THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIMARY DECISION IN 40 YEARS
If Edwards wins the Iowa caucuses, it will be the most significant progressive primary win since Eugene McCarthy got 41% of the vote in New Hampshire in 1968.
While those who prefer the personal, albeit single digit, purity of supporting a Kucinich may scoff, even Ralph Nader agrees that an Edwards nomination would be a historic shift in the political landscape. While the iconographic liberals - those placing ethnic or gender symbolism ahead of real change - dismiss Edwards, the obese media and the Washington establishment certainly agree; from the start they have tried mightily to bury Edwards in the purgatory of silence.
Presidents don't make change as much as they reflect it, profit from it and manipulate it. Those seeking our, or their own, salvation from a president come to the wrong altar. What politicians do extremely well, however, is to reinforce whatever is already happening. Lyndon Johnson, for example, was about as far as a saint as one could imagine, yet the 1960s could not have happened without him. Put Barry Goldwater in his place and the story would have been totally rewritten.
That, in fact, is what helped bring an end to the 1960s. Nixon simply stopped the draft and convinced the record moguls to cease advertising in the underground press. An era was over.
Edwards' election would signal the end of another era, namely that of Reagan, the Bushes and Clinton - one that has wrecked social democracy, returned the economy to robber baron standards and caused us to be hated around the world.
Finally we can begin again. This would not be a reflection of Edwards' virtues so much as of the strength of a constituency for change that this country has not seen for a long time. And it would be a victory for all of us. - Sam Smith
24 Comments:
Supporting Kucinich is about "personal purity"? Can that same argument be made about Nader voters? Edwards voters? How about someone who wouldn't vote for Hillary CLinton, even if she was running against Mike Huckacuckoo? Got your purity all straightened out?
Oh, and calling people who support Hillary or Obama "iconographic" in their assessment of what "real change" means, I'd say you were a Freeper for that kind of narrow-minded broad-brushing of large groups of Democrats.
Actually, calling people who support Hillary as "iconographic" is a compliment, given her record of supporting the sanctions against Iraq, the war in Iraq, a possible war in Iran and welfare reform. Baudrillard accurately described the replacement of one party with another that merely administers the same system as "alternation". That's Hillary. So, hypocritical liberals might be accurate.
Obama? I'm not as negative about him as Sam. He does appear to be generating enthusiasm among people that have otherwise been alienated from politics and the post-9/11 environment. In this respect, he has something in common with Schwarzenegger, someone who has abandoned faux partisanship. Accordingly, one can only speculate what might happen if he becomes President on a wave of support from such people. In this respect, they could push him to open the door to a new era, as people did with JFK.
Like Obama, JFK had a lot of establishment connections (and pretty bad policy ideas), but he understood that the "the times, they are a'changin'" and begrudingly played a role in motivating people to believe that they could bring about a social transformation.
Yes, an Edwards win in Iowa would be nice, but that's not enough, he has to perform well in New Hampshire and South Carolina as well, or he will be quickly buried.
--Richard Estes
I doubt Edwards can win Iowa. I saw a poll on Google News which says Obama is in the lead.But I didn't read the story.
But I am glad Ship Hillary is going to end up as Titanic. Who wouldn't want her to lose? She and her gang were so smug. Aah, It would be so sweet if she loses.
She is the political equivalent of an ambulance chaser.No principle is too big to sell out to the highest bidder. What a pathetic woman.
Watch out for more rants from liberals who will scream Gender Bias, Sexism for anyone who criticizes Hillary.
Yes, I agree, please just not Hillary.
As Cromwell once said to Parliament "You've been here long enough, for any good that you've done. In the name of God, GO!"
No more Clintonbushes. And no more Baby Boomers. Please. No more. We've had enough.
Apparently, Sam hasn't noticed Edwards position on eternal resource war (business as usual) or his position on the war on drugs (it's okay to imprison the sick and dying for what their own state says is legal medicine--it sends the wrong message to the kids). Edwards is a joke.
