…and this is a 
Down with the DCCC
Category: Politics
Posted on: August 6, 2007 8:48 PM, by PZ Myers
It's a perfect example of the failure of the Democratic party: they allowed the FISA bill to pass, and essentially revealed that they don't give a damn about civil liberties. Revere is right: don't support them. Don't donate to the DCCC. He recommends ActBlue, which does look like a very good organization that actually promotes progressive politics rather than the craven do-nothing politics of the current party organization.
You should also voice your displeasure with your representatives. I gave Senator Amy Klobuchar grief for her spinelessness, and also yelled at my representative Collin Peterson, who allowed the house bill to pass (and other Minnesotans might cuss out Tim Walz, if you're in his district). What good is a party that won't represent any ideals, and instead seems to be a gathering of cowards who do nothing to oppose the Republican bullying?
Comments
Posted by: Caledonian | August 6, 2007 8:53 PM
But they DO represent an ideal: the love of power.
What's the point of taking a nuanced ethical position when it will only drive away the people who disagree with it? Better to remain uncommitted and present yourself as the alternative to the hated Republicans - that way you can woo the people who hope you can be persuaded to take up their cause.
Posted by: rayd2327 | August 6, 2007 8:59 PM
All pols weigh each side of the question and then vote for what will likely keep them elected. Period.
Posted by: Richard | August 6, 2007 9:00 PM
This is ridicules. It goes to show you that people will continue to give up freedom for security. It used to be that all politicians had to do was talk about drugs to take freedoms away from us. Now "terrorism" is the catch word.
Even though he is Republican, I think our only option right now is Ron Paul.
Richard
http://lifewithoutfaith.com/
Posted by: Stogoe | August 6, 2007 9:01 PM
I'm concerned with the way this was just seemingly sprung on Congress - news came out maybe Friday that Dubya was keeping the session open to force a vote, and then it was all over by Saturday.
No media coverage, no blogosphere coverage, nothing. The most hated president of the century snaps his fingers and in less than two days, 40+ spineless traitors drop trou and spread cheeks to retroactively allow the NSA to wiretap every international call in America sans warrant.
And why did Reid and Pelosi even allow it up for a vote? They're just as complicit in treason as the trou-droppers.
I need to tap in locally to see if we can't primary out our ancient compulsive centrist congresscritter, because he folded to Mr. 25% without reason. I sent him a good, long, polite yet strongly worded letter telling him he didn't deserve to serve in Congress any more.
Posted by: daenku32 | August 6, 2007 9:03 PM
Most of them were Blue Dogs.
There was another example of conservative self delusion when on today's Diane Rehm show Robert Novak make the blanket definition for a "conservative" as someone who does not think of the Government as the solution, as this somehow defines his political leanings. He even went on to criticize the administration for wanting this bill. What he still didn't address was that all of the support for the bill came from those who describe themselves as "conservative", including the Blue Dog Democrats.
I'm sure Robert Novak and the other 1% of libertarians can still consider themselves as "conservatives". It's one endangered species by their own definition. Of course this only enforces their perception of a "vast liberal conspiracy" like Novak's description of the media.
Posted by: Stogoe | August 6, 2007 9:06 PM
rayd2327, looking at the Republicans, this isn't true any more. They still cleave to Mr. 25% above all else, even their own base (see immigration). Loyalty to authority is the only thing that matters to the congresscritters.And as for the Dems, this vote makes absolutely no sense in terms of self-preservation, either. Fox News is going to call them a traitor if they vote for civil liberties or not, and the voters are against expanding Dubya's powers.
Posted by: theophylact | August 6, 2007 9:15 PM
Damn, but I wish I had a couple of Senators and a Representative to cuss out. But I live in DC...
Posted by: Chayanov | August 6, 2007 9:17 PM
How nice that the Democrats are willing to let a lame duck, wildly unpopular, Republican president tell them what to do -- and then do it, even (especially?) at the expense of our civil liberties.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 6, 2007 9:21 PM
Maybe people who've held office for two decades lose the fire they need to oppose those scumbags.
