Senator Joe Lieberman confronts wimpy challenger Lamont
Why, oh why, are the nerdroots suprised?
After the primary, DC Democrats dissuaded Lamont from attacking Lieberman, essentially promising him that they would talk Joe out of running. This was of course a lie, but it worked. They lied not only to Lamont, but to us, and to regular activist Democrats who work for the party and play by the rules.
Face it. The corporate-teat-suckling Donks don’t like voters. They don’t like you newfangled activists. They’ll USE you, but when they’re done you’re flushed like a used condom. They’ll pour some Zima down your throats, pass you around and then drop you off in front of your dorm all sticky and degraded. In the big frat row that is this country’s government, unless challengers are either legacies or is actively rushed, the brothers in the big-domed frat house don’t want them.
It was a lie, just another lie. Funny, though, how people keep falling for it. Want to crash the gates, you morons? Go Bluto on their asses.
seriously people, the Republicans are destroying this country, but the Dems are HELPING. We can’t fight back in this representative system unless we get respresentatives WHO ACTUALLY REPRESENT WHAT WE VALUE.
It’s a two step process.
FIRST we get out of being up to our asses in alligators (i.e., we get the Republicans out of power).
THEN we start draining the swamp (i.e. replacing the Democrats-who-are-just-as-bad-as-the Republicans with representatives who aren’t wholly-owned subsidiaries of major corporations).
Poor Madmen. First he told us that we would get killed in these elections, but when the polls came backs showing us taking the House and quite possibly the Senate, he suddenly tells us that winning means nothing.
It’s indistinguishable from right-wing trolling.
And I seem to remember him telling me that Bob Casey was going to lose. I don’t think so.
It’s a shame that he has such poor predictive powers.
The horrible Democratic congress will set back progressive values decades because they will put a stop to the worst excesses of the Bush administration prematurely, before they can leave office. It’s such a shame.
Well, I have to agree with Madman and some of the other commenters on here in that I have no illusions that a Democratic majority in the House, or even the House and Senate, will spell an end to all our problems. It will however solve a great many of them, and I am hoping that some of the, shall we say, more timid Democrats will lose their fear of progressive values once they’re in the majority.
I have no facts to back that up, it just seems like human nature to speak up a little louder if you think it’s safe to do so.
Then once the Republicans are on the outs it will be much easier to perform a holding action to keep them from regaining the majority, assuming our candidates don’t get greedy and stupid. While we’re keeping them out of power simply by telling the truth, we need to execute the “draining the swamp” portion of the operation, that is, we need to start recruiting and electing representatives who are responsive to the people rather than to big business. Once we have enough of them we can get some real change working.
And here’s a potential shocker: I don’t really care if those representatives are Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians or Rhinoceroses so long as they represent the will of those who elected them and aren’t on the take (either licitly through corporate donations or illicitly through bribery and other corruption). Democrats don’t have a monopoly on good ideas, and if a Republican-leaning district in Nebraska wants to elect a Republican who does more than pay lip service to keeping the lid on government and has some good ideas on how to achieve fiscal responsibility, I say good for him. Maybe we can steal his ideas. (If he’s a wingnut who thinks he’s going to facilitate the Escathon through Congressional action, though, I say put him in the stocks and throw overripe produce at him.)
Word.
My heart wants to go with you on this Omir, but my head remembers back in the 90’s when Dems were on a roll and the “right wing conspiracy” unleashed all their venom. What I worry about is that happening again and Dems not being strong enough to take it on and fight back to change the narrative. I don’t want to end up having our political system degraded again into a discussion of who had sex with who.
One hopes we would have learned our lesson.
One fears that might not be the case.
I don’t want to end up having our political system degraded again into a discussion of who had sex with who.
Let’s see, there are people who are sick and being denied medical treatment due to all the bullshit health insurance regs, unemployment, sex(ual orientation) discrimination, cities that are being destroyed, constant congressional scandals, politicians who don’t care about anything except getting re-elected or springboarding to a higher office (but in case they don’t have a back up “career” as a lobbyist), and the approximate 600,000 dead in Iraq, not to mention those in this country who are going w/o in order to finance that fiasco…the list is endless.
But, who had sex w/who–that is all that counts nowadays!
First, there is a month to go yet.
Second, they aren’t winning due to their own devices, the Republicans are imploding.
Three, electronic voting, and I seem to remember lots of crowing the day before the polls opened only two years ago about how good things looked for Kerry and for several other races. We all know how that turned out.