A Plan For Action In Darfur And Uganda
"There comes a time when we must say, 'Never again.'" -- John Edwards
Today, two neighboring nations in Africa, Sudan and Uganda, face a pivotal moment right now. The two countries contain the most critical humanitarian crises in the world. John Edwards has outlined steps the United States can take with its NATO allies to help end the genocide in Darfur and to support the peace process in Uganda. With these steps, we can turn the corner in both countries, put the region back on the road to peace and help restore America's moral leadership in the world.
The Genocide in Darfur
Conflict in Darfur, which is in Western Sudan, broke out in 2003 when small farmers took up arms to fight for a greater share of resources. The conflict turned into genocide when the Sudanese government backed the Janjaweed militia, which has brutally raped, tortured and killed 400,000 people and driven two and a half million people from their homes. In addition, the violence and chaos is spreading to neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic.
African Union peacekeeping troops stationed in Darfur have been valiant in a difficult cause. But these troops, which number just 7,000, have been unable to protect civilians or enforce a 2004 ceasefire. In the meantime, security has deteriorated dramatically.
Last November, President Bashir of Sudan finally agreed to allow U.N. peacekeeping troops in the country, which would be deployed in two phases. The first phase was about 200 advisors, who are now in the country. The second was 3,000 peacekeeping forces, who would work with the African Union troops. The 3,000 U.N. troops are the critical link in the chain, and the UN is not moving quickly enough to provide them.
A Comprehensive Plan for U.S. and NATO Action to End the Genocide in Darfur
John Edwards believes we should work with NATO, one of the world's most effective security organizations, to make sure the UN process will be as rapid, tough, and effective as possible. We saw the success of NATO in the Kosovo operation under President Clinton. Its member countries have some of the most accomplished militaries in the world. Edwards called for a combination of U.S. and NATO actions to accelerate the peacekeeping process and stop the genocide.
President Bush should reverse his decision to delay new American sanctions on 29 companies owned or controlled by the Sudanese government.
American airlift capabilities, logistical support and intelligence operations should be deployed to assist U.N. and African Union peacekeeping efforts in Darfur.
The U.S. should convene within the next 30 days an emergency meeting of NATO's leadership to act on Darfur.
NATO countries should support the deployment of U.N. troops with logistical, operational, and financial support.
NATO should establish a no-fly zone over the region, to cut off supplies to the brutal Janjaweed militias and end Sudanese bombing of civilians in Darfur.
NATO member countries should impose new multilateral sanctions on the Sudanese government as well as individuals complicit in the genocide.
The Civil War in Uganda
Uganda is home to one of the greatest unreported humanitarian crises in the world. Millions of people have been displaced from their homes and subjected
Ten Reasons Why "Save Darfur" is a PR Scam to Justify the Next US Oil and Resource Wars in Africa
by Bruce Dixon
Global Research, December 12, 2007
blackagendareport.com - 2007-11-27
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
The star-studded hue and cry to "Save Darfur" and "stop the genocide" has gained enormous traction in U.S. media along with bipartisan support in Congress and the White House. But the Congo, with ten to twenty times as many African dead over the same period is not called a "genocide" and passes almost unnoticed. Sudan sits atop lakes of oil. It has large supplies of uranium, and other minerals, significant water resources, and a strategic location near still more African oil and resources. The unasked question is whether the nation's Republican and Democratic foreign policy elite are using claims of genocide, and appeals for "humanitarian intervention" to grease the way for the next oil and resource wars on the African continent.
The regular manufacture and the constant maintenance of false realities in the service of American empire is a core function of the public relations profession and the corporate news media. Whether it's fake news stories about wonder drugs and how toxic chemicals are good for you, bribed commentators and journalists discoursing on the benefits of No Child Left Behind, Hollywood stars advocating military intervention to save African orphans, or slick propaganda campaigns employing viral marketing techniques to reach out to college students, bloggers, churches and ordinary citizens, it pays to take a close look behind the facade.
Among the latest false realities being pushed upon the American people are the simplistic pictures of Black vs. Arab genocide in Darfur, and the proposed solution: a robust US-backed or US-led military intervention in Western Sudan. Increasing scrutiny is being focused upon the "Save Darfur" lobby and the Save Darfur Coalition; upon its founders, its finances, its methods and motivations and its truthfulness. In the spirit of furthering that examination we here present ten reasons to suspect that the "Save Darfur" campaign is a PR scam to justify US intervention in Africa.
