrachised, but to say that we will do everything just doesn't make sense. What I would really like to get a feel for is how the healthcare value chain is constructed. How much of what we pay for any given drug, procedure, etc. goes to the Dr.,technician, nurse, and of course,administrators (no question on the plural here).

I would like to address a previous comment you made, Marc: "In your posts, I see a recurring theme as to the evils of big buisness and how they set the agendas and squeeze out the little guy.While I do agree that at times the corporations have more immediate access to our political system, I feel compelled to remind you that we still have the votes AND the consumer coin purse."

#1 Corporations have more immediate access to the political system and primarily this Bush administration ALL the time, NOT at times. Money talks, Marc, and it talks real big.

#2 You feel compelled to remind Stan and me that we STILL have the votes and the consumer coin purse. Guess again. We DON'T have the votes, my friend. We may go out as Democrats and vote for our Democratic candidates, but have you actually bought the ruse that our votes COUNTED?! What do you mean by "we have the consumer coin purse"? Do you mean we don't have to buy the products of the various corporations who befoul the environment, continually break the law etc? Well hell's bells, Marc, we'd have to boycott practically every corporation out there, now wouldn't we?

No one is saying a corporation should operate for free. Here's a novel idea: How about having those corporations that we are so beholden to pay their fair share of taxes? Gee, never thought of that. How about penalizing the living hell out of them for moving their so called "corporate home office" to the Bahamas or the Caymans or wherever the hell else they want to move it to so they can avoid paying taxes? Guess what? Taxes are a necessary evil in order for our society to function. Nobody likes the damned things, but we must pay them. What gets me is that the average low wage to middle wage worker gets stuck paying all the taxes while the wealthy get their tax cuts and go put the extra dough into an offshore account or invest it in the stock market. Sounds fair to me, doesn't it you?

If a plant has to "retrofit" in order to meet environmental standards then that plant must "eat" the cost. All corporations should be regulated to the point where they are held accountable for their actions. The bottom line is this: there is NO place in elections or campaigns for corporate or labor union monies. I know you've heard the old proverb: the love of money is the root of all evil. Well, corporations that pour money into campaign coffers in order to circumvent environmental laws etc should be held accountable for their misdeeds. Corporations should not be allowed to ever contribute to political campaigns. Politicians are too beholden to corporations and lobbyists for corporations as it is. They are no longer accountable to WE THE PEOPLE.

Regarding Universal Healthcare, we'd have had the money to pay for healthcare for every man, woman and child in America if this administration hadn't given tax cuts to the wealthy and started this invasion of Iraq. We could've funded many, many domestic programs with all the money that has been wasted bombing the hell out of a country that was NEVER a threat to us! I don't care if people think Universal Healthcare is socialism. Who gives a shit? Many other industrialized nations have Universal Healthcare that is funded by taxpayer dollars, and it works just dandy. The system we have now with HMOs, PPOs, Big Pharma etc is a broken system. The people get little or no care while the administrators, pharmaceutical companies and doctors make the big bucks. Once again, we have corporations i.e. hospitals, pharmaceutical companies etc setting the agenda for the administration and paying big bucks to see that the agenda is adhered to.

Why don't you visit the Kucinich website and find out how a real progressive politician thinks?

As far as you being ticked off about Ron calling you a dumbass, you are within your rights to be pissed but don't come on this blog talking about "bleeding heart liberalism" shining through and stupid ass remarks like "welcome to capitalism". That just reeks of something a Rethug would say, so you can expect to get your chops busted for saying stuff like that. If you want to debate an issue then let's debate it. If you just want to argue about how ALL politicians are corrupt whether they be Democrats or Republicans then save it for somebody who cares, because I don't want to hear it. I'm as big a cynic as anybody when it comes to whether or not I believe this Democratic Party of ours is salvageable, however, I'm willing to work hard within the progressive Democratic movement to try and change the party infrastructure from the bottom up.

What are you doing to make things better? We can sit here all day and "blog" about all the things that are wrong with the party, but are you actually being proactive and getting out and organizing your precinct for the Democrats? Are you calling Democrats in your precinct and asking them to volunteer to help you organize it? Are you a member of any Democratic club or organization? Have you met any Democratic candidates for public office and grilled them on their stance on the issues? If you've answered NO to these questions then you're not doing anything to change "business as usual" in these United States. In fact, YOU are part of the problem, Marc.

My motto is this: Put up or shut up.

Charendoff,
NOW you're paraphrasing Rush Limbaugh on a Democratic blog, but you're not pushing?? Go back and read your own posts. They read like they were lifted from the Free Republic website! I'm sorry to read that your daughter had cancer, and I truly hope she is cured. You and your wife are lucky to have been able to afford insurance. Forty five million Americans, including my daughter, would not have been so lucky. I cry for the children, and because of that I don't wait to get pushed to the wall to get nasty. I look at what's happening in my country, and I stay mad ALL the time.

I am responding to Mr. Charendoff's original question about my facts during my interview on City View with Art Rascon...

I have posted everything that was said during the interview here. Unfortunately, the VCR stopped taping just a little before the end of the interview, probably due to a weak signal, so that part was lost.

I also added the facts I claimed during the interview and sources to back them up after the interview. I was off slightly on some of them, but considering I had less than an hour to get ready and go to KTRK's studios, I think that is acceptable. Plus, I did not have any time to do any research on the computer before the interview.