Finally, wasn’t Lamont supposed to be THE example of the power of the “netroots”?
oh, and I’ve been saying for some time that “winning” means nothing to the people. It might mean something to you fanboys, and it certainly means something to the Vichy Donks, and it’s probably worth a scheckle or two to their corporate paymasters, but I think I’ve been pretty clear that a Dem “win” means nothing to minorities, to the poor, to women, to LBGT citizens, to immigrants, to people who don’t worship institutionalized murder … to anybody who believes in justice and equality before the law. Hell, given their supine posture on judges and civils rights, “winning” plainly means losing.
Oh, and my understanding of “troll” is someone who is abusive, avoids substantive argument and who tries to END debate, not open it up. I know that you kids in the Big Boy Blogs mean it to mean “someone who doesn’t fall in line and send money to my Act Blue or PayPal account”, so if THAT is what you mean, then okay.
I prefer to define “troll” as “someone whose arguments generate more heat than light.” They don’t want to end arguments, they want to get arguments started and keep them going, but in the wrong direction and under their control.
As a historical aside, the term “troll” comes from the Usenet practice of making an outrageous statement that more experienced users would recognize as outrageous, but newer users would fall for and start railing against. This was known as “trolling for newbies” — sort of like you might troll for cod. It was a natural back-formation to call someone who did this a troll.
and the implication is that this is what you see me doing?
Sorry, but I’m making a deadly serious point. I’m not trying to be outrageous for the sake of being outrageous. People keep waiting for some knights already sitting around a round table to “save” us. It’s not going to happen. Emancipation happened only after years of agitation BY THE PEOPLE. Suffrage the same. Jim Crow wasn’t done away w/ until years of the civil rights movement DEMANDED that venal politicians had to pay notice. Workplace protections, the 40-hour week and other labor initiatives didn’t happen until people convinced FDR that the ONLY way he was going to maintain power was to HELP them. People are agitating now, in various ways, only the people in power, their consultants and their captive media pretend it isn’t happening.
Millions of people took to the streets to try and stop Iraq. With the ‘net, more and more people are sending emails, faxes, phone calls and letters to their Representatives and Senators. It’s easy to blame a beleagured and stressed population that MORE of them don’t protest, but even those movements of the past were made up of fairly small numbers backed by even more people who couldn’t join them. Continually telling people that they don’t own their votes, that they have no choice but one of the parties, serves only to disenfrancise, to help those in power silence dissent. Do not the devil’s work.
Continuingly giving into the fear-mongering … that you somehow OWE them your votes b/c if you don’t vote for THEM, no matter how many times they’ve lied, because if you don’t THEN THE EVIL REPUBLICANS WIN … is every bit as counterproductive for you as the wingers giving into the fears of teh gay and teh dark skinned is to them. Blaming Nader is easy … it forgives the Vichy Donks of responsibility for running bad campaigns, for being spineless cowards, for standing for nothing but themselves, for being rusty weathervanes swinging in the poll-driven winds.
Rewarding them and THEN demanding change isn’t how it works. The right knows this. IF the Republicans lose because their base stays home, it will be BECAUSE OF THAT, NOT because of anything that Schumer et. al. did. They’re conning you with this constant talk of red-state governors and “this is a CONSERVATIVE country”. All of the people you hear bitching about the cost of healthcare, their declining standard of living, the lack of educational opportunities … ALL of those people would respond to true progressive messages if anybody offered them, if Schumer and Clinton(s) and Emmanuel weren’t cutting them off at the knees w/ constant blind-quote-attacks in WaPo & NYT stories.
You don’t like what I think, what I write … I get that, but I put too much serious thought into what I write to accept being called a troll, however passive-aggressively it’s done.
I was posting a definition of “troll” that I think gives a better mental hook on what a troll is. I made no inferrences about whether the arguments you are putting forward fits the description.
But since you brought it up, I’m going to tell you exactly what I think.
