The Congressional Leadersheep
OK, that headline might be a tad extreme, but given what Bush & Co want, is it? With the Dems wimping out (and Repubs long ago dropping any pretense to their old small, non-intrusive government goals), what do us citizens who don’t want our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms deleted to do?
Terrorism Policies Split Democrats
A growing clamor among rank-and-file Democrats to halt President Bush’s most controversial tactics in the fight against terrorism has exposed deep divisions within the party, with many Democrats angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center.
The Democrats’ failure to rein in wiretapping without warrants, close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay or restore basic legal rights such as habeas corpus for terrorism suspects has opened the party’s leaders to fierce criticism from some of their staunchest allies — on Capitol Hill, among liberal bloggers and at interest groups.
The American Civil Liberties Union is running Internet advertisements depicting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) as sheep.
“Bush wanted more power to eavesdrop on ordinary Americans, and we just followed along. I guess that’s why they call us the Democratic leadersheep,” say the two farm animals in the ad, referring to Congress’s passage of legislation granting Bush a six-month extension and expansion of his warrantless wiretapping program.
“We can do this, but you have to keep in mind Republicans care more about catching Democrats than catching terrorists,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “They have spent years taking Roosevelt’s notion that we have nothing to fear but fear itself and given us nothing but fear.”
Finally, truth in advertising!
There is very little difference in either party. Just a bunch of power hungry hacks, trying to tweak a broken system. It is so refreshing to hear new blood (Paul, Kucinich) the new Ross Perot’s of this age. The question is, is anyone listening? Is America hungry enough for real change? With what we have allowed to happen with this last administration, I have no faith in Americans. They will bow down to their party and we will all suffer to the end!!
Higghawker is right on. I think part of the problem are these polarizing talking heads and mouth pieces that feed one sided, fear motivating arguments to the American “sheep”. It’s getting more and more like 1984 in the name of keeping us safe. I’d actually feel a lot safer with smaller government, less tax, and a metal backed currency. Ron Paul maybe a little nutty in some people’s eyes, but that because he speakes his mind! His principles are rock solid.
A VERY Scary thought for everybody…we have the best government system on the planet.
Sorry, shoulda saved that thought for a Halloween Week posting.
Bush is about the ask for a “special” $50 billion pump for his Surge + the last $150 billion Iraq supplement + the Pentagon’s $400 billion + $200 billion basic Iraq War budget. No extreme funding required for health care, education or anything directly benefiting anyone other than the military-industry pimps.
The Dems will roll over and put all four feet in the air. Republikans will sustain their lead in pocketing payoffs. Taxpayers get screwed by both.
And I don’t even have a cordless crystal ball.
Anyone who thinks that heaven on earth will descend if only the Dems win, is going to be in for a big shock. Wake up. The two parties are in cahoots.
With Bush in office this is not a Democracy, the only people he listens to are his close ignorant advisors.
why cant they do anything? doesnt Bush just veto every bill that he doesnt agree 100% with?
Dems are (the ones in office at least) pussys.
Throw out the lot
The answer to the headline question is simple.
Because Hitlerly Clinton’s panties get wet when she thinks of becoming President with these laws in place.
their lack of veto power gives them an excuse to not do anything at all and this pack of democrats does more nothing in term them most people do in their entire lives
Once again, the U.S. “sheep” are going to get to choose if they want to be eaten by the black wolves with the white spots or the white wolves with the black spots.
I agree with #11 GigG. The Dems are certain they’re going to take the next Presidency and none of them is going to want to limit Bush’s power – because that would just limit their own power in a year or so.
The oligarchy rules.
#2 – Higghawker,
You’ve got the concept correct. However, you may not remember much about Perot. He got up with his little charts, pointed out all the problems in the country and offered not one single suggestion for a solution to any of it!
Then, they analyzed the billionaire’s tax plan. Under the existing tax scheme, he had paid a whopping 6.8% total in taxes. Under his proposed tax scheme, that percentage would drop to 6.4%, which would have made him the highest paid president in history.
The man was also no outsider, spending tons-o-bucks lobbying for little things like a taxpayer provided private airport.
I just wanted to clear that up. It’s no reflection on either Paul or Kucinich.
#11 – GigG,
Don’t be so down on Hillary. She’s the best Republican candidate in the field. Check out the article entitled “Hillary’s Prayer” in the current issue of Mother Jones. I’d post a link, but it’s not yet available for free on the internet. So, I’ve only got hard copy. Essentially, Hillary is as religious as any on the extreme right and every bit as willing to legislate from religion as any of them. I’ll still vote for her over any of the Republicans. However, she’s last on my list of the Democrats at the moment.
BTW, one of the reasons the Dems have lost so much of their following is that they gave up on their prime support base. They are almost as much for letting business do whatever it wants as the Reps. Not quite, yet, but very very close. There are few/no real liberals left. We’re going back to the unbridled capitalism of the 1890s. It’s really a shame since so many people fought so hard and so violently to get us the decent lifestyle we’re throwing away faster every day.