1. It wouldn't be the first Big Lie our government and media elite told us to justify a war.
Elders among us can recall the Tonkin Gulf Incident, which the US government deliberately provoked to justify initiation of the war in Vietnam. This rationale was quickly succeeded by the need to help the struggling infant "democracy" in South Vietnam, and the still useful "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here" nonsense. More recently the bombings, invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have been variously explained by people on the public payroll as necessary to "get Bin Laden" as revenge for 9-11, as measures to take "the world's most dangerous weapons" from the hands of "the world's most dangerous regimes", as measures to enable the struggling Iraqi "democracy" stand on its own two feet, and necessary because it's still better to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here".
2. It wouldn't even be the first time the U.S. government and media elite employed "genocide prevention" as a rationale for military intervention in an oil-rich region.
The 1995 US and NATO military intervention in the former Yugoslavia was supposedly a "peacekeeping" operation to stop a genocide. The lasting result of that campaign is Camp Bondsteel, one of the largest military bases on the planet. The U.S. is practically the only country in the world that maintains military bases outside its own borders. At just under a thousand acres, Camp Bondsteel offers the US military the ability to pre-position large quantities of equipment and supplies within striking distance of Caspian oil fields, pipeline routes and relevant sea lanes. It is also widely believed to be the site of one of the US's secret prison and torture facilities.
3. If stopping genocide in Africa really was on the agenda, why the focus on Sudan with 200,000 to 400,000 dead rather than Congo with five million dead?
"The notion that a quarter million Darfuri dead are a genocide and five million dead Congolese are not is vicious and absurd," according to Congolese activist Nita Evele. "What's happened and what is still happening in Congo is not a tribal conflict and it's not a civil war. It is an invasion. It is a genocide with a death toll of five million, twenty times that of Darfur, conducted for the purpose of plundering Congolese mineral and natural resources."
More than anything else, the selective and cynical application of the term "genocide" to Sudan, rather than to the Congo where ten to twenty times as many Africans have been murdered reveals the depth of hypocrisy around the "Save Darfur" movement. In the Congo, where local gangsters, mercenaries and warlords along with invading armies from Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola engage in slaughter, mass rape and regional depopulation on a scale that dwarfs anything happening in Sudan, all the players eagerly compete to guarantee that the extraction of vital coltan for Western computers and cell phones, the export of uranium for Western reactors and nukes, along with diamonds, gold, copper, timber and other Congolese resources continue undisturbed.
Former UN Ambassador Andrew Young and George H.W. Bush both serve on the board of Barrick Gold, one of the largest and most active mining concerns in war-torn Congo. Evidently, with profits from the brutal extraction of Congolese wealth flowing to the West, there can be no Congolese "genocide" worth noting, much less interfering with. For their purposes, U.S. strategic planners may regard their Congolese model as the ideal means of capturing African wealth at minimal cost without the bother of official U.S. boots on the ground.
4. It's all about Sudanese oil.
Sudan, and the Darfur region in particular, sit atop a lake of oil. But Sudanese oil fields are not being developed and drilled by Exxon or Chevron or British Petroleum. Chinese banks, oil and construction firms are making the loans, drilling the wells, laying the pipelines to take Sudanese oil where they intend it to go, calling far too many shots for a twenty-first century in which the U.S. aspires to control the planet's energy supplies. A U.S. and NATO military intervention will solve that problem for U.S. planners.
5. It's all about Sudanese uranium, gum arabic and other natural resources.
Uranium is vital to the nuclear weapons industry and an essential fuel for nuclear reactors. Sudan possesses high quality deposits of uranium. Gum arabic is an essential ingredient in pharmaceuticals, candies and beverages like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and Sudanese exports of this commodity are 80% of the world's supply. When comprehensive U.S. sanctions against the Sudanese regime were being considered in 1997, industry lobbyists stepped up and secured an exemption in the sanctions bill to guarantee their supplies of this valuable Sudanese commodity. But an in-country U.S. and NATO military presence is a more secure guarantee that the extraction of Sudanese resources, like those of the Congo, flow westward to the U.S. and the European Union.