I will be happy to discuss the following questions about what damage I expect will be done by drilling in ANWR and the nature of the damage in response to the post "To Drill or Not to Drill in ANWR."

I would hope that others will join in too. It's something that should receive more discussion than just a half hour interview on a Sunday morning.

Marc, I'm glad your daughter was able to be treated successfully. Deep down it sounds like you agree that all children should have access to adequate health care. I wish we could take the now $300 billion that we've spent or budgeted to kill over 100,000 Iraqi civilians, more than half of them women and children, and spend that money for the good of our own children here.

I have all the respect and gratitude in the world for your military service. The Bush adminsitration has betrayed our military every step of the way. Fabricating justification for war in Iraq is just the start. Failing to properly armor our brave men and women for a war of choice is disgusting. The administration is not taking care of our men and women when they return from war. And don't get me started on the back door draft. You see, I believe that supporting our military means treating them with respect, not using them for political gain.

Don't let the fact that you don't have the solutions stop you from following your instincts that people in need deserve help and support.

We are starting a Reading Club and I think your voice would add to the discussion. I hope you'll join us in reading What Would Jefferson Do? by Thom Hartman. He is an amazing scholar and historian who has a radio show, which you can learn more about at www.thomhartmann.com. The question about legislation for the greater good actually came from him, and I've asked him for his take on HR 609.

Marc:
Do you deliberately try to miss the point on my post? Did I speak anywhere about the "evils of big business"? You are using the Bush strategy of debate, changing the subject and mischaracterizing my thoughtful commentary, which you appear unable to cope with. And what does our control over the purchase of consumer products have to do with any of my arguments favoring holding business to your conservative dictum of "personal responsibility"? I wrote about corporate America failing to meet its societal responsibilities and abusing the "system" even in light of the priveleges we grant them. I think I will suspend my efforts to extend to you rational arguments to be debated given that you favor changing the subject and distorting my statements since you seem unwilling to address the challenges of rationality. stan merriman

Wow! Some you guys need to step up the heart chakra and crystal therapy. . . . just jokes.

Lyn, thanks for the invite. I am considering it. And I agree with you wholeheartedly on the backdoor draft. Been there, done that. And as to the Iraq thing, I have been growing increasingly uncomfortable for awhile now. I think we have well overcommitted ourselves.

Kris, Did you ever think that "business as usual" in the United States involves a lot of people who do their best on a daily basis to make this country a better place? You bash me for believing that my vote counts, then you turn around and say that if you're not politically active then you do nothing to make anything better. And why are you out there doing all these political activities? To generate votes! So which is it, do votes count or don't they?
Politics alone will not change this country. Politicians are not doctors, tradesmen, laborers, merchants, and others that make the country and who will eventually implement the changes that you desire. I think you may have spoken a bit strongly. Would you say the same thing to your fellow inactive democrats who at least show up to vote?

Yes, some of the commenters have been a little harsh at times. However, that is because many of them have had personal experience(s), or know of someone who has actually experienced many of the issues covered here. Often those Americans who are most affected by the laws that ignore their circumstances, and instead favor the big lobbyists and corporations, are understandably going to have some strong views on how to reform harmful legislation.

I'll admit that I come from a background that has provided for me well, and I haven't had to experience the need to "tighten the belt" to pay bills or ever lacked access to the health care I needed. However, that does not give me the right to ignore the disadvantaged citizens who need some help to get a hold on the economic ladder. Society is better off when everyone benefits, not when just one portion of society gains at the expense of another.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating communism. That would be taking my statement to the extreme. What I am saying is that everyone has some responsibility to make an effort to support those in need. I think this is most clearly exhibited in regards to Social Security that ensures the elderly don't retire into poverty.

The fact is, as John Edwards says, "There are two Americas." It's quite obvious just driving around town. You know when you have entered the "other America" when you start to feel threatened in the city, some place where you think to yourself, "I sure wouldn't want to be here after dark" -- areas of dilapidated buildings, poorly paved streets, trash littering the ground, and dangerous looking people.

Just the same, I experienced the reverse of what I described above. When I was returning from my interview at KTRK studios last week, I made a wrong turn and ended up driving through the River Oaks subdivision. Every house looks like it is over 8,000 square feet, and each one has a very well groomed lawn that is in immaculate condition. Many homes more closely resemble the Palace of Versailles or fancy hotels, rather than places in which one is meant to live. Of course, here I am cruising through the subdivision in my 1991 Honda Accord that shows some wear after 14 years, and has a cracked windshield from one of the many rocks that litter I-45. I felt uncomfortable and alien in this very posh area, because I knew that I was not part of "their America." If someone had seen me, they probably would have thought I was the pizza boy. I don't have anything against the wealthy. They have put a significant ammount of effort into making a living, but sometimes I think that insulating oneself with only a part of society leads to a distorted and incomplete view of the world.

My dad worked for British Gas for many years and I traveled abroad, living in England and Tunisia (on the northern coast of Africa across from Sicily). While in Tunisia, I experienced what it was like to be the richest of the rich. It was quite an odd experience to go from a middle-class background to the highest of the elite. The company provided us with a 3-floor house surrounded by an 8 ft. wall. The living room literally looked like a hotel lobby, and my sister roller bladed in it. Our house was the tallest building around, except for the minarette (a tower) on the mosque near our house. My room even had an antechamber, its own bathroom with a jacuzzi, and was 16 ft. by 17 ft. with 12 ft. ceilings. Our house was one of probably about 20 houses in the area that had a private swimming pool.