The Democrats say they are opposed to the war but they vote for it. They say they are opposed to the police state but they vote for it. At some point, you have to suspect that they actually are for the war and the police state, which brings up a whole new set of questions. What is being planned that would require such measures? How does this relate to the financial convulsions now under way? Why does this all seem so Orwellian? And who are the real sheep here?
Enjoy voting for the right in ’08, kids.
Milton Berle was right – “You can lead a man* to Congress but you can’t make him think.”
* Or woman
They’re too busy getting blowjobs from fat interns.
>>They’re too busy getting blowjobs from fat interns.
The ones who are fucking things up aren’t getting blow jobs from fat interns, they’re soliciting them in the men’s rooms with their “wide stance” style of relieving themselves.
#17 – Interesting – I look around and see the average lifestyle getting better each day, not worse.
Of course, there are hypocrites like John Edwards who has his 28K square foot mansion and wants to make sure no one else gets one:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294974,00.html
First off, Bush has used his veto less than any other president in recent history. So forget the veto threat BS.
Homeland Security: This travesty was forced upon Bush by the Democrats (along with turning airport screening into a federal function). The Democrats’ objections were pure hyperbole; they knew they could blame their folly upon Bush and the Republicans. Now that they are in charge, it’s pretty damn hard to hide their complicity.
The Iraqi Surge: Do any of you liberals even remember why Rumsfield was run out of office? He resisted efforts to increase the troop levels in Iraq. IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS that screamed for more troops. And following Election Day, Bush fired Rumsfield and agreed to study the surge proposal. Of course, as soon as Bush announced “his” surge plan, the Democrats, maintaining form, began the bashing. How ironic that they are now forced to acknowledge that “Bush’s” surge is actually working.
Since Bush has been in office, he has sided with conservatives on only two occasions: the tax cuts and the appointment of Alito to the Supreme Court. And the Alito appointment came only after conservatives rejected his outright cronyism in nominating Meyers. Take away those two actions, and Bush is no more a conservative Republican than was Nelson Rockefeller.
“Why can’t Dems stop a weakened Bush from enacting totalitarian measures?” That is wrong question. The correct question is: “Why would they want to?”
#25 – Smith,
First off, Bush has used his veto less than any other president in recent history. So forget the veto threat BS.
I have no idea whether this is true. However, even if it is, for six years, he had a trifecta of Republican power. Why would he have needed it? Little or nothing would have come across his desk that he didn’t like for those six years.
As for the rest, I wish that the Dems really did want to stop Bush. I would love to see some real liberals in office. I would love it if someone wasn’t so busy licking the sphincter of big business that they could take the time to care about the people that actually live in this country, including both financial and civil liberties issues.
Right now, we’ve got a double whammy of the rampant unbridled uncontrolled capitalism of the 1890s combined with the legislative leanings of a monarchy. And, we’ve got few or zero people in government that want to stop either one.
AYHB!
Misanthropic Scott
“including both financial and civil liberties issues.
Right now, we’ve got a double whammy of the rampant unbridled uncontrolled capitalism of the 1890s combined with the legislative leanings of a monarchy.”
This rings so true to me.
Seems to mirror
These threads really bring the Loonbats out to play 🙂
Refering to the article:
Because what politicians call themselves does not mean squat. What they call each other means little more.
The Democrats and “liberals” want power just as badly as the “neo-cons” and “conservatives”. They are just arguing about who has the power.
It’s like the Nazis and the USSR. Strip away the verbage, and they wanted exactly the same thing.
Complain all you want. This is still the greatest nation that ever existed and it’s citizens are the most important people on the planet.
Its kinda funny. The voting public is split 50/50 on most issues and the great silent majority of moderates in the middle doesn’t vote. Rove figured out you get elected by courting the base of extremists. The repugs do that better than the dems.
So, we have leaders elected who only represent 20% of the public.
Does democracy work? Not in the two party system with private election financing that we have. Its THE SYSTEM corrupting everyone thats in it giving us the non performance we see today.
– – – and I have to say, slippery slopes aside, these totalitarian issues have very little impact on liberty. What is costing us all our liberty is the economic issues==lowered buying power, deficit, trade balance, dollar value. Yes, our freedom is dramatically declining while we all look at the rabbit in the hat.
Um, every liberal activist in the United states in the last 40 years has been assassinated by the Republicans, and now the Republicans complain that there are no prominent Liberal activists???
OMG, you guys are too funny.
#32 – iGW,
This is still the greatest nation that ever existed and it’s citizens are the most important people on the planet.
Did you actually just say that??!!? Do you really believe that U.S. citizens are more important than people on the rest of the planet? How arrogant!! No wonder most of the rest of world hates us. You make me proud to be an American … NOT!!