I think that if by posting that definition you think I’m trying to apply it to you, you’re being oversensitive and might want to consider switching to decaf or otherwise taking a step back from the jagged edge. I think you are right about some of the points you raise. I think you are wrong about just as many or possibly more. I think you have a right to your opinions, your thoughts and your expressions of those opinions and thoughts. I think I have no business telling you what to think or write, any more than you have to tell me what to think or write. I think you are overly confrontational. I think your opinions, even when they have merit, are drowned out by the style in which they are presented. I think you get extra points for using “Animal House” to help make your points. I think that when I see your diaries, my natural inclination is to stay away from them because this is the sort of reaction I have and quite frankly I would rather be a go-along-to-get-along type of guy than to be posting something like this. I think if you’re right about all this you will have every right to say “I told you so,” and I think it won’t make a damn bit of difference or make the situation any better. I think I’ve made my point of view vis-a-vis yours well known. I think I’m done with this post. In fact, I think perhaps I’m done reading your diaries.
Be well.
I wouldn’t gloat about Casey, Booman. It will return to bite you in the ass over and over. The point is Casey and Santorum are both horrendous candidates and it’s lose-lose for the people. Is he going to stop the next Alito from being installed on the SC? Hardly, in fact he’ll be in the cheering section. Is Casey better than Santorum for me as a gay man? Not.
3 weeks ago Casey was tanking. If you’re gloating because the Foley scandal has some legs you really are desperate. It has nothing to do with Dem leadership, they are as bankrupt as the Repubs and will be still be rolling over in the King Sized bed in the morning to kiss their K street lobbyist. No one in either party is talking reform and if you don’t get that means more of the same from both of them your head needs to get out of the sand so your brain gets some much needed oxygen.
Bullshit. I watched both the Tester/Burns and the Santorum/Casey debates last night. You know what stood out? Tester is not the same as the other three.
As for Casey, I don’t really like his personality. It’s hard for me to relate to. He’s very calm. He’s got this election in the bag, though. Santorum was fighting for his job like a wild dog and Casey just calmly slapped him down.
I never supported Casey, and you know that. But I could do the math, and the math tells me that we don’t take the Senate without this Pennsylvania seat. We need Tennessee too, and Virginia.
Are those three Senators going to reverse our belligerent foreign policy? No. But they will help give us a government more like the one we grew up with than the one we have now.
And that is my immediate goal. The long-term goal is more focused on the House and statehouses.
Testor won’t say where he stands on judges like Alito, and Bobby Jr. made his position all-too clear. When Posner comes up for the next seat, forget about the Donks doing ANYTHING to stop him w/ those two in Congress.
I have news for you. The Senate Judiciary committee is where judges get confirmed. Do you remember Harriet Miers?
With a majority on the Judiciary committee Bush has to get Leahy’s approval for any judge he wants confirmed. Had he sent Roberts or Alito to Leahy as a suggestion he would have told him that such nominations were dead in the water and it wouldn’t matter at all whether Ben Nelson liked them and would have voted for them.
This whole line of argument is a loser from beginning to end.
I’m sure you’ll call me a troll next year when I post “I told you so” when then screw us again, even w/ control. As for Dems saying “no” to wackjob judges, I offer up Exhibit A: Joe Biden, Chairman during the Thomas hearings:
What a load of self-serving crap. How does vigorously challenging a dangerous moron like Thomas somehow make “a lie of everything I think I stand for”. You stand for making MBNA rich, Senator. Spare me the sancitmony on Civil Liberties sir … what was your vote on the USA PATRIOT Act again? Hack.
Cynical, but it worked. The Dems screwed over Hill, gave Thomas wide latitude (because they are spineless cowards) and Leahy’s behavior over the last 6 years show me no sign that he’d be any stronger than Biden was.
However, I caution again this silly tendency you have to count your elections before the balloting hatches. The Dems SUCK at the ground game, NO ONE knows what they stand for other than being “not as bad” as the Republicans, and the Republicans have gerrymandering and Diebold on their side. Again, I remember when Kerry looked good THE MORNING of the election, and I certainly remember what happened to Cleland.
It is possible for you to ever get over the fact that Clarence Thomas got put on the bench?
That was a different time, a different country, a different court. The GOP is no longer run by Poppy. It’s run by his lunatic son. The court is no longer solidly in the mid/late 20th Century consensus mode. It votes 5-4 on practically everything and doesn’t ever care that it looks bad and divides the country.
Today, Clarence Thomas would not get through Leahy’s committee. Alito would not have gotten through his committee. That’s the point.
And I am not counting on winning the Senate. It’s a major long shot.
wow, so much faith in Leahy.
Yes, it’s a different time and a different country. The Republicans are even more brutal and efficient at delivering votes and driving the debate and the Dems are even more spineless than Biden was then. When I see Leahy speaking he looks halting and beaten, the same as Reid. He’s not some brave champion who’s going to finally fight back. He doesn’t have it in him anymore.