Get off your duff, Pelosi, and do something brave for a change: lead!
Posted by: foldedpath | August 6, 2007 9:28 PM
What continues to amaze me is how Republicans support the preznit's push for ever-expanding executive power, when they must KNOW that they're likely to lose the 2008 presidential election (short of some miracle turning Iraq around, or maybe another major attack on US soil).
So... they're okay with this kind of police state eavesdropping power in the hands of a Democratic administration too? Or are they just too short-sighted, or trapped in blind loyalty, to see that little problem?
Posted by: ike | August 6, 2007 9:41 PM
I wish my representives were democrats. My rep is a stinking retuglican as are my two senators. I have voted every election since I turned 18 and I am proud to say I have never voted rethuglican. My first vote was Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Posted by: Russell | August 6, 2007 9:43 PM
I'm in Lloyd Doggett's district. He voted against this abomination. And I'll remember that with pleasure when I help reelect him next year.
Posted by: as | August 6, 2007 9:46 PM
I guess Ron Paul would prevent the government from interfering with you, but only by causing a major economic collapse. Do any of his supporters know what a gold standard is?
Posted by: Salt | August 6, 2007 9:50 PM
I guess Ron Paul would prevent the government from interfering with you, but only by causing a major economic collapse. Do any of his supporters know what a gold standard is?
Posted by: as | August 6, 2007 09:46 PM
The gold standard is not the only option, but it does represent fiscal responsibility.
Money Masters Parts 1,2,3- excellent
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
RON PAUL 2008
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | August 6, 2007 9:57 PM
I wrote a pretty emotional commentary on the disappointment that is the DCCC in my post Democrats Take It in the --- Again.
Posted by: Frank Anderson | August 6, 2007 10:06 PM
At least my representative -- Jerry Costello -- voted against it. Sometimes living in this particular section of Illinois isn't such a bad thing...
Posted by: Ktesibios | August 6, 2007 10:09 PM
Anyone remember this quote from Cat's Cradle?
Well, there you have the root of the problem. Our elected "representatives" have managed to crawl their way into the Kewl Kidz Klub, and once in the K.K.K. the most important thing in the world is to stay in the K.K.K. You don't further that goal by behaving like the UNKewl Kidz matter to you.
Senators and Congresscritters aren't going to listen to mere groundlings who don't hold Certified Ruling Elite membership cards or belong to the campaign-contributing classes. It simply is not done. If you write to one, all you are likely to get in reply is a condescending string of platitudes assembled by some low-level staffer; call one of them and you're pretty much guaranteed to find yourself talking to a snotty little yuppie-scumster who's all wrapped up in her shiny new K.K.K. auxiliary card.
Our purported representatives long ago made a decision about just whom they were going to represent, and brother, it ain't us.
Posted by: Russell | August 6, 2007 10:22 PM
as writes:
Unless you are a woman wanting an abortion. Ron Paul is as wingnut as they come on that issue.
foldedpath writes:
The current GOP attracts the portion of the electorate who seek authoritarianism. That is apparent in their desire to legislate personal behavior, in their readiness to punish liberals for "sedition," and in their jingoism and loyalty to The Leader. Their rhetoric of freedom is false; to them, freedom means power.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | August 6, 2007 10:47 PM
I can't do much about the National Party and have never given them money (except to Betty McCollum, MN 4th District not-traitor.) However, progressives in Minnesota have a caucus in the DFL. In September, 2007 they will be having a Conference in Minneapolis. It's a pretty good chance for Minnesota Progressives to put more pressure on the turncoats within our party.
Posted by: acies | August 6, 2007 10:48 PM
The passing of this bill is a good thing for nationwide security - and civil liberties will be unaffected as you and I know them, so don't worry.
Posted by: BT Murtagh | August 6, 2007 10:55 PM
Ron Paul is just another dangerously oversimplifying idealogue who doesn't like government, only instead of starving it until it's weak enough to drown in the bathtub he wants to hit it over the head with a club. No thanks.
