Well, I guess when it comes to LIEberman screwing the MAJORITY of Americans who want health care reform (WITH A PUBLIC OPTION), it's all our fault
Nothing makes me happier than knowing that Joe's still bitter over those "pesky" bloggers who drove him nuts back in '06.
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
Can we imagine the greater damage Joe would have done had we not taken his left nut? During last year's election, and now during this debate?
The one thing you don't hear is the media saying that Joe represents a lot of Democrats. Which is what they would be repeating if we hadn't done what we did.
Plus Joe is a pariah in his own state. The depth of feeling of those against him can only be matched by the lasting antipathy towards Weicker. Shoot, he had to move out of New Haven because he couldn't go out in public without being heckled!
Murphy2012!
Perhaps it was all Kabuki from the get-go, and something along these lines was the desired end result all along but whatever, Lieberman's prime role in this farce was tailor-made for the independent democrat.
Lieberman (D-CT) blew up the Florida recount and Gore's chances in 2000.
Lieberman was first elected to the Senate in 1988 with significant support from arch-conservative William F. Buckley and other conservative Republicans, and ever since, Lieberman has been true to the Republican Party when it mattered. That's why Buckley and Republicans overwhelmingly supported Lieberman again in 2006.
Joe Lieberman would be acting no differently with a D next to his name -- he'd be undermining health care reform the same way Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln and other ConservaDems have been doing, and just as he did in 1994.
Also: Is anyone doing the legal research to see if we can recall Lieberman?
I'd ask what you want, but I already know the answer -- you want Cliff Thornton to actually run a real campaign. But that problem doesn't belong to "the Democratic Party establishment." –7.25 / –7.28 http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
And actually, the problems with the electoral system belong to the Democratic Party establishment. They're half of the monopoly that prevents competition.
Why hasn't Susan Bysiewicz worked for any fundamental electoral changes like Instant Runoff Voting or proportional representation or candidates' rights issues like ballot access and debate access? Because she and the rest of the Democratic party aren't interested in third party success.
There is a reason Connecticut hasn't had a third party legislator since 1938. We need a political anti-trust act, like the Sherman Act or something to open the playing field to more options.
I can't remember if you live in Hartford or just hang out there a lot, but WFP seems to be systematically replacing one of the major party's officeholders with their own. Assuming they do a respectable job in office, they'll have a case to make for state legislative races within a couple of years. And a number of the posters here are dues paying WFP members. Jon Kantrowitz secured the WFP ballot line in his local municipal elections with a very respectable 11% showing this year. There's that New Haven Green that got on the city council, as well as Jean de Smet.
Things like debate access flow out of public opinion, and most minor parties are not serious about winning public opinion. For example, the Greens ran Harold Burbank, who described those who refused to take his campaign seriously as "advancing an agenda of necon fascism the League either cannot understand, or could not care less about, making it irrelevant to today's most important political issues." And he almost got 1% of the votes, for way, way less than 1% of the work and dollars expended.
Ballot access is fine. You can get a candidate on the ballot with minimal effort. I helped petition a state senate candidate in a primary onto the ballot, and even though she got zero votes at the convention, only narrowly lost the primary. If we didn't spend an extra two weeks running all over the district introducing her to voters, we wouldn't have ever had a chance. Do you seriously think that a candidate genuinely seeking elective office would have a hard time getting the signatures? Richard Duffee seems to acknowledge that having two or more minor party candidates running at the same time was the reason for the Greens losing the ballot line in the 4th and 5th. Loosened ballot access laws may be a good thing or not, but it will certainly dilute the "what the fuck" vote received by non-working, unserious candidates that currently enjoy semi-non-embarassing tallies in the 2-3% range.
Proportional representation: just a weak excuse for not being able to get a majority of the votes. There's already minority party representation on most local boards and commissions.
Fewer than 1% of the Democrats in the state are on DTCs -- an organized progressive 1% could take over the entire party in less than three weeks from right now, top to bottom. Every single nomination, the party apparatus, all those sweet ballot lines and CEP dollars and debate appearances. But you're going to cry some shit about that big bad party locking out alternate voices? If you can't get 1% of the people together to take some coordinated action, you're not going to get a thing out of proportional representation either. (Correction: 1/3 of 1% of the population would be sufficient to take over every single spot on the state's largest political party. 1/6 of 1% would be more than enough to get a majority in every town).