Someday you’re going to have to face just how badly sold out we are. They don’t care about you. They don’t care about the country. Like many Americans, they care only about themselves and preserving their perks. You want change and justice? They have to go.
While that may or may not be true, it would be smart to at least give the Democrats the chance to screw it up as a Congressional majority. You’ll probably pull away more Democrats if you can point to recent failures as a majority. Otherwise you’ll end up with a major split on the left and guaranteed wins for the Republicans.
Someone really needs to start an Dominionist party to pull away the wingnuts from the GOP. They support the Greens, why not support the fundies?
Oh, yes, America was SO much better under Poppy, that highly principled enabler of torturers, terrorists, assassins and death squads. He of the October Suprise, one of the architects of Iran/Contra, the President who gave us a recession throughout most of his Presidential term, friend of Sauds, lover of oil, you mean THAT Poppy? The Commander on Chief who ordered the turkey shoot in Iraq, slaughtering a beaten, retreating army? The man who promised aid to the Kurds and Shi’a if they rose up against Saddam, the self-same President who left them to die under the helicopters Saddam launched, the self-same helicopters WE SOLD HIM. That “Poppy”?
Oh, yes, the eighties, I remember suffering through them well.
I don’t need a lecture on the history of the Bush Crime Family. All we need to know is that back then Poppy was one of the moderate Republicans, running to keep upstart B-Movie actors from getting all Cowboy on things and mucking them up for the Establishment.
I have no illusions about the nature of the right in this country. Did you read my latest front-page post?
he’s no moderate, and that he appears as one only shows how debased the political debate in this country has become.
you ignore the power of incumbancy, and how much they stick together once someone IS in the club. Look at how much luck CT Dems are having w/ Lieberman.
No, I’m not ignoring anything. I fully realize that over 90% of incumbents get re-elected . . . as things stand now.
And if they don’t change, 90% of incumbents will continue to get re-elected.
But like I’ve told you before, I never said this was going to be easy. In fact I said it was going to be pretty hard, because it requires those of us who care about such things to get up off our collective butt and go do something, and not only that, to get our neighbors who might feel likewise to go do something. That is what people-powered politics is about — PEOPLE powered. And frankly if we don’t supply the manpower to change things, things won’t change, and we’ll have only ourselves to blame.
So we can sit back and wail and moan about how we don’t have the kind of government we want, that’s responsive to the people instead of the money, or we can work to change it. Which is it going to be?
Look, what you say sounds well and good, but the reality is that replacing all of the DINO’s w/ones who represent the people will not happen in our lifetime, especially it is being done piece by piece and wingnuts are replaced by even more DINO’s.
What is needeed is a Presidential candidate who is willing to lead, as in make decisions that are unpopular w/the complacent congresscritters who pander to lobbyists, but act in the best interest of what the public wants. And if a candidate is all talk, like many God-knows-how-many dems that are currently in DC, they are totally worthless.
You’re right about the President, and partially right about the candidates. We don’t need to replace everyone in Congress. I fully realize that there are parts of the country where they may actually want a raving religious lunatic who wants to push the world straight into the Second Coming representing them. The best we can do is get enough people into Congress to get our agenda done, and it won’t happen unless people who want it get out and do it. The fundies recognize this; unfortunately we don’t have any kind of organization (yet) that can compete with them.
Having a President and enough members of Congress who are willing to commit political suicide in the name of adopting a progressive agenda would be great. Heck, people might even find out they like having things like universal health care.
Those currently in office or those who are running are more interested in themselves and meetings w/lobbyists than they are in their consituents they supposedly represent!
Maybe it’s late on a Friday, but I don’t understand how what I just said makes Madman’s point.
I have been saying all along that we need to get people into Congress who are responsive to their constituents, not to the corporations. If anything I ever write sounds like it contradicts that, trust me, I don’t mean it.
But first, we have to get the Republicans out of power, since if we don’t there is no hope for any change, ever. Maybe I’m delusional and there just isn’t any hope for change, ever, under any circumstances, but if that’s the case please just shoot me now, because that’s not the world I want to see my granddaughter growing up in. After the Republicans are out we can start taking steps for the people to take Congress back.