Government itself is not the problem, incompetent and corrupt government is the problem. I've had more than enough of that, but I want people who intend to govern well, not people who want to abolish the whole shooting match. Dramatic changes aren't necessarily improvements.
Posted by: Joshua | August 6, 2007 10:56 PM
Don't blame me; my state's delegation voted against this crap.
Posted by: Caledonian | August 6, 2007 11:02 PM
How else do you think we came to where we are? The road to our current location is paved with good intentions.
Posted by: Cairnarvon | August 6, 2007 11:05 PM
Ron Paul is an ignorant racist who doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. He's more or less successfully created a maverick image for himself for 2008 (at least on the internet), but he's really just another wingnut.Posted by: Zeno | August 6, 2007 11:07 PM
This morning on the Stephanie Miller Show, activist-actor Tim Robbins expressed his anger at the FISA fiasco by demanding that we "vote out all incumbents." That's the sort of nonsense that deeply afflicts me. It's a mindless solution. (To say nothing of the fact that flipping every House seat would mean a new GOP Congress.) No, that kind of simple-minded solution is not what we need. It's actually necessary to do just a bit of work:
Pay some damned attention and take names. If your representative offend you, then pluck it out. Re-elect those who deserve it because they do the job you sent them to do. Be ready to reject the others. Don't wait till the last minute. In some districts, the real contest is in the primary. Be ready to support challengers to worthless incumbents in the party primaries. Put them on notice.
And keep in mind that there are no final victories. The Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress in November was quite important, but obviously not as fruitful as we hoped. The new majorities are fragile and unreliable. We need to stiffen spines and swell the ranks of the solid good guys. You can't do that if you either (a) just give up or (b) neglect reward/punishment stimuli for your representative.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 6, 2007 11:09 PM
LOL
Good one!
Know any others?
(...seriously, do you have a single fact to back that claim up?)
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | August 6, 2007 11:10 PM
acies, I disagree. The wording of the bill is too vague. That is, communications involving people "reasonably believed to be outside the United States" can be intercepted without a warrant. The Democratic moderizations that would have been in effect if Bush had not threatened to keep Congress in session were more reasonable and less ambiguous.
I read an interesting book about the Hoover administration recently. Ironic how history seems to repeat itself?
Posted by: Bryson Brown | August 6, 2007 11:39 PM
acies writes, "civil rights will be unaffected as you and I know them." I wonder if s/he's ever encountered the well-known recipe for boiled frog? The pot's getting hotter...
Posted by: protobiochemist | August 6, 2007 11:53 PM
A little off topic, but not really:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3419500929839269211&q=zeitgeist
The film is called "Zeitgeist". You can watch it piece-wise from links on that page, or watch the whole thing (should load), approx. 2hrs..
It starts out with bashing Christianity (which was enjoyable if un-related), but then gets into a lot of interesting stuff....worth skipping ahead to (parts #2, #3 linked above the movie itself).
That said, it could be totally bogus, and I don't usually go for conspiracy theories, but the evidence seems compelling. If nothing else, it's interesting to watch.
Anyway, watch at your own risk...but feel free to let me know if the whole thing is bull%*&%.
PBC
Posted by: procyon | August 6, 2007 11:56 PM
I believe this law is only in effect for six months. Perhaps lawmakers just wanted to end this session and go home...saving the fight for another day while not appearing soft on fighting terrorism.
Posted by: Graculus | August 6, 2007 11:57 PM
I thought acies was being sarcastic.
No one is that dim in real life, right?
Posted by: Brigit | August 7, 2007 12:15 AM
Why do I keep hearing some Jello Biafra lyrics in the background of this post?
Posted by: dijembi | August 7, 2007 12:20 AM
What time zone is this site in.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 7, 2007 12:22 AM
I believe this law is only in effect for six months. Perhaps lawmakers just wanted to end this session and go home...saving the fight for another day while not appearing soft on fighting terrorism.
Yeah, that must be why we pay them the big bucks (165K)... to fight it out some other day.