If Democrats aren't interested in third-party success and ballot access, why did they change the law to allow for fusion voting and "spreading" ballot lines that scale up (or down) to every overlapping district in which a candidate gets 1% of the vote? The answer, of course, is that Democrats are fine with third parties developing and flourishing. There just don't seem to be any elected Democrats that buy into a specific theory of what minor parties are for, a theory propogated by misfits that think talking to a few thousand people is an unreasonable burden on the way to receiving financial parity with major party candidates for state office. –7.25 / –7.28 http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
Neither Gore nor Lieberman nor Kerry nor Edwards complained about the free speech zones or excessive police brutality outside the conventions or the presidential debates. Little things add up.
Nationally, for years, the Democrats have been happy to scapegoat Ralph Nader for Florida 2000. Heck, I saw a commenter on Digby's Hullaballoo today doing exactly that. I don't want to wade into this morass, because I think it is meritless to shoulder the burden on Ralph. Yet rather than Gore taking responsibility for losing Tennessee and preventing a bloodless coup in Miami, it has been more convenient to blame Nader, and that has been hindered building third parties.
It is so hard to organize third parties because of this prejudice that Democrats and Republicans alike fuel.
Furthermore, Dems contribute equally to conditions which suppress alternate voices. Consider the Green scare (see Green Is the New Red), like how Obama's USDA last week labeled People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals a terrorist organization.
And while progressive Democrats say, oh, that's happening to those animal rights nuts, I am a registered Dem, I have nothing to worry about, think again. Progressives are not beyond the reach of the law enforcement octopus. Trust me on this.
Sure, ballot access in Connecticut may be relatively easy, try getting a third party on the Congressional ballot in North Carolina. Or try getting a presidential candidate on the ballot in Oklahoma. This isn't just Connecticut.
Yes, Connecticut Greens are historically ass backwards. But it doesn't help when Dems and Republicans colluded to keep Greens out of the gubernatorial debates. I think that would have been enough to catapult us beyond the one percent threshhold to at least maintain ballot access, and build from there. Constantly having to reinvent the wheel means never being able to actually roll.
Unfortunately, Allan Brison, the New Haven Green you refer to, lost this year to a machine Democrat who positioned himself as an independent voice, even though DeStefano's people were out doorknocking for him.
Allan's loss is the Greens to wear and own. Jean deSmet lost this year too, again, a Green party failure. Although the Greens did win some constable races in New Canaan, I can't abide by your statement that minor party representation is alive and well on boards and commissions.
The Working Families Party is a creature all its own, because it was established with seed money from unions and was designed to Democratic Party candidates. I live in Hartford, and know all the WFP officeholders except Robert Cotto. They are good people, and are doing good work. But take away union seed money and you've got less than the Green Party.
WFP's accomplishments in Hartford are an anomaly, because WFP is run by a central office with a paid executive director. The WFP would not have gotten off the ground if not for the up-front investment and continual funding by interested parties.
Fusion voting helped Chris Murphy beat Nancy Johnson. Of course the Dems like it. Wait until it beats one of their people, and see how quickly they beat a hasty retreat on it.
I just don't believe that the Democratic Party is fine with competition. My experience doesn't bear that out.
Then again, maybe not. Richard Duffee for President!
If your aim is to spread ideas, then electoral campaigns may just be the wrong forum for your efforts. No matter what kind of tinkering is done with the process, government bodies will always be majoritarian institutions. All this drama and bullshit over "getting into the debate" is so foolish -- minor party candidates still get into debates all the time, and they're still obliterated. Ralph Ferrucci got into the 2006 Senate debate, and he got well under 1% of the vote.
If the CT Greens crafted a piece of legislation and pushed for two years to get it passed, then you'd have a real opportunity to expose the general public to the best ideas the group has to offer. Set an achievable goal, then go achieve it. Flyer train stations. Buy ads in newspapers. Write letters to the editor. Build up an enormous email list. Ask the enormous email list for a couple bucks every once in a while. Repeat. Come to terms with the fact that fewer than 1 out of 1000 residents of the state self-identify with the party, and think of how to reach them in a way that doesn't alienate them.
This shit isn't rocket science -- but you know that. And I know that you have an awareness of what is actually required to win political campaigns as well. If someone is going to run for Governor and doesn't have a plan to get a couple million dollars to do it, then they aren't really running for Governor. They may have a ballot line, but they're doing something else with their time.