However, I realized that what my family had was far more than what many Tunisians will ever dream of having. We were fortunate to become good friends with our guard/gardener, Said, and he invited us to his family's house for a family party. They had a bare, concrete-walled, one story house with a small entry way. To the left was a dining room and to the right were two small bedrooms, and in between was the toilet, which wasn't much more than a hole in the ground. However, his family had done relatively well compared to most Tunisians as fishers and were in the process of building an addition that had three more rooms. However, they were building it themselves.

Nevertheless, Said was having trouble coming up with enough money to pay for an operation on his three-year old daughter. I think it had something to do with her ear that was giving her balance problems. Right before we moved away, my sister, who was nine at the time, gave him a hundred Tunisian dinars (about $100) that she had saved. I thought it was kind of excessive at the time, but I have come to realize that no matter what my sister does now that she has improved the quality of life for that young girl, who is now a teenager, for as long as she lives.

I'm not saying that everything can be fixed through handouts, but that even little efforts can greatly improve the life of one person. We must remain attentive to the needs of the people that matter, the ones that make our nation function. Unfortunately, there are many people like Said here in the United States, who stuggle to pay for pills and much needed medical care.

Just imagine if the janitors didn't clean the office bathrooms, or if the garbagemen did not take away your trash, or if there were no plumbers to fix the leak in your house. I could go on and on. No one would want to live in their house or go to work, I assure you. These are the people who are all too often overlooked, but are nonetheless crucial to the functioning of our society.

Our government should not be writing legislation that protects corporations from class action lawsuits, and makes it easier for credit card companies to charge 40% interest rates and harder for individuals to declare bankruptcy for legitimate reasons, writing energy bills that protect MTBE producers from health lawsuits, and repeatedly cutting taxes for the richest Americans resulting in an increase in the birth tax on the unborn by not facing responsibility and paying down our national debt. Health care should be a right, not a privilege.

There are TWO Americas, and those who speak harshly here understand that and want to create a more equal America that isn't divided by glass walls or ceilings.

Marc, you stated:

Kris, Did you ever think that "business as usual" in the United States involves a lot of people who do their best on a daily basis to make this country a better place? You bash me for believing that my vote counts, then you turn around and say that if you're not politically active then you do nothing to make anything better. And why are you out there doing all these political activities? To generate votes! So which is it, do votes count or don't they?
Politics alone will not change this country. Politicians are not doctors, tradesmen, laborers, merchants, and others that make the country and who will eventually implement the changes that you desire. I think you may have spoken a bit strongly. Would you say the same thing to your fellow inactive democrats who at least show up to vote?

I'm saying we cannot be assured that our votes COUNTED, Marc. The election in 2000 and 2004 was rigged for Bush, pure, plain and simple. Reports ran rampant of vote flipping, voter intimidation, long lines at voting machines, not enough voting machines etc. The only states where the exit polls were vastly different from the votes that were recorded were in Florida and Ohio. Historically, exit polls have been dead on with respect to which candidate is going to win an election. The Chimpanzee knew he couldn't win unless he stole the election, so he proceeded to do so. We need open source code on all electronic voting machines in this country as well as a paper trail.

I'm not discounting all the things Americans do on a daily basis to make this world a better place. Look at all the people who stepped up to the plate and donated money to Andy Stephenson simply because the man is in dire straits. Americans, and specifically LIBERALS, do a lot of infighting with regard to what issues they deem most important, however, when push comes to shove, we are always willing to help our fellow man and do what we need to do to make this world a better place.

It's not enough for people to simply vote, Marc. Democracy must be fought for, and we must remain ever vigilant in protecting it. When people get lazy and complacent then forces come in to try and subvert democracy. This is what is happening right now. The populace has been "dumbed down" by infotainment and misinformation by a "bought and paid for" media. Americans don't have a grasp on history. They have been lied to and told that if they don't support Bush and this administration and all his plans then they are "helping the terrorists" or are "unpatriotic" or aren't "supporting our troops". Bushie boy and his minions have done some hard studying of Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. I've been reading Thom Hartmann's book, What Would Jefferson Do, and the similarities between Hitler and the Nazis and the Bush administration are striking. I think that asshole Karl Rove did his homework.

I'm out there doing all these political activities not only to get people off their asses and out to vote but to attempt to wake people up from their stupor and inform them as to what is going on in this country and what is at stake if they do nothing.

I, for one, will scream from the mountaintops to all those people who:

#1 Continue to make excuses for Bush and support him
#2 Continue to sit on their asses and bitch about the state of affairs in this country but do nothing to help change things

I will say: "It's because of you stupid sons of bitches that we're in the fix we find ourselves in. By your ignorance and complacency, you have allowed our country to be hijacked by fascists. Welcome to serfdom, morons!"

Don't be foolish enough to think your vote "counts", Marc. As long as we have these Rethugs in power, they will fight long and hard to make sure we DON'T have open source code on voting machines and paper trails because they know they'd never win another election if we had that kind of failsafe in our elections. These neocon fascist thugs intend to remain in power. They LIKE the way things are. They firmly believe that the wealthy should be the only people who have a say in government and policy making. They intend to make serfs out of all of us, so they can keep making more and more money.