Posted by: llewelly | August 7, 2007 12:29 AM
If this is indeed any Democrat's strategy, it took 6 years of the most egregiously idiotic government in US history to make it a winning strategy.Posted by: Patrick Quigley | August 7, 2007 1:01 AM
This also doesn't say much for the leadership skills of the democrats running for the presidency. The ones who are currently in congress all voted against this bill, but they apparently couldn't convince their own party members to vote with them. Former presidential candidate, John Kerry, couldn't even be convinced to vote. If Obama, Clinton, and Biden have so little influence even over people like Kerry then what good are they?
From my own liberal state of California ("the left coast" as Limbaugh refers to it) Senator Feinstein voted for the bill and Senator Boxer abstained. So much for the "red state/blue state" divide. The democrats won't stand up for the separation of church and state, they won't act to stop the war in Iraq, and they are actively eliminating our privacy rights. I only recently switched from the republican party to the democratic party. Now I don't know why I bothered.
Posted by: Heather Kuhn | August 7, 2007 1:06 AM
I notice that the NYT article didn't include a list of who voted how. The corresponding article at philly.com had a link to the roll call vote. I need to send a congratulatory letter to Bob Brady. He voted agin it.
Posted by: raindogzilla | August 7, 2007 1:07 AM
"...Now it's 1984...knock, knock, on your front door. It's the suede denim secret police. They've come for your uncool niece..."
Posted by: thalarctos | August 7, 2007 1:21 AM
Sheesh, raindogzilla, I thought only Leonard Cohen was lazy enough to rhyme "police" with "niece"...
Posted by: DaveX | August 7, 2007 1:22 AM
"You'll go quitely to boot camp/they'll shoot you dead, make you a man/don't you worry it's for a cause/feeding global corporation's claws"
It's sick how true it all is. Oh well, good can still come of all this-- ratchet up the contrast a bit, Mr. Bush-- let my people see more clearly.
Posted by: thalarctos | August 7, 2007 1:22 AM
Oh, and I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised by Maria Cantwell's vote; Patty Murray's, not so much (either "pleasantly" or "surprised").
Posted by: Loc | August 7, 2007 1:59 AM
You guys (and gals) should have read the Wall Street Journal this morning...their front page story elaborated on how the bill didn't "protect the telecom companies from litigation." I damn near fell over.
Also, Ron Paul is crazy. I watched the Republican debate last night (yep...on CSPAN) and I thought he was the MOST NORMAL.
Then I read his website today and I quickly retracted that thought. He despises Bush...but he aligns with Tom Tancredo on more than one issue.
Posted by: az | August 7, 2007 2:30 AM
Now that I've seen Ron Paul's lone vote against a bill preventing government contracts from funding genocide in Darfur, I feel enlightened.
Posted by: Patrick Quigley | August 7, 2007 2:52 AM
Don't worry, this bill isn't as bad as it seems at first look. It is true that it denies court supervision of the NSA wiretapping program, and it is also true that congress didn't bother to give themselves supervisory power. But the bill does provide insurance against abuse by allowing the justice department to oversee the program. So we can all sleep soundly knowing that our e-mail and telephone conversations are safe in the hands of... Alberto Gonzales?!?
That's right, the democrat-controlled congress is trusting Alberto Gonzales to be the sole protector of your privacy rights. Incidentally this will give him access to the collected information. This is the same congress which has spent months in hearings criticizing Gonzalez' competence and ethics. I seriously can't understand this idiocy. No matter how badly the republican party self-destructs, the democrats seem determined to outdo them in incompetence.
Posted by: William Gulvin | August 7, 2007 3:56 AM
Republicrats or Demipublicans. Take your pick. Ha!
Look, seriously, anyone who genuinely wants to be president, or for that matter even a congressperson, is ipso facto unfit for the job because they are obviously crazy. I mean, would you want to grovel for money and pander professionally the way they currently must? Not for me, thanks. So we do indeed get the best government money can buy . . .