Re: Nader -- I was a Green until a couple of years ago, and Ralph's actions caused Bush to be President in the same way that Bush's actions caused Iraqi civilians to die. It's not like he pulled the trigger or anything, but he was reckless and dishonest and a lot of people needlessly suffered as a result. I did not take my vote seriously in 2000, and that was stupid, and I (along with a lot of other people) learned my lesson. I own my slice of the blame, but Ralph and his cheerleaders never seem to. Oh well. Hilariously, Ralph now seems to believe that the power of organized wealth is not so toxic after all, if his new novel is to be taken at face value.
Re: WFP -- they've started running against lousy Democrats. They back some Republicans, though not many here because the GOP in the state is so right wing compared to the population. They fielded candidates against Dems in a few districts in 08, and got the matching funds that the Greens claim are impossible to get. And when they're out to be spoilers, they're totally honest about it, none of this "we didn't do it" horseshit that Nader kids have been spouting all these years.
But more to the point, they took a look at our political system, and figured out how to wring a little more liberal economic policy out of it. They don't have that much money or that many people, so the best they can do at the moment is to put their thumb on the scale a little. And by not positioning themselves as intractably opposed to the Democrats, they actually got some Democrats to vote for their bills, including ones which open up the political system so that minor parties can actually have a real influence on the outcomes of elections.
It may be that the Greens have burned too many bridges to do it at this point, but imagine back in time before the year 2000 -- surely you could have come up with a real, achievable plan to get IRV passed by 2010. It's not clear that the Greens would do signficantly better in Connecticut under an IRV system, but if that was your burning desire, are you telling me that you couldn't think of any way of winning enough legislators over to a "support" position to get it passed? You can imagine the sales pitch that someone would want to deliver to Caruso, which would be different from the sales pitch someone would give to Slossberg. Maybe you put a little bit of support behind a couple of friendly but uncommitted state rep candidates, and you campaign against the handful of legislators who are adamantly opposed to the idea. And you make sure that everyone who works in the LOB understands that you're going to stay on them until the idea gets serious consideration. Most ideas that get passed into law up there have much smaller constituencies than one or two thousand supporters. So why do you suppose this kind of activism hasn't happened from the Greens in the state? If seed money is the difference between an effective operation and the current Green Party operation, then why don't you come up with a plan to get some seed money instead of worrying about presidential ballot access in Oklahoma?
Anyway, sorry to hear about Brison and DeSmet. Hopefully they accomplished enough that you have something to reference as being particular to a "Green" style of government. –7.25 / –7.28 http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
He was on the ballot in 45 states (Connecticut was one of the five he missed). Barr ran an anti-war campaign and raised money, yet his voice is not worthy to be heard by the American populace?
Come on, Matt. Your arguments are too well considered to be so blind to the inherent political prejudice in the electoral arena. The seeds of the great New Deal programs like social security were sown in the third party presidential campaigns of Norman Thomas. Today, that couldn't happen.
The Dems and the Repubs killed the Fair Time Rule for presidential politics back in the Kennedy Nixon debates. What Reagan and O'Neill did to it in the late 80s was merely bury the corpse.
That alone made it impossible to get your message out without spending thousands on airtime wars. So you can't afford the $100 per second to buy airtime to compete. You have to fight the unwinnable fight, as IF Stone said. This is about ideas, first and foremost.
You make mostly valid arguments about putting together campaigns. But you lose me when you say you can't really run for governor without a couple million dollars. The fact that the Democrats and Republicans have created a system which demands million of dollars to prove "legitimacy" to run for elective office should show you how fixed the electoral system is. Is this a citizens' government or an oligarchy?
You're honestly telling me that Ned Lamont was more qualified to be a Senator than a long-time legislator like Diana Urban? But Lamont, with limited governing experience, had millions of dollars, so he could portray himself as being capable and able. He wasn't. That's the bullshit here.
Urban would have dismantled Lieberman in a debate. Lamont's performance was pathetic, and Ferucci's performances were worse, being miserable and frustrating. It goes back to lousy candidates. I can't change any of what has been done in the past. I have never been in charge of the Greens, and don't defend all their tactics.
But I refuse to buy your argument that the system is fair. Stop hiding behind the fig leaf of party loyalty. Our country is better off when poorly funded candidates with good ideas have a chance to engage the body politic.