Do you intend to sit on your ass and allow this to happen or do you intend to actually DO something to retrieve our democracy?! I don't want to hear that "voting is enough". It's NOT enough, Marc. We must work and work hard to make reforms in our election system, healthcare system, education system etc. These rotten assholes are counting on the fact that Americans are so busy trying to work and make a living that they'll be too distracted to do much of anything. It is up to those of us "in the know" to educate other Americans as to what is going on in this country and globally. It is up to us Democrats to let people know the Democratic Party truly does represent their best interests. It's also up to the goddamned Democratic Party to get off its ass and get a unified message out there to the masses that the Democratic Party IS the party of the PEOPLE and not the corporations. This Democratic Party MUST get a sac and stop laying down and allowing the Rethugs to kick the hell out them again and again and again.

Our very existence as a democratic nation is at stake. We have everything to lose here. That's why it's so important that we all work together to effect positive change in this country. Voting is important, but we must be assured that our votes count, otherwise, we have lost the cornerstone of our democracy.

Once again, Marc C. has resorted to both a feeble attempt at humor and depracation rather than take
on my arguments vis a vis corporate abuse of our democracy and economic system with some effort at rational discourse. Why? Because he apparently knows I am right in that critique and cannot muster the intellectual effort to challenge my logic. So much for Republican apologists invading this site.

Kris,

At first I thought you were just passionate. Now, I think you're just an alarmist. When you need gasoline, you go to a COMPANY. When you need food, you go to a COMPANY. When you buy a house you got to a mortgage COMPANY. And on , and on . . .

Again, comapanies exist to provide goods that you, Kris, demand. They do this to make a profit. They have their interests and We the People have ours. Our collective interests are not all mutually exclusive, or the company wouldn't exist Kris.

I too, am aware that there are a a very few amount of people that get most of the benefit in the company and I'm not happy about it, but I'm not going to complain as they have the most to lose in building their company. And besides, we live better here than 99% of the world does. If you're so worried about socioeconomic equality, go to India, or China where you can be on the streets like everyone else.

I believe that a company should be responsible and forthright. I even believe that there should be some degree of regulation, but after seeing Stan's populist website and the stated goals, one might think you all believe that a company should be a charity.

With regards to the Bush Hitler comment. I dismiss that out of hand. As a Jew who lost a significant amount of family in the Holocaust, I see that whole line of reasoning/comparison as idiotic and moreover obscene.

The democrats have been outpoliticked and they have lost their message. Don't blame Karl Rove, blame yourselves. If this series of exchanges of yours are any yardstick by which to measure as to how you will continue to get your message across, then you will continue to be outdone. I myself am not a republican or democrat. I came here because I'm curious and I have doubts. I seek engagement and exchange of ideas. From what I've seen to date, you are an alarmist and just like to fight. Remember Kris, it's the swing voters, not the party faithful that you have to convince. That's politics 101.

Why is it when someone speaks the truth, that person is called an alarmist? Marc, I think you are posting on this blog to stir up shit. You obviously have your head up your ass with regard to what is going on in this country. You obviously lean more toward the Republican viewpoint, so why don't you go post on the Free Republic website, and I'm sure your inane comments will get the approval you so desperately seek.

Don't crack on Stan about the Progressive Populist website, buddy. Stan has been working tirelessly to effect positive change in this country. What in the hell have you been doing besides adding to the problem?

I don't give a shit what you think of my comparison of Bush and Hitler. I know that Bush is on the same path as that megalomaniacal sociopath was. Guess what, Einstein? If things keep going the way they're going in this country you WILL see many poor and middle class families living on the street. We won't have to go to China or India because many of us will be living under bridges right here in the good old U.S.A.

God, you're so deluded! You say you're curious and have doubts. Whatever. I think you're a troll who's just out to cause trouble.

Stand back and watch what happens in this country, Marc. When people get hungry enough and when their children are sick, starving and dying in this country then you'll see a people's revolution like you've never seen before.

If our moderator chooses to put up with your bullshit that's her prerogative, however, I won't dignify your comments with mine anymore because your comments don't amount to a hill of beans anyway.

Thanks for your open-mindedness Kris. I'm sure that I don't have to reemphasize that it's the "truth" thyat we are arguing. I'm sorry you can find no other way to communicate than through hateful invective (I know, I know you'll probably need a dictionary for that as it doesn't contain the word ASS in it).

As for Stan, like Lyn he can defend himself.

And as for the moderator, she only has to say the word and I'll leave you alone. I'm sorry if I've put to much strain on the members of this board. Seems like intolerance in America still rules and it resides right here as shown in your lack of tact and candor.

Ummm...why are we wasting time with this guy? That battle is not going to be fought in the blogs. This guy seems to be keeping us occupied when we have bigger and better, more productive things to be working on.

Paz,

ASM

Okay folks. I'm just going to ask everyone to discuss the issues without attacking motives or providing assessments of each other's intelligence. Marc, say something nice about Kris. Kris, say something nice about Marc.

I'll start. Kris' unrelenting passion for the issues is unmatched and she is a great asset to this board. Both are devoted parents. Marc served our country with honor can help us improve our communications with people that voted for Bush are uncomfortable with at least some of his policies.

Hey, Lyn. Thanks for the nice words, however, I am done with Marc. I agree with Medellin that we are wasting our time on this guy. I'm not going to give him the satisfaction of pushing my buttons. He seems to get off on this.

I think most Americans have the same goals in mind, but often various ways to go about achieving them.