It’s the difference between strategy and tactics, once again. The tactic RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, three weeks and change before an election, is to get the Republicans out of power. I don’t like that that involves people like Casey, but that’s the reality we’ve been handed. Once the Republicans are out we can worry about putting people we actually like into Congress rather than voting against the ones we don’t. But until that happens, I’m going to agitate for getting rid of the Republicans.
I view this like trying to get out of a hole. You have a ladder. To get out of the hole you have to go up the steps one rung at a time. You don’t yell and swear because you can’t get up to the top in one big leap.
Right here!
Enacting legislation for programs that people want is political suicide????? Yeah, for a “professional” who is dependent on stagnant policies re-packaged and “contributions” from lobbyists under the guise of progressive politics!
that’s not the world I want to see my granddaughter growing up in.
That’s another thing that irritates the hell out of me…everything is “for the children.” What about people today who are really going though hell, need and want change? Why should registered voters today take second place? Example: Disability Rights–All I hear is “Wait until 2008.” Edwards didn’t even say a word about that, nor was any info available. Why the hell should I vote for him or any other candidate who does not address issues that are important to me? (We saw how strongly believed in his Two Americas song and dance.)
We both know it will be wait until 2012, and on, and on. Why the hell don’t people just say NEVER? A person w/a disability is considered to be a drain on the Federal and State budgets. Pretty soon there will be people dropping dead in larger numbers than today, due to denial of medical treatment, and all the Medicare D bullshit! Although there was one reported, I do not believe for one minute that Eddie Rosa was the only one!
I said WILLING to commit political suicide. If they are doing the right thing, it shouldn’t matter whether it’s political suicide or not, should it? FDR took that chance, and he only got re-elected three times.
As for bringing my granddaughter into it, look, I’m over 50 and I have diabetes. I hope to live long enough to bore my granddaughter’s grandchildren about how I used to have to watch TV by candlelight because electricity hadn’t been invented yet, but the odds are against it. So maybe I’ll see some benefit in my lifetime from my work. Maybe not. But I sure as hell want to give her a chance of growing up in a better world.
Now I’m going to let you in on a little secret.
On November 8th, you will find that I agree with you (and Madman) more than either of you think. On that day the election will be behind us, we can take about three deep breaths, and then we can start recruiting and stumping for candidates who will represent our interests in 2008 and beyond. In fact if you’ll look back at my diaries and posts I think you’ll see that I’ve been consistent in saying this.
But today, October 13, 2006, I’m focused on getting rid of the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, because if we don’t nothing is going to change, period. Will we get change under the Democrats in Congress in January? Nothing in life is certain. But I’m willing to take the chance. The ballots are printed, the candidates are chosen, and frankly every minute spent debating ought-tos and should-haves is a minute that is not being spent getting the House and Senate back.
And of course all this is modulo voter fraud. If they steal the election again, none of this is going to matter anyway because we will officially have ceased to be a democracy and will have completed the transformation into a banana republic.
And now, having said pretty much everything I intend to say on this topic and more, and having had my chops busted all day for it, I’m getting out of this thread. If by chance I happen to go off my meds and get back in, please reach under your bed, pull out that Jose Canseco autographed bat you’ve been saving in case it was ever worth something, and feel free to beat me senseless with it.
FDR got re-elected b/c he stood his ground, he stood for things, he DELIVERED for his constituents (not just big campaign contributors, but voters and the unions).
Here’s the thing w/ us disagreeing. I don’t think it’s enough to just kick the Republicans out, but it’s important to kick them out in the right way, for the right reasons. Principles matter, and Schumer and the rest will argue, if they win, that moving right PAID OFF. However, being cowards who stand for nothing, the Republicans will hang all of the failures of the last six years on the newly winning Dems, and use it to bring some odious monster like Brownback into the White House in ’08.
but wasn’t a progressive. He stole the big ideas of Louisiana’s own Huey Long and Detroit (and Rome’s) Father Coughlin. His many important changes in our country were driven more from a concern to stabilize a dangerously unstable situation post-WWI and in the Great Depression. Eleanor Roosevelt was the radical one. Henry Wallace was another driving force for progressive change that FDR “managed.”
But, I’m with Omir. I’m going to take my meds, club myself with my Carlos Guillen Louisville slugger, and stop reading this thread.
but that is exactly my point … an FDR can be corralled into doing right if the left flexes it’s muscles.
if the left flexes it’s muscles.
Not caving into a DINO and being his/her personal ATM!
Detroit (and Rome’s) Father Coughlin.