6. It's all about Sudan's strategic location
Sudan sits opposite Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, where a large fraction of the world's easily extracted oil will be for a few more years. Darfur borders on Libya and Chad, with their own vast oil resources, is within striking distance of West and Central Africa, and is a likely pipeline route. The Nile River flows through Sudan before reaching Egypt, and Southern Sudan has water resources of regional significance too. With the creation of AFRICOM, the new Pentagon command for the African continent, the U.S. has made open and explicit its intention to plant a strategic footprint on the African continent. From permanent Sudanese bases, the U.S. military could influence the politics and ecocomies of Africa for a generation to come.
7. The backers and founders of the "Save Darfur" movement are the well-connected and well-funded U.S. foreign policy elite.
According to a copyrighted Washington Post story this summer
"The "Save Darfur (Coalition) was created in 2005 by two groups concerned about genocide in the African country - the American Jewish World Service and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum...
"The coalition has a staff of 30 with expertise in policy and public relations. Its budget was about $15 million in the most recent fiscal year...
"Save Darfur will not say exactly how much it has spent on its ads, which this week have attempted to shame China, host of the 2008 Olympics, into easing its support for Sudan. But a coalition spokeswoman said the amount is in the millions of dollars."
Though the "Save Darfur" PR campaign employs viral marketing techniques, reaching out to college students, even to black bloggers, it is not a grassroots affair, as were the movement against apartheid and in support of African liberation movements in South Africa, Namibia, Angola and Mozambique a generation ago. Top heavy with evangelical Christians who preach the coming war for the end of the world, and with elements known for their uncritical support of Israeli rejectionism in the Middle East, the Save Darfur movement is clearly an establishment affair, a propaganda campaign that spends millions of dollars each month to manufacture consent for US military intervention in Africa under the cloak of stopping or preventing genocide.
8. None of the funds raised by the "Save Darfur Coalition", the flagship of the "Save Darfur Movement" go to help needy Africans on the ground in Darfur, according to stories in both the Washington Post and the New York Times.
"None of the money collected by Save Darfur goes to help the victims and their families. Instead, the coalition pours its proceeds into advocacy efforts that are primarily designed to persuade governments to act."
9. "Save Darfur" partisans in the U.S. are not interested in political negotiations to end the conflict in Darfur.
President Bush has openly and repeatedly attempted to throw monkey wrenches at peace negotiations to end the war in Darfur. Even pro-intervention scholars and humanitarian organizations active on the ground have criticized the U.S. for endangering humanitarian relief workers, and for effectively urging rebel parties in Darfur to refuse peace talks and hold out for U.S. and NATO intervention on their behalf.
The slick, well financed and nearly seamless PR campaign simplistically depicts the conflict as strictly a racial affair, in which Arabs, generally despised in the US media anyway, are exterminating the black population of Sudan. In the make-believe world it creates, there is no room for negotiation. But in fact, many of Sudan's 'Arabs", even the Janjiweed, are also black. In any case, they were armed and unleashed by a government which has the power to disarm them if it chooses, and can also negotiate in good faith if it chooses. Negotiations are never a guarantee of anything, but refusal to participate in negotiations, as the U.S. appears to be urging the rebels in Darfur to do, and as the "Save Darfur" PR campaign justifies, avoids any path to a political settlement among Sudanese, leaving open only the road of U.S and NATO military intervention.
10. Blackwater and other U.S. mercenary contractors, the unofficial armed wings of the Republican party and the Pentagon are eagerly pitching their services as part of the solution to the Darfur crisis.
"Chris Taylor, head of strategy for Blackwater, says his company has a database of thousands of former police and military officers for security assignments. He says Blackwater personnel could set up perimeters and guard Darfurian villages and refugee camps in support of the U.N. Blackwater officials say it would not take many men to fend off the Janjaweed, a militia that is supported by the Sudanese government and attacks villages on camelback."
Apparently Blackwater doesn't need to come to the Congo, where hunger and malnutrition, depopulation, mass rape and the disappearance of schools, hospitals and civil society into vast law free zones ruled by an ever-changing cast of African proxies (like the son of the late and unlamented Idi Amin), all under a veil of complicit media silence already constitute the perfect business-friendly environment for siphoning off the vast wealth of that country at minimal cost.