If we really are a party that represents the people, we need to work on opening ourselves to a wider base. I'm afraid that writing off portions of the population is similar to writing off some states that are too "red." How are we ever going to stand a chance if we don't give a chance to those undecideds, Independents, or disaffected Republicans of the nation to explore an alternative to their policies?

I understand that many of us are upset with the way things are going. I think the last 4 years have been a significant backtrack on many policies that came before, even ones instituted under prior Republican administrations. Of course the environment is an important topic for me, but it's not the only one. I'm sure everyone here can think of several examples. We're going to be paying for these backtracks for the foreseeable future, and the next 4 years don't hold much promise either.

However, I have to agree that most of the language being used here is most likely to drive away potential supporters. We don't have to all agree on exactly what to do, nor do I think it is possible to come to a complete consensus. We all have different backgrounds and experiences that make us who we are, and therefore different perspectives on how we should address particular issues.

I think the Democratic Party needs the Krises, the Rons, and the Stans of the nation to argue and help define the objectives of the Democratic Party. Strong progressives push the party to new boundaries and to achieve new legislation that wouldn't be possible without their efforts. However, I think it is important not to alienate the supporters we do have already. People matter, and we don't increase our chances of making significant change if we drive away those, whose votes we so desire and need to become a majority party again.

I appreciate Marc C. for having the initiative to come here and to pose arguments. Since he has arrived, we have had some vigorous discussions. There's no harm in what he's doing. Everyone has the right to ask a question and to receive a fair answer. I just wish that the discussion would be about substantive topics and not calling each other names and using lude innuendo. That's just childish. Some of the language used here is the same thing that turns us off to the Rush Limbaughs and Joe Scarboroughs, the Sean Hannities and the Ann Coulters of the far right. I would presume the same type of language from the opposite side would turn off the more conservative citizens of the nation. Remember Clinton won because he was able to appeal to this group in 1992 and 1996.

Marc C. has certainly expressed some misgivings about the current administration, and has asked us for the Democratic view, but we can't sell it through personal attacks. I mean that's like the former Education Secretary Rod Paige calling the National Education Association, the largest teaching organization in America, "terrorists" and then expecting their support on No Child Left Behind. I certainly wouldn't support anyone that called me a terrorist, just the same way I don't agree with people who call me un-American because I happen to agree with the Democratic take on issues.

There's no problem with being tough on issues, but let's be civil about it. We should be about building America up, not cutting down one of our fellow citizens. I would hope that over time we could attract more people who are tired of the Bush administration's policies here to discuss some of the issues they believe are important, ones the administration and many of our representatives are ignoring in order to come up with some viable solutions to problems important to average Americans. These are the people we should be reaching out to. The ones who are tired with government-as-usual, the ones looking for differerent answers.

We must promote issues, not insults.

I posed a coherent, rational arguments re: the unfair influence of corporations on the political and public policy process, without calling names or "innuendo". Marc started the invective in that sring, failing to retort or rejoinder at any level. This flushed out his lack of sincerity or any genuine desire for dialogue.....he is a poser or Republican and we do not need to pander to provocateurs on this blog. We already have one conservative Party, Marc O. Why do we need two, according to your arguments?
The Clinton logic you use is bogus. We may have won twice with him, but what did we get for it?
He sucked in the left in '92 and proceeded to sell the Party out with anti-Democratic Party public policy.....remember NAFTA? Remember welfare "reform"? Remember the "smaller government" theme?
Remember hard assed law and order policy such as mandatory minimums? How about communications deregulation leading to the corporate media you experienced first hand this past week? He pursued a militaristic foreign policy with more foreign military interventions than any other President in American history. Stuff only Republicans love. Yet pandering to the right didn't serve him too well when he lost Congress in '94 to the "Contract with America". He pandered to Corporate America at the expense of labor and everday working people and led the Party away from the folks on main street. Come on Marc, this DLC line you are spouting is failed. The liberal-conservative dichotomy works both for the people and for electoral success, Marc; this is why left-governments are emerging around the world. Clinton chased off the lower income voters in America, much of the 40% who don't vote used to be our base. And he gave Republicans the fodder to paint Democrats as "immoral", launcing the cultural wars. Kris, Ron and Stan's point of view is not some abberation in our party, it is our core dogma appealing to the lower income folks we have to get back to rebuild our Party, not the Republican wanna be's like Marc C. We have a conservative party...it is called Republicanism. We do not have a liberal/progressive Party....at least, not quite yet. But we are getting there and your DLC line, targeting on the fence Republicans is a failed strategy which is directed to the "wrong" people. Good riddance to Marc C. Now we need to work on you and teach you what it means to be a Democrat.
"Texas belongs to the people, not the Corporations", Gov. Stephen Hogg.

Kris, the vulgarity needs to stop. The first time you used vulgarity it was shocking and drew me in to your post but now I find it's stale and does not add any passion to your arguments. If you write posts without the vulgarity more people will read them to the end. I'm even having a rough time reading past your PG-17 insults and X-rated references to sex and I think the world of you. Yes, we're the party of free speech but could you do us all a favor and write more like Stan and the authors you've posted? And while you're at it, write about someone truly evil, like this guy:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3167055.