And as for that "Zietgeist" film, I couldn't watch the whole thing. It's too upsetting. I've strongly suspected for quite a while that the Bush administration isn't so much incompetent as it is mind bogglingly treacherous. The implications are far too horrifying to contemplate. Darth Cheney indeed!
Posted by: arachnophilia | August 7, 2007 4:31 AM
crap.
i wish we had some liberals around here instead of spineless moderates who let the neo-cons push them around. nothing wrong with moderates, of course, it's just that in this country "the middle" is as far left as anyone seems to go, and at the expense of having any backbone. now, nothing wrong with invertebrates. but i'd rather an octopus than a slime mold. or something. i've lost my trait of thought now.
and yes, i'll voice my semi-support for ron paul too. i heard him on tv a while back, and so far he's the only republican that has made any sense in the last 8 years or so. and he said things republicans are supposed to believe in. who are the crazy wingnuts who have taken over our government, and why are the not-as-crazy bowing to their every whim?
canada's looking nicer. :(
Posted by: arachnophilia | August 7, 2007 4:39 AM
@William Gulvin (#44):
bullshit is bullshit, no matter who it's thrown at. also, don't forget hanlon's razor, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Posted by: bernarda | August 7, 2007 5:51 AM
As Michael Moore said after the 2000 elections, the Democrats are losers, even when they win they lose. Even more appropriate today.
Or as Homer Simpson once said, "Our lives are run by people who are no smarter than you or I."
Posted by: abeja | August 7, 2007 6:11 AM
Ron Paul--Doesn't support abortion rights, stem-cell research, background checks for gun ownership, or same-sez marriage. Sure, I agree with him on some things, but I disagree with him on so many key issues (not limited to the ones above), that the fact that he doesn't support the Iraq war, domestic wiretapping, or torture just isn't enough. I personally couldn't vote for someone with his sense of "values". Disgusting wretch he is. (Not unlike many of the candidates!)
Posted by: blf | August 7, 2007 7:21 AM
theophylact (#7) laments:
I'm extremely annoyed as well, and have a similar problem--not living in the USA (I'm in France)--I also don't have any representation. And of course, not being in the USA, I'm one of those people this goofiness is explicitly aimed at. Which implies everyone reading this comment is also now a suspect, and can be "legally" wiretapped (perhaps by "accident"), simply because you are reading a communication from someone not in the USA.
We've all just been declared the criminal de jour, a politician. Er, sorry, a terrorist.
Posted by: Nan | August 7, 2007 8:33 AM
"Don't worry, this bill isn't as bad as it seems at first look."
That's kind of like telling the proverbial frog in the pot "Don't worry -- the water's not boiling yet."
Posted by: llewelly | August 7, 2007 9:28 AM
He was trying to save tax dollars.Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 10:49 AM
acies:
NOT!
Anyone outside the country (including YOU if you happen to vacation or travel abroad - even to canada), or using data services that can reasonably be assumed to originate outside the country (ever *heard* of the internet?) is open to investigation.
The gatekeepers for this extensive power - that even the STASI never dreamed of - are the AG & the Director of National Intelligence. (We're really safe knowing that Gonzales & McConnell are on the case).
Unfortunately, I'm not yet a citizen, so have no direct ability to influence my local congressional district.
Posted by: Thomas Allen | August 7, 2007 10:59 AM
Actually, ActBlue has no ideological bent whatsoever. Is is a central place through which you may contribute to any Federal (and many state) Democratic candidate --Blue Dogs, included. I think it's a great piece of infrastructure, but it is not necessarily about Liberalism or Progressivism. Of course, using ActBlue's infrastructure, you can set up a clearinghouse for candidates who reflect your ideas. Howie Klein of Down With Tyranny (and, yes, punk rock) did this along with the folks from FireDogLake --they call it BlueAmerica (they also set up a PAC). Digby and C&L also appear to be involved.
Posted by: Larry McAwful | August 7, 2007 11:07 AM
It's cold comfort that I believe that this bill will be overturned in the future. Colder still that that probably won't happen before 2009, at least.