10 years later, it seems that Democrats like yourself still will not admit that 2000 was Gore's race to win, and that he made colossal mistakes on the campaign trail (like picking Lieberman as a Veep) which make him as responsible for Bush winning as you suppose Ralph is. And Gore is now a lionized statesman while Nader, whose auto safety advocacy I guarantee has saved lives of people on this board, is hated for exercising his rights.
What a complete and total mind fuck.
It's not a question of worthiness -- it's a question of whether anyone was interested in listening in the first place. It would be nice if I could file a sheet of paper and suddenly make 200 million people care about what I have to say, but that is not reality. The people don't owe candidates their attention. If you have no money but six hours a week of free time, then a city council seat may be within your reach. If you have ten million dollars and 6000 people willing to spend 6 hours a week phonebanking for you, then the U.S. Senate is something you might consider. And if you've got four million people willing to write checks or travel to swing states or do whatever else you ask them to do, then maybe you can start measuring drapes for the Oval Office.
Maybe Urban would have been an interesting candidate for Senate. I wonder why she didn't run? She was a Republican at the time, I believe. Maybe she couldn't rally enough support to defeat Schlesinger at the convention. If you could enlighten me on why this theoretically excellent candidate did not do anything to run for the office she was qualified to hold, I'd be interested to hear it.
You make a good point about equal time rules. But I don't think your strategy of running candidates like Duffee and Burbank bring you closer to accomplishing that goal. I think, in fact, that those campaigns (which are relentlessly negative on those politicians which would ordinarily be most supportive of things like an equal time requirement for FCC licensees) make your goals harder to achieve.
Poorly funded people with interesting ideas engage the political system all the time, and many times with great success. I just read a press release from BCAC -- they accomplish a lot over there, not just in moving public opinion, but in moving votes in the legislature as well. But I bet they would accomplish less if they ran kamikaze campaigns against their sometimes-but-not-always-allies in the legislature.
Look, Ken, I supported Nader in 2000. It was plausible that an uncompromising campaign from the left would cause the Democratic nominee to adopt more progressive stands on issues, and introduce new ideas to an electorate for whom politicians had become largely irrelevant. BUT IT DIDN'T WORK. Bush won, the Democrats became more conservative, the Republicans became more conservative, and a couple wars, a couple of domestic disasters, and a financial collapse later, the entire country is miserable. The strategy failed. But instead of reassessing and planning a strategy that might get some results (see: WFP), you seem to be insisting that the strategy was right all along, all you need is some free TV time or some free money (without the strings of "talking to people" attached) and suddenly the masses will realize you were right all along. After all, it worked so well in the 1920s!
Come on. It was tried, and it failed. It didn't fail because the system is rigged -- it failed because the American people aren't as philosophical as they once were, and they're run ragged trying to pay off their credit card bills and would probably turn on cartoons if Richard Duffee showed up yelling on their televisions. I like IRV and EDR and a muliple member constituencies and all that stuff too, but none of that will do what you and I really want, which is to change the country and the world.
Blaming the lack of IRV or the requirements of the CEP for the Green Party's misfortunes is fine, we all need to come up with some reason to pick ourselves off the canvas in the aftermath of a humiliating loss. But don't mistake those tiny procedural reforms for the huge and largely un-done work of actually changing the way people think about things. –7.25 / –7.28 http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
After the campaign was over, she changed her registration to D, and still won her legislative seat in Southeastern CT.
As I said, I don't run the Green party. Running Duffee and Burbank are not, were not and would not be my choices. I am not interested in working on losing campaigns, nor running kamikaze campaigns as you describe them. But I do not fault these men for running. They have every right to do so.
These structural democratic reforms like Fair Time are essential to changing the way people think. Look, I understand that the changes we seek are decades away. But if we accept the corruption and decay in our democracy as normal, we will not ever reach the goals.
Why are people struggling to pay their credit card bills? Because Glass-Stegall was repealed, because there is no Congressional oversight on banks thus usurial rates and fees are rampant. Why was Glass-Stegall repealed? Because corporations have used Democrats and Republicans to game the system so that in order to win a seat for Congress, you have to beg the very people you should regulate for money. And in some quarters this is the standard by which we should measure electability? This is the problem.
People are losing ground economically because corporations have gained so much ground politically, and we are effectively shut out of the system. If Ned wasn't as wealthy as the Catholic Church, would Lieberman have ever been challenged? Ned's small dollar donations were miniscule compared to what he funneled into his own campaign. This money demand takes democracy out of our hands.