Look for the adoption of the Congolese model across the wide areas of Africa that U.S. strategic planners call "ungoverned spaces". Just don't expect to see details on the evening news, or hear about them from Oprah, George Clooney or Angelina Jolie.
Bruce Dixon can be contacted at bruce.dixon@blackagendareport.com
Global Research Articles by Bruce Dixon
If Hillary loses to Obama watch out for more smears against Obama.We will soon here Obama is a Muslim, Obama is a drug peddler etc. It would be like McCain in 2000. Clinton camp will play dirty.
Sam, it seems you've grown old, and redefined 'progressive' to mean merely 'conventional Liberal', the kind Phil Ochs sang about. How saddening.
ROTFLMAO
i'm so incredibly sick of Phil Ochs' good name being flogged on this site by anti-liberal 'progressives' as a way of traducing ideas about which it's evident they know painfully little. Almost as little as they obviously know about Phil and his ideas. Stop putting your own words into a dead man's mouth in a (futile) bid to give them a legitimacy they would not otherwise possess, please.
Phil Ochs is a side issue of little importance. By contrast, if liberals support Hillary, the question is why?
Because Hillary, as recently documented by Stephen Zunes the other day, supports even greater levels of defense spending, and every US conflict and intervention of the last 15 years. So, should I interpret liberal support for Hillary as an indication that liberalism is basically pro-war? pro-imperialist?
If not, why?
Hillary bashes Hugo Chavez like many other Democrats. She condemned Obama for being willing to meet with him personally.
Is liberal support for her indicative of agreement, even though Chavez has won numerous elections, and successfully redistributed income to the most impoverished sectors of the populace? Should I take liberal support for Hillary as indirectly revealing that liberals oppose leftists who prevail democratically, don't use violence and help the poorest sectors of society?
Hillary is a feminist, and purportedly pro-family,yet supported welfare reform, with drastic consequences for women in poor families, and also supported sanctions and war in Iraq, with horrific consequences for women and children (not to mention the men as well)there. Should I interpret liberal support for Hillary as indicative of liberal empathy for American middle class women and children, but a complete disinterest in any other kind of women and children?
Questions, questions.
I think I'll settle for the short answer: American liberalism is intellectually and politically bankrupt, having sold its soul on the alter of political expedience quite awhile ago.
--Richard Estes
Neo-conservatives spewing a bit of 'populist' rhetoric in order to gain traction among the uninformed are not the same thing as Liberals, whose core philosophy is to extend democratic principles and liberties to all in America (thus working to fulfill the promise this country was allegedly founded on), Richard. The sad part is that anti-liberal 'progressives' such as Sam Smith cannot or will not make that distinction clear to those whose thinking has been warped by the hard-core right, who of course have every reason to wish to see the term 'Liberal' as both word and concept utterly traduced and demonized; and thus, inadvertently or no, helping to further the ends of those same hard-rightists who would work willingly to wipe out every small gain that true liberal thought and action have helped to bring into being in America--and elsewhere(vide "The New Britain"). Sam, with his antecedents, background, and stated beliefs, should be ashamed of himself for aiding these types, no matter how unwittingly, through his special platform of TPR; what he should be doing is working to help define in the minds of his readers (especially those too young to know otherwise) the true meaning and tradition of Liberal thought and philosophy (not to mention cogent action); rather than helping to cheerlead for the ignorant bashers who would--too often successfully--do their damndest to conflate in the public mind Liberalism with the neocon trash spewn by the DLC ilk, who have cravenly usurped the name, but in no way the beliefs and ideals, of their socio-political betters and forebears.
Hats off to 9:03, and thanks. Comments that cut through the B.S. that too often passes for thought re. liberalism on this site are badly needed. It always cheers me to read those few lonely voices who have the guts to speak out and challenge the O'Reillyite orthodoxies that would seek to define the movement in the eyes of Americans. I agree Sam (among others) has let himself be too much a pawn for these types, and he does his readership no favors by so doing. Maybe all is not completely lost; I like to hope so, anyway.
and, where is this liberalism of which the last two posts mention?
can it be found among those Democrats that voted for the war in Iraq?
among those Democrats that show their love of civil liberties by voting for the Patriot Act without even reading it?