Most of the offending Democrats were "Blue Dog" Democrats, who are basically Republicans. True, there were eleven Democrats who aren't Blue Dogs but who voted for this abomination, but those are merely spineless sell-outs who'd trade their grandmother for a half-point leap in their polling data.
America's best hope is still the Democratic Party. It's inexcusable that they sold us out on this bill. I'm having trouble calling myself a Democrat right now. We could stand for a better hope, but who would that be? Some say Ron Paul, but he's just a Republican who happens to disagree with the president now and again. Ralph Nader is just a washed-up spoiler who makes no real points except that neither political party will give you exactly what you want. (Whaddya want? That's life.)
I'm going to continue to condemn the sell-outs who voted for this travesty. That would be not only the 183 Republicans in the House who voted for it, but also the 30 Blue Dog Democrats and the 11 generic spineless Democrats who voted for it, as well. And the same goes for all the Republican senators and the 16 Democratic senators who voted for it, as well.
Regardless, I'm less than thrilled with my party right now, to say the least. Please: write your congresspeople. Let them know how you feel, whether it's positive or negative, and whether you think they'll listen or not. This is important.
Posted by: William Gulvin | August 7, 2007 11:47 AM
I've historically been inclined to quite agree with arachnophillia, and have made that same argument many times, including in a comment on this blog a year ago. Link. Reluctantly, I'm coming to suspect more and more that what's at work in the case of the Current Administration is pure black-hearted evil and greed. Look, the cohorts of Cheney/Bush have undoubtedly made tens and probably hundreds of billions, with a "B", of dollars from the seeming ineptitude of our "leaders." I have to respectfully suggest that anyone who thinks that Dick Cheney especially isn't smart and venal enough to have had at least a passive hand in 9/11 which has been so very politically useful to him may be hopeful and naive. I mean, there is SO much smoke . . .
As for the effect that all of this has had on Congress, well, I for one just really would rather not think too much about it. It could too well explain much of that body's recent cowardice. Legislatures can be, and often have been historically, manipulated and even terrorized.
Nevertheless, I would rahter still think that it's nothing more than stupidity.
Posted by: John Danley | August 7, 2007 12:29 PM
Just wait until W reads Milan Kundera.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 7, 2007 12:37 PM
It's cold comfort that I believe that this bill will be overturned in the future.
It won't be overturned.
The people who should be fighting on our behalf have decided that "civility" (the favorite word of Nancy Pelosi, David Broder, and the bulk of the Washington press corp) is more important than principle.
Posted by: ignored_ethos | August 7, 2007 1:14 PM
Richard -
What about Kucinich? Honestly, I think if you lean left, the only candidate that you could vote for (at least in the primary) with a clean conscience is Kucinich.
He is somewhat to the left of me but I do believe he is the only one who represents the progressives of this country.
If a Republican is to win, I'd hope it would be Ron Paul but I believe his libertarian style views on some issues are extreme and would be detrimental to a country that has already been through so much in the past 8 years.
Posted by: ignored_ethos | August 7, 2007 1:24 PM
I take back what I said about Ron Paul. I really had no idea. I need to take a better look at him. Judging only from what I've read on the comments of this post he seems dangerous and nothing like what he portrays himself to be.
I thought he had a few crazy ideas but I may have mis-underestimated him.
At this point I don't know which one of the Republicans would be the least bad for our country. Let's just hope none of them are elected.
I do still stand by what I've said about Kucinich (if I can spell his name).
Posted by: stogoe | August 7, 2007 1:37 PM
I have to defend acies here - the 'intelligence community' has been doing the very same things this bill allows for years or even decades, only now they've terrorized the DLC-funded Congress into putting their stamp of approval on it.
So, in essence, the civil liberties we had last week haven't changed at all.
And as for Ron Paul, he's the most sane Republican candidate. But he's crazy bugfucking nuts, and I'd never vote for that racist libertarian pile of crap.