First of all, I don't think anybody on this blog should be telling me how or what to write. I do believe we still have a First Amendment in this country. Secondly, Aimee, while I do respect your opinion, I don't think you need to tell me I should write MORE LIKE Stan or any of the other writers I have chosen to quote. Where do you get off anyway? That really irritates me. If I happen to use colorful language to describe how I am feeling at the time you are well within your rights NOT to read my posts. I haven't told anyone on this blog how to write or what to write, and I don't appreciate being told how I should communicate either. Don't mother hen me, Aimee. I don't like it. I had one mother. I don't need another.

Perhaps those of you who find my posts offensive would be more comfortable if I chose not to post at all. I will have to think long and hard about that as I am growing increasingly tired of all the "let's just play nice with one another" and "let's all be politically and socially correct" diatribe I am hearing on this blog.

Thanks for not using vulgarity. That was beautiful;-)

Aimee, if that was an attempt at humor then I'm not laughing. I'm trying to get across to you how I feel, so don't patronize me. I'm way too old to play these kinds of games. I don't have the time nor the inclination to play them.

Parting Comments. . .On to your ANWR blog.

Some people live for drama, and act in ways online that they would never dream of acting in real life.

I don't disagree with many of your ideas to reinvigorate the Democratic Party, and am just as concerned about the future of the Democratic Party as everyone here.

My point is how we promote our message significantly impacts how it resonates with potential supporters, and it would be much more effective without the unnecessary language that creates an image of anger and intolerance, however unintended or justifiable it may be.

However, I think we have addressed this, and it's time to move on to discuss other important legislative and public policy issues.

I just wanted to remind folks of the opportunity to participate in the Save America Without DeLay Festival this comming Saturday, May 14th from 4:30 to 7:30 pm. Everyone is invited to join us. Please bring your family to share free food, music, games, contests, speeches by Richard Morrison and Chris Bell. There will be lots of booths with games and info to share. This is a great chance for Democratic comraderie!
The festival is to be held at Tom Bass Regional Park #3, Pavillion #4, located at 15108 Cullen Road, Houston, Tx 77047. The park is along the feeder road of Beltway 8, just east of 288.

Please RSVP ( for food count): www.democracyforamerica.com/DFHpicnic

If you have an organization that would like to have a booth at the event, please email: mrtfordean@yahoo.com for further info.

For more info on the event, please go to www.democracyforhouston.org

We will have a booth that will be collecting books for our "Books for Soldiers" drive. Please bring any books that you would like to donate. You can also share in the festivities by bringing a "Dessert for Democracy!"
There will be media and press coverage of this event, as well. Don't miss out on a family friendly environment that puts DEMOCRATS FIRST!!!

I want to contribute to the blog any way I can. I will link to you on my site.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Can anyone tell me why nobody on this blog is talking about this memo?

The Sunday Times - Britain

May 01, 2005

The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

This memo PROVES BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that Bush LIED THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA into an invasion of Iraq!!! Did you read the little piece about the INTELLIGENCE AND FACTS BEING FIXED AROUND THE POLICY?!! The mainstream media isn't covering this either! This memo PROVES that Bush is guilty of HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS against the United States of America. It PROVES he's a goddamned MASS MURDERER of at least 100,000 innocent Iraqis and that he is GUILTY of sending 1600 American soldiers to their deaths and of 15,000 American soldiers receiving horrendous injuries.

What does anybody think about this? Why in the hell is no one talking about the fact that our government has been TAKEN OVER BY CORPORATIONS and is being run by A FUCKING RETARDED CHIMPANZEE WHO IS PROPPED UP BY FASCISTS????!!!!!

Good grief, people! What should we do about this shit? It's obvious the Brits aren't going to do anything about the memo. What about American citizens?!

Kris - see this thread: http://www.houstondemocrats.com/archives/2005/05/88_house_member.html

The voices here, Kris, are not being raised because all to many are running around playing "nicey nicey" and "can't we all just get along". Many of our Dems, including some principals on this blog, don't understand that we in the progressive movement are at war with the fascists running the Bushite theocracy....open political war...........to bring the corporate-funded machine down. The nicey nicey "moderate and DLC centrist" crowd on this blog are still living with the delusion that by capitulating to the theocrats rather than building a ferocious intellectual and organizing campaign, we can negotiate some middle-place resolution with those fanatics where we are only maybe a "partial theocracy", or a "partial-corporatized" party, or only maybe only just a little fascist. Sadly, you and I have to be part of the "marine assault force" and the nicely nicely people are behind us fragging the shit out of us. Stan Merriman

Wow. How do we know that this memo isn't a fabrication? Do you all automatically accept it's veracity? I know you all hate Bush, but doesn't this memo make it just too easy to demonize him?

Marc, the memo has been available for over 2 weeks and neither the British government nor ours has denied its validity. What little coverage there hasw been, has not been able to cast any doubt on the memo. Do you really find it so hard to believe Paul O'Neil, Joe Wilson and the countless others who have asserted that W planned to go into Iraq all along?

Why did I know it would be you, Charendoff, that would question the validity of the Downing Street memo? No one in the British or American government has questioned the validity of this memo. Why are YOU questioning it? Isn't it obvious we have our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan killing people and being killed?! You know as well as the rest of us that WMDs never existed in Iraq. You know as well as the rest of us that Saddam Hussein was not in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. You know as well as the rest of us that Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9-11. You know as well as we do that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian (if in fact these so called hijackers ever existed at all).