Furthermore, I am befuddled that you say a 45-state ballot access campaign is not a serious effort for the Oval Office. Bill Curry repeatedly says that the two major parties in the United States are the Libertarian and Green Parties. He is not being sarcastic. He is acknowledging that the two parties talk a good game, but do not accurately represent mainstream American political thought, and the media machines acquiesce to the corporate agenda and only focus on Ds and Rs.
Obama's campaign was marketing pure and simple. He talked the game, and was not held to account because Barr, McKinney and Nader were not allowed to challenge his policies or records on national television.
I guarantee Dodd could not have mounted a 45-state ballot access campaign, and if he did, it would have been bankrolled by Citigroup, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.
What is happening here is that I am basing fitness for office on the requirements set by Secretaries of State across the country, and you are basing your judgment on how well a candidate plays within the factors set by non-governmental, for-profit entities.
The two standards are incongruous. If there is a compromise to be made, then let's codify what else candidates need to do to be taken seriously. Let's add basic finance benchmarks into ballot access laws. You need X dollars before you can run for office. Will that be constitutional? Doubtful, although if the Supreme Court changes its mind on corporate cash in elections, maybe it will be.
Yet you maintain ability to fundraise should be a major factor in denoting electability. I say ideas should be the currency of electability, not the ability to genuflect so corporate-owned television stations can get rich off of democracy.
Have you seen Channel 30's new headquarters in Farmington? Every time I drive by it, I think Ned and the pharmaceutical lobby that financed Lieberman should be proud of what they built. It is no coincidence that Channel 3 built new headquarters, too (in Rocky Hill). The 2006 Senate race was a goldmine for local stations. They'd love another one like it. And Linda McMahon stands to provide it. This is not how we should determine who is the best leader...
I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that Gore cost himself the presidency, or that Bush cheated, and those factors weigh as heavily, if not moreso, than Ralph's constitutionally-protected run.
I understand the success of the WFP. I understand the failure of the Greens. I just don't grasp why you think the current electoral system isn't corrupt.
If he didn't run, or even if he just didn't campaign in Florida, Bush actually would not have become President.
Sometimes people aren't aware of the consequences of their actions until it's too late to correct their mistakes. Other people, I guess, never make mistakes in the first place. –7.25 / –7.28 http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
For a short period of time, she threw her hat in the ring as an anti-war Republican, in case Lamont happened to lose in the primary. She failed to make the ballot because she started her petition drive late, but the Greens were willing to talk to her and move Ferrucci should Lamont have lost.
Seems pretty straightforward. She didn't decide she wanted it until after the conventions, and therefore wasn't well organized enough to get nominated.
It isn't. It's a human institution, and humans are flawed. But it's not like you couldn't change it with just a little bit of planning and activity. The key obstacle is that Greens mainly put scorn for Democrats above the policy goals they'd like to see enacted. That's a shame, but I don't see that changing.
Furthermore, I am befuddled that you say a 45-state ballot access campaign is not a serious effort for the Oval Office.
It wasn't. He got 520,000 votes, or 0.3%. That's worse than Burbank did in the 5th CD. You want me to give him an "A" for effort? He squandered a million dollars, a year of his life, and now, five minutes of my time, and accomplished absolutely nothing.
Gore will tell you plenty about his errors. I'm aware of them as well, since, as I keep saying, I didn't vote for the guy in 2000. Who never will acknowledge their errors are Nader or his dead-enders. No Nader, no Bush. Just because what Nader did was legal doesn't mean it wasn't reckless and ultimately destructive to our nation and the world. –7.25 / –7.28 http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
In addition to the incompetence, poor judgment, rock throwing, kamikaze campaigns, and ideological purity that you mention, I think that people lack the courage and confidence in their ideals to depart from the pack, where there is safety and stability in numbers.
Minor parties have trouble attracting talent because of the stigma attached to being a "1 percenter." If it is the right thing to do, why are you so alone? Because law enforcement has made it dangerous to be part of a minor party.
Look at what happened to me. If my arrest for standing on a street corner doesn't send a message of "Don't do it" to anyone considering a challenge to the political powers, then I am a poor judge of my own experience.
But long before InauguRellgate, before the attacks on Nader, and before the bombing of Judi Barre, there was Cointelpro, the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, Hollywood blackballing, the Palmer raids, etc etc etc.