among those Democrats who eviscerated habeas corpus so that Gitmo can continue to incarcerate people without recourse to the judiciary?
among those many Democrats that voted to tighten the bankruptcy laws for the benefit of credit card companies?
among those Democrats that vote for absurd penalties for downloading music and committing FCC violations?
yes, I believe that I encountered this liberalism the other day, right near my friend's unicorn
--Richard Estes
basically, it would appear that the liberalism of which thet
Er,can you actually read with any degree of comprhension Richard? The whole thrust of my above post was that today's DLC-democrats are in no way the inheritors of the liberal tradition, they simply ransack convenient catchphrases from it to gull the ill-informed into belief that they are advocates of the public weal.
Really, if you're capable of parsing out what you've just read no better than you've demonstrated here, it's hardly worthwhile to attempt any education at all--but that seems to be the classic (of late anyway) TPR reader stance; simply ignore any and everything your perceived 'opponent' has said, and just continue in blathering on with ad-hominem attack--which does no more, really, than land you squarely in the midst of the right-wing hatemongers camp you claim to be against. And the saddest part is, how utterly you are unable to see the self-contradictions imbedded in your stance. But there really is none so blind as the wilfully self-blinded; old age has left me with the sad conviction of that.
Estes comments just illustrate a fact that some readers have been pointing out here: he couldn't give a cogent answer to, or analysis of 903's arguments, so instead he just goes back and repeats what he's already said.
yes, he can read with comprehension. ..enough, in fact, to comprehend that 903's legitimate points would require something more than the same tired anti-liberal slurs one reads here ad nauseum--and he comprehended that he wasn't able to provide legitimate counter-arguments. so he fell back on the tried-and-true tactic of simply re-stating his remarks, over and over, since he knows full well that that's all the 'progressive' bigots here at TPR really are interested in hearing anyway.
it is sheerest exercise in futility to attempt reasoned argument with his type.
Unless 99% of the Democratic Party's politicians are DLC or crypto-DLC, then 903's comments ignore reality. The reality is what Richard outlined: s-e-l-l-o-u-t. We've been sold and sold and sold again.
All your defensive, high-horse handwaving is only 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'.
I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every coloured boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the AFL-CIO board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I read New Republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I vote for the Democratic Party.
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal.
That sure sounds like the stuff we hear around here too often. Specifically in this case from Sam, with his "purity" shot.
The Kooch said something in 2004 that stuck with me. He said "if we 'win', but don't get the things we need - who really won?"
same tired repititions, same dragging in of Ochs lyrics, since these folks are clearly incapable of formulating much in the way of thought-out opinion on their own steam...TPR bullshit patrol riding high as usual. nothing new here, folks.
Heh. Wonder how long it'll be before someone breaks out in Our Favorite Rejoinder: you know, the one that goes "Well, if you don't like what I say in the Comments section, maybe you better just quit reading the Comments section"; "Well, if you don't like what Sam Smith prints in Prorev, maybe you'd just better get off of the Prorev site..."
*Sigh*. And they call other folks 'trolls'...
For people who like to label themselves Progressive, I gotta say one thing, and that is, there sure seems to be a lot of knee-jerk reactionary predjudice to be found around here... anyway, Merry Non-Denominational Holiday, y'all.
anonymous 122307-9:38:
Yes, that's true. It may not be 99% but the overall thrust of today's "liberalism" as defined by the Democratic party is, "We talk a great game but don't deliver on what we say we believe in." There's compromise, then there's collusion.
And I'd like to say this about being pissed off at Sam and still reading and commenting on the site: If I didn't get pissed off at Sam sometimes, he just wouldn't be who he is. I respect Sam and support his right to think as he will, but I don't always agree. Noting wrong with that. As for the posters who comment here, I wouldn't change a thing. MERRY CHRISTMAS YOU STICKS IN THE MUD!!
And that's why it has become vitally important for liberals to stop allowing their movement to be identified with the democrats, who are nothing more than the flip side of the corporo-cratic "two-party" coin. Fortunately, there does seem, here and there, to be signs of Liberal revitilization, which includes, among other things, a loud and healthy repudiation of the DNC/DLC.
And a very Pagan Festivus to you, too.
Post a Comment
<< Home