The point is, Charendoff, why are YOU questioning the validity of a memo that clearly states Bush intended to launch an invasion of Iraq months before the war and his administration FIXED the intelligence and facts to support the policy?! What's wrong with you?! Are you a fascist? Are you mentally retarded?

George W. Bush is a lying, treasonous, greedy, amoral, brain damaged chimpanzee. His strings are pulled by corporate fascists. We are losing democracy in America, and all you are worried about is whether or not this memo is a forgery? Catch a clue, Einstein! Why shouldn't Bush be demonized?! Look what he and his administration have done, Charendoff! How dare you imply he shouldn't be demonized! Bush and his entire administration should be tried in an international court for war crimes as well as treason against the United States for outing an undercover C.I.A. agent, one Valerie Plame.

You've obviously been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and any of the other right wing morons on talk radio. Maybe you've been reading too much Ann Coulter. Maybe you've been listening to Bob Novak or Sean Hannity or Joe Scarborough. You'd better wake up, Charendoff and pull your head out of your posterior.

Most of us if not all of us on this blog know what's really going on in this country. I think you probably know, too, but it seems you get your rocks off on being adversarial. I don't care what your motivations are. You're as blind as a bat or dumb as a stump.

The jig is up, Charendoff. Go back to the Free Republic website or whatever other right wing wackjob website you like to blog on. Those of us on this blog prefer to live in a reality based community as opposed to the fantasy land Bizarro world you inhabit.

I would seriously doubt the veracity of the Downing Street Memo or dismiss it as inconsequential if it were not for a few glaring facts. #1. Our military is not safely ensconced in bases at home or doggedly pursuing Osama in Afghanistan; they are in Iraq. #2. No WMD as described by Bush and Powell has been discovered, and the US and UK military forces are still in Iraq. #3. Saddam has been captured and imprisoned, and the US and UK military forces are still in Iraq. #4.The Iraqi people are war weary and dying by the hundreds of thousands, and WE are still in Iraq.

It can be debated 'til hell freezes over whether we invaded Iraq for this or that reason or when the decision was made to "cook the evidence" to justify an illegal war. The point is: there IS NO EXIT STRATEGY and there never will be. It boils down to the simplest answer when dealing with this foul fascist regime. It is about the money. GREED, people! THAT is what makes a rethug tick.

This is funny!!! -

But they report that a former senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during Dearlove's visit to Washington.
There's so many of these "former senior officials" around now they probably have their own 900 number.

CALL NOW!! Speak to a former senior official as he affirms all your Bush hating fantasies.
Have your leftist world view stroked and massaged by our senior official's haughty sounding voice.

first minute $16.99, $3.49/minute, not legal in all states, we accept all major credit cards and press passes

Very good Marc,

You go out of your way to do some research on the subject and find a quote that no one here has cited and use that as your basis to try and discredit the memo. Your credibility has sunk to the level of Dear Leader's.

Bush hating fantasies, Charendoff? Have your leftist worldview stroked? What fantasies, Charendoff? What's the matter with having a "leftist worldview"? Guess what, Einstein? The Framers of our Constitution had a "leftist worldview". Why don't you? Do you think only the wealthy have the right to make decisions in this country? Do you believe corporations have the same rights as people? If you believe those things then you belong to the radical right wing Rethuglican Party. Brush up on your Constitution, Charendoff. This country's people are supposed to have the RIGHTS. The government should be granted PRIVILEGES given to it BY THE PEOPLE. Right now rights and privileges have been switched, but those of us on the LEFT plan on changing that post, haste and immediately. You can get on board, or you can be left in the dust.

How can you POSSIBLY DEFEND Bush and his cronies? We have thousands of dead Iraqis and 1600 dead American soldiers. All of those people were somebody's children, mother, father etc. We have thousands more Americans and Iraqis horribly disfigured or with brain injuries. What's with you anyway?! All of this could've been avoided if Chimpie Boy hadn't had a hard on to finish what his old man started. Bush and Cheney are Texas oil millionaires. Why do YOU think we're in Iraq, hmmmmm? It sure as hell wasn't to liberate an oppressed people from a tyrant. You don't liberate a people and spread democracy by dropping bombs on a country, raping, torturing and killing people and pretty much blowing everything up in sight and spreading depleted uranium all over the Middle East. You've drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid, Charendoff. Deep down I think you Rethugs KNOW this invasion is wrong. You KNOW what BushCo did is immoral.

Newsflash, bud: JUST BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES HAS THE BIGGEST SWINGING D*** IN THE WORLD DOESN'T MEAN IT HAS THE RIGHT TO GO AROUND FRAGGING EVERYBODY WITH IT!!!!!

The United States is SUPPOSED to set an example of democracy for the rest of the world to follow. Instead we've become the poster child for FASCISM.

What's it going to take to convince you, Charendoff? Do we have to have brownshirts patrolling the streets goosestepping and arresting citizens for merely speaking out against the squatters and criminals in the White House?! Oh, I forgot, we already have had people arrested for carrying protest signs and speaking out. My bad.

When the American people wake up from their stupor and find they have no CIVIL RIGHTS, no FOOD, no JOB and no HUMAN DIGNITY left they are going to rise up and Katie bar the door when they do 'cause some heads are gonna roll in this country.

If I were you I'd switch teams fast. You seem to have signed on with the LOSERS (FASCISTS), Charendoff. Those of us on the WINNING TEAM (DEMOCRACY) will have you and all the other FASCIST, Bush worshipping thugs huddled in a corner sucking your thumbs and crying for your momma before this is over.