Yeah and what do we get now? An ex-ray-gun-ite who is from Hamtramck (less than a 10 minute drive from the neighborhood I grew up in) taking on a wingnut–like that is really going to make a difference in Congress even if by some miracle he wins. Since there he’s not even 10 years older than I am, it is really shocking that our views are so different.
BTW, as stated to Omir, I am a traumatic brain injury survivor who has been through tbi rehab (which I wouldn’t wish on anyone). And, yes, I also found your last sentence to be in poor taste.
That is it! A leader who stands his/her ground and is really dedicated to what his/her plans are, not just interested in grabbing all he/she can from public service, as opposed to seeing public service as a way to make megabucks as a lobbyist/hitting the lecture circuit is what is needed.
Kick ’em out, and kick hard! Hell, make examples of them for future generations and future leaders! Let gwb’s gang stand trial at the Hague. All the crooked congresscritters–stand trial and a severe sentence. What was that phrase–the court of public opinion? So they can suffer and live in complete disgrace (not getting book deals and all). That’s the ideal way to kick them out.
And then we’d be back to where we are now, if not worse. The only exception to that is Russ Feingold–standing up alone on the Senate Floor, opposing that damn PATRIOT Act and w/his motion to censure gwb. Where the hell were all the rest of the dems? If you didn’t know the numbers, you’d think the number of dems to reps in the Senate is 1 (Feingold) to 99 (reps and dino’s).
And, Teddy Kennedy is the minority “leader”. What is wrong with this picture?
You completely misunderstood what I said. Since you brought it up, I am in my mid-forties and I have epilepsy and am having all sorts of problems getting my anti-convulsants under Medicare D. Why the hell should what I need be put off for future generations? And, what about people who are in worse situations than mine? No one is speaking up for them!
And since you mentioned FDR, he also had a disability. What gives today’s elected crooks the right to look down on people with disabilities by not enacting the legislation for programs that would benefit them? On a related note, I went to a brain injury survivor’s conference (statewide) last year–and I was shocked at the intellect that is being wasted by denial of re-training, access to education and the job market. (Funding for which has been cut!)
And, as a traumatic brain injury survivor who has been through tbi rehab (which I wouldn’t wish on anyone), I found your last sentence to be in poor taste.
Um, er, I apologize for that remark. I had no idea. If I could delete that part of the comment, I would gladly do so.
And now having said that, I really am getting out of this thread. Perhaps in November we can revisit the ideas of how to get the government all of us want.
I know what that means.
I do agree with some of what you say Madman. I am very disgusted with a large portion of the Dems that are supposed to be representing us. That’s a joke but I have to tell you I tend to tune out to anyone’s point of view that calls me a moran. Have a nice day.
better to be taken for granted? At least I’m honest about what I think.
As Granny D walked clear across the damned country to illustrate, NOTHING is going to change enough to make a hell of a lot of difference, no matter who gets elected, until and if there is SIGNIFICANT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.
Until then, money will continue to control who runs America. And given the corpocracy we have become, that means only those most willing to sell their souls to the corporate store can get elected.
I see nothing any more trustworthy about a bought and paid for donkey than I do a bought and paid for elephant.
Unfortunately, these are the only two choices left to pick from in this country: what breed of corruption do we prefer?
I don’t necessarily disagree. A politician’s first concern is preserving his/her career.
And while current Democrats have been complacent when they should have been loud and unruly, it is still in our best interest to have one house of congress out of Republican control.
But it does seem that power brings abuse. And with one house in Democratic control, the abuses will not necessasarily end, but will likely come at a somewhat slower pace. (Neither party has a monopoly on abuse.)
As for the future, yes, I’d like to see something better than the status quo.
All this, of course, is why we need better Democrats. (Better Republicans too, with some other parties thrown into the mix, but I think you know what I mean.) And they need to be Democrats we bought and paid for, rather than Democrats that were bought and paid for by Sony, General Electric, Microsoft, General Motors, Monsanto and their friends.
And they need to be Democrats we bought and paid for
What about people live below the poverty level and just manage to survive? Who speaks on their behalf? No one. Shit, these “Democrats” will probably insist on taking Food Stamps! Here’s a better idea: Reduce congresscritter compensation to the maximum SSI payment, instead of their extravagant salaries and Medicare D, instead of their lavish benefits. Stay at the Y instead of insisting on a luxury condo. Skip meals. Send their kids to public schools.
That happens, you’d be suprised at how fast things will change for the better.