It's not that there's safety and stability in sticking close to the pack -- there's 40% of the votes in there! Nobody in the Democratic Party would have a problem with Cliff Thornton calling himself a Democrat and running for State Rep. Or he could get close to one of the gubernatorial candidates and advise them on drug and prison policy -- actually, I've heard two candidates speak on that already, and they had some encouraging arguments to make that are way left of the current consensus, but it hardly matters, because from the perspective of most Greens, they're inherently tainted just by adopting a party label for themselves.
The stigma of being a "1 percenter" is that you don't get elected to do the things you want. 1% is plenty of support for some things, but not for running the government. How is it the "right thing" to vaporize your time and money to not, in the end, get elected to anything? Why would anyone of means and/or talent want any part of that?
People get arrested for nonsense all the time. I bet you could write an amendment to state statutes that's fewer than 20 words that would have prevented your situation from occurring (or given someone in your situation ironclad standing in court). I just don't think your status as a singular political entity should prevent you from pursuing changes in the law that would remedy the problems you're unhappy about. –7.25 / –7.28 http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
Nader is hated because he acted irresponsibly, then sought to escape responsibility for what he did. Gore is lionized as a statesman because he learned from his mistakes and went on to do about as much good as a single private citizen can do for the world. And because his critics were ultimately exposed as liars and charlatans. Turns out there was more than a dime's worth of difference. –7.25 / –7.28 http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
If you work for Citigroup, AIG, Goldman Sachs, etc,
There's not a dime's worth of difference.
The major policy differences still don't add up to ten cents.
Sure, there are plenty of minor policy differences. But they don't matter as much as the areas the Repubs and Dems do agree on.
That's not to say that there wouldn't have possibly been some other military adventure, but you offer specifics that undermine your case. –7.25 / –7.28 http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
Gore in 2002 backed the rationale for war:
"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country....Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
In this same speech in San Francisco, Gore proudly talks of his support for Gulf War I:
"Now, back in 1991, I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War, and I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration's hasty departure from the battlefield even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south, groups that we had, after all, encouraged to rise up against Saddam."
That first war was no less manufactured by Hill and Knowlton than this one was by the White House.
So he opposed the invasion. That is not to say as President, he wouldn't have manufactured a reason to disembowel Hussein.
If the Democrats and Republicans operated this way in a marketplace, would the federal government say that how the two corporations operated wasn't unfair trade practices?
It's not a monopoly when people don't like your product. Coke and Pepsi aren't responsible for the Ken Cola Co. not doing any advertising or product development.
For fucks sake, the state made free, equal dollars available to minor party candidates and the frigging Greens sued to have the program shut down! Cicero Booker got the full grant to go after Joan Hartley. Denze, Noble, Burgio, even Rocco Frank got public grants. Do you know how much the most prolific Green fundraiser brought in? Kenric Hanson raised $368, with $200 coming from a PAC. Coming in second was Michael DeRosa, with $150, $25 of which was a contribution to himself. In third was Remy Chevalier, with $0. And bringing up the rear is fourth-time candidate Colin Bennett and newcomer Zachary Chaves with "didn't even form a committee." That's the sum total of every Green that ran in the 2008 election campaign. And you're trying to say that the Greens are being suppressed by the Democrats? Really? –7.25 / –7.28 http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
HELP was Senator Ted Kennedy's path to his vision of universal health care for all. Chris was given the task by Ted to take his baby, his life's work, and deliver it.
Chris, is that something your old friend would have been proud to have? Have you shepherded his life's work, or have you and the other progressive Senators sold out? The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s
I have no doubt that LIEberman is a petty, vindictive a*hole that takes pleasure in tormenting the Democratic base. But anyone who pays attention to him knows that his decisions on legislation are strictly about what is best for Joe, his benefactors, and the neocon agenda. Remember who got him elected in 2006 - 90% of Republican voters, Republican donors and beaucoup dollars from the healthcare industry (which employed HadASSah for many years).
This should be another sign that the Democrats are well aware that they have caved in so much on this bill that they're going to pay a steep price whether it passes or not. I would argue that without any kind of public option or Medicare buy-in they will pay a steeper price if it passes.
"Hope" and "Change we can believe in" are nothing more than marketing slogans to me now.
Use the Spotlight tool to send a diary to offline journalists, with your feedback or suggestions.(What is Spotlight?)
Powered by: SoapBlox
MLN is powered by