Posted by: thalarctos | August 7, 2007 1:40 PM
Yeah, that's going to happen real soon now.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 7, 2007 3:32 PM
G.W.B. looks in the morror and sees Winston Churchill.
He's deluded about his own greatness, he thinks history will vindicate him, he dismisses current criticism entirely, he does not ever acknowledge mistakes, and he could care less about the rule of law.
Censure is not good enough for him and his fellow lawbreakers.
This country needs the cleansing of an impeachment.
Unfortunately, people in Congress are too wrapped up in appearances to do something about the lies, obstruction of justice, secret torture prisons, and violations of law we have been subjected to by Bush/Cheney and their enablers, John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales.
Most everyone acknowledges that they are impeachable, but hardly anyone is willing to stand up and say STOP!
It's a crying shame.
Posted by: Dylan Stafne | August 7, 2007 3:56 PM
I called my senator, Bill Nelson's office. His intern/secretary put me down as another constituent officially opposing this measure.
Posted by: Qeub | August 7, 2007 9:33 PM
The democrats talk to much about what should happen, and never act out what should happen. I voted for Kerry and getting the dems into the house. And nothing has changed!
Posted by: arachnophilia | August 7, 2007 9:43 PM
@abeja (#49):
frankly, the fact that he doesn't support the iraq war, domestic wiretapping, or torture is a damned good start. certainly puts him way ahead of every other republican, and probably a few democrats. i'm just saying, it's nice to hear some sense coming out of the republican party, even if the person talking is still half crazy. i'll take "half crazy" over "clearly mentally deranged" any day.
what i want to know is why we can't get "sane." or rather, why we can't "sane" to speak up and stand up to the crazies.
Posted by: abeja | August 7, 2007 11:20 PM
frankly, the fact that he doesn't support the iraq war, domestic wiretapping, or torture is a damned good start. certainly puts him way ahead of every other republican, and probably a few democrats. i'm just saying, it's nice to hear some sense coming out of the republican party, even if the person talking is still half crazy. i'll take "half crazy" over "clearly mentally deranged" any day.
I would never vote republican in the first place (unless there was a republican who I agreed with on all the issues important to me, and I don't see that happening). So the fact that Ron Paul may be the best of the republican candidates is meaningless to me.
Posted by: bernarda | August 8, 2007 5:41 AM
People like to write off the only decent candidate, Kucinich. Why so? Maybe to help change some minds.
http://www.the35percenters.com/
http://www.youtube.com/35percenters
Posted by: Carlie | August 8, 2007 6:25 AM
My rep voted no. Good boy!
Posted by: AV | August 11, 2007 2:40 AM
Interview with Ralph
Spoiler? I think not. Though depends on how you define democracy.
An Unreasonable Man - not unlike Dawkins. If you haven't already, please check out this movie.
What he has to offer. I have a feeling that most of you will probably find yourselves agreeing with his positions on so many issues.
Either people start voting for third-party candidates (Bloomberg, Nader etc.), or continue to be in a dysfunctional relationship with Democrats and keep giving them chances, irrationally hoping that they'll somehow magically change, though have no incentive whatsoever to move to the left, given they take progressives' votes for granted.
Also, won't vote for him because he can't win (or is it the other way round? Did you also vote for Reagan? Because if you didn't your vote was wasted.) reminds me of the chicken-and-egg problem/fable. Someone has to take the brave step to break out of this circular argument otherwise it's the same old, same old.
Posted by: AV | August 11, 2007 2:44 AM
Oops, here are the three links:
Interview: http://artvoice.com/issues/v6n9/ralph_nader_an_unreasonable_man
An Unreasonable Man: http://www.anunreasonableman.com/
What he has to offer: http://www.nader.org/
Posted by: AV | August 11, 2007 2:46 AM
And, the link for spoiler: http://www.gp.org/organize/spoiled.html
Posted by: Patrick Quigley | August 14, 2007 6:29 AM
Sorry, that was sarcasm. Read the rest of my post and it should be clear that I actually believe this bill is worse than it first appears.