For anyone who's interested, I've pasted an article written by economist, Paul Krugman, for the New York Times Op-Ed page. I agree with everything Krugman says except for the part about our soldiers needing to remain in Iraq to clean up the mess we made. I disagree with that thinking entirely. I think we'd send a stronger message to Iraqis that we're NOT interested in being Imperial Rulers of Iraq if we pulled our soldiers out and enlisted the help of the U.N. in rebuilding the country we bombed into the Stone Age. Civil war is already beginning in Iraq, and our soldiers are merely in the middle of it. I believe Civil war is going to break out anyway between the Shiites and the Sunnis REGARDLESS of whether our troops are there or not. In fact, the presence of our troops only exacerbates an already volatile situation.

May 16, 2005
Staying What Course?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Is there any point, now that November's election is behind us, in revisiting the history of the Iraq war? Yes: any path out of the quagmire will be blocked by people who call their opponents weak on national security, and portray themselves as tough guys who will keep America safe. So it's important to understand how the tough guys made America weak.

There has been notably little U.S. coverage of the "Downing Street memo" - actually the minutes of a British prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, during which officials reported on talks with the Bush administration about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to The Times of London during the British election campaign, confirms what apologists for the war have always denied: the Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted.

Here's a sample: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

(You can read the whole thing at www.downingstreetmemo.com.)

Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, "the case was thin" and Saddam's "W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran"? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.

But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong Il fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport?

At this point, the echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Reports from the recent offensive near the Syrian border sound just like those from a 1960's search-and-destroy mission, body count and all. Stories filed by reporters actually with the troops suggest that the insurgents, forewarned, mostly melted away, accepting battle only where and when they chose.

Meanwhile, America's strategic position is steadily deteriorating.

Next year, reports Jane's Defense Industry, the United States will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Yet the Pentagon now admits that our military is having severe trouble attracting recruits, and would have difficulty dealing with potential foes - those that, unlike Saddam's Iraq, might pose a real threat.

In other words, the people who got us into Iraq have done exactly what they falsely accused Bill Clinton of doing: they have stripped America of its capacity to respond to real threats.

So what's the plan?

The people who sold us this war continue to insist that success is just around the corner, and that things would be fine if the media would just stop reporting bad news. But the administration has declared victory in Iraq at least four times. January's election, it seems, was yet another turning point that wasn't.

Yet it's very hard to discuss getting out. Even most of those who vehemently opposed the war say that we have to stay on in Iraq now that we're there.

In effect, America has been taken hostage. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the terrible scenes that will surely unfold if we leave (even though terrible scenes are unfolding while we're there). Nobody wants to tell the grieving parents of American soldiers that their children died in vain. And nobody wants to be accused, by an administration always ready to impugn other people's patriotism, of stabbing the troops in the back.

But the American military isn't just bogged down in Iraq; it's deteriorating under the strain. We may already be in real danger: what threats, exactly, can we make against the North Koreans? That John Bolton will yell at them? And every year that the war goes on, our military gets weaker.

So we need to get beyond the cliches - please, no more "pottery barn principles" or "staying the course." I'm not advocating an immediate pullout, but we have to tell the Iraqi government that our stay is time-limited, and that it has to find a way to take care of itself. The point is that something has to give. We either need a much bigger army - which means a draft - or we need to find a way out of Iraq. END OF ARTICLE

By the way, somebody NEEDS to tell the grieving mothers and fathers of American troops that YES, your child(ren) did die in vain for a war that was waged for money and power. The American people MUST wake up and realize they have sacrificed their children on the altar of greed for this fascist monkey and his cohorts in crime. It is NOT stabbing the troops in the back for wanting them to come home. It is a supreme act of love and compassion that we demand this administration allow our troops to come home and get the medical care they need. As far as no one wanting to accept responsibility for the horrible mess that is Iraq, we all must accept responsibility for it no matter how hard a pill that is to swallow. We have sat back on our laurels and allowed this smirking monkey to send our children to far off places to kill, maim, torture and spread nuclear poisons all over the Middle East. Because we are American citizens and this war was waged in our names, we are all ultimately responsible for the death and carnage. Now, it's up to those of us who have a moral compass to stand up and take our country back and make whatever reparations we can. It will take years and years for us to make amends for what we've allowed to happen, and even after years have passed, I don't think we'll ever be able to truly make amends for killing other people's children and destroying their infrastructure and way of life.

It sickens and saddens me that this whole fiasco happened at all. Right wing religious nutjobs and corporate fascists have been allowed to take over the government of the United States because average Americans have gotten lazy and complacent with regard to protecting and upholding democracy. The time for sleeping is over, folks. It's time to stand up and fight to regain our democracy and our good name in the world.

"I believe Civil war is going to break outanyway between the Shiites and the Sunnis REGARDLESS of whether our troops are there or not." - Good one Kris. . . I agree let them all waste each other.We shouldn't a damn about stability in the region. People that think like you allow genocide,you know,like what happened in Rwanda.

"spread nuclear poisons " - what in the hell are you talking about?! More fabrication/sensationalism obviously.

"Right wing religious nutjobs and corporate fascists have been allowed to take over the government of the United States because average Americans have gotten lazy and complacent with regard to protecting and upholding democracy. " - The people elect who they want. It just so happens they value God and business, kind of like the founding fathers.

"I don't think w