|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samcol
Host, You said the same things around the 04 election. Don't vote Libertarian it's a waste of vote blah blah blah. The Democrats took the win in congress, yet what have they changed? IMPEACHEMENT IS OFF THE TABLE ACCORDING TO THE SPEAKER. They are so weak and limp wristed it's sick. I have to agree with Will, pick who you like the best. The lesser of two evils just isn't working and hasn't worked for quite some time.
If there was someone in my districts like a Gravel, Kucinich or Ron Paul I'd probably vote for them, but since there isn't my vote's going Libertarian.
I'm still waiting for the Democrats to actually do something this term...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Then you need to reread my post. AGAIN, go do homework. There are HUNDREDS of political parties in the US. Can you name them all, and where each of them stands on the issues? No? Then go do your duty. Vote for the best person. This is "tough shit" it's "get off your ass". If you can't find anyone to vote for, run yourself.
Oh and Host, I'm not willing to compromise. Other than maybe Kucinich, there are no good Democratic candidates. They are all balless, pandering, politicophiles. They scapre and scrounge and concede. I'm willing to wait until others come to their senses and start to vote for the best person for the job regardless of their party.
|
Quote:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campa...=45&pid=217712
Dissing the DLC
Ari Berman
Bill Clinton, the former chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), will be delivering the keynote address at the organization's <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=128755">annual conference</a> in Nashville this weekend.
But his wife and other '08 Democratic presidential hopefuls, including Barack Obama and John Edwards, will instead be in South Carolina, addressing the College Democrats annual convention.
It's particularly interesting that Hillary is skipping the New Dem conference, given how former Tennessee Congressman and new DLC Chairman Harold Ford Jr. wrote in a January <a href="http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/01/harold-ford-to-take-over-dlc.php">memo</a> that "I assume there will be an effort to help Senator Clinton's campaign and I would support such an effort."
In contrast, all the major '08 Democrats will be attending the <a href="http://yearlykosconvention.org/node/238">YearlyKos convention</a> in August.
Translation: netroots hot, DLC not.
In recent years, as the party has moved left, the DLC has struggled to maintain its <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050321/berman">relevance and uniqueness</a>. It wants to remain the player it was in the late 80s and 90s, when it battled for the "soul of the party."
So today longtime leader Al From <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Snubbing-Moderates.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">feels snubbed</a>. "They are looking only at the liberal activists in Iowa," he says of the '08 Dems. "They have tunnel vision."
I wonder what Bill thinks about that.
|
The above article indicates to me that the deomcratic candidates are at least willing to listen to the liberal wing of the deomcratic party.
samcol, I want to confirm that you know my view of where the election last november has brought the democrats to, as far as their ability to "get things done" (like...for example....impeachment, or a legislative bill out of committee and actually passed into law, and then through a Bush veto and the override process necessary to actually make a bill into law....).
Pelosi is speaker, of "all of the people", if she has any hope of successfully building a consensus on any issue that can result in "crossover" votes from republicans, even as she keeps her own democrats from conservative districts, voting with the rest of the democratic caucus.....
She took impeachment "off the table", knowing what was known before what additional revelations of wrongdoing that the various democractically controlled investigative committees have, and continue to unearth,as the investigative process continues......
She has to weigh the reality that, even now, the democratic senate majority hinges on the health and recovery from brain surgery of senator Johnson (D-SD)...he still isn't able to attend senate voting sessions or committee meetings that he is assigned to. The other "wildcard" is former democratic and Bush war supporter, Joe Lieberman. Joe can move the senate to republican control by voting with them (49 republicans plus Lieberman, vs. 49 democrats without Johnson able to attend to vote, and Cheney able to vote to break any tie vote....) A Bush veto of any bill that passes in the house and senate, then requires 60 senate votes to override Bush's veto.
Impeachment, which could proabably pass in the house, would move to a senate trial that would require the "yes" votes of 49 active democratic senators, and Lieberman, and an additional 17 republicans, to result in a conviction and expulsion of Bush, Cheney, or Gonzales, for example.
The republicans in the senate have filibustered every move to vote on anything the democrats have proposed since january....they vote against the cloture motion required to move to an actual vote on any matter..... since 60 votes are required to achieve cloture....and the 60 votes needed, every time, necessitates votes of all active democrats, and Lieberman's vote, and votes of ten "crossover" republicans......
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021700247.html
Iraq Vote In Senate Blocked By GOP
7 Republicans Join Democratic Push
By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 18, 2007; Page A01
Senate Republicans for a second time blocked a symbolic attempt by Democrats to reject President Bush's troop increase yesterday, but GOP defections were higher than before, suggesting Republican cracks as the Iraq war dominates Congress's agenda.
With the 56 to 34 vote, Democrats fell shy of the 60 votes required to kick off debate on a nonbinding resolution passed by the House last week that expresses support for the troops but criticizes Bush's decision to expand combat ranks by more than 20,000 troops. Senate Democrats picked up five new Republican allies in their effort to advance the resolution, bringing the GOP total to seven.......
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/07/26/cq_3165.html
Lawmakers Hope for Pre-Recess Votes on Replacement Lobbying, Ethics Bill
By Martin Kady II, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY
Published: July 26, 2007
Democratic and Republican leaders believe that a long-stalled lobbying and ethics bill could clear Congress before recess begins Aug. 6.
......Meanwhile, the bundling provision, which would force lobbyists to disclose if they collect piles of checks for candidates, may be altered so that the congressional candidates — rather than the lobbyists — would have to disclose who is bundling contributions. Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the advocacy group Public Citizen, said the problem with this potential change is that lobbyists are not currently identified in Federal Election Commission filings and databases.
Democratic leaders may have figured out a way to deal with the third obstacle, DeMint, who has vowed to filibuster any legislation that does not contain the exact earmark restrictions he pushed when the Senate originally passed its lobbying measure in January.
DeMint, who has almost single-handedly prevented the lobbying bill from going to a conference committee, may be outnumbered when Democrats bring the bill to the floor sometime in the next several days.
Democrats plan to bypass the conference committee process by having both chambers pass the identical replacement bills, and Senate Republicans have not indicated that they will stand in the way. In fact, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has predicted that the bill will probably pass without going to conference. House Republicans may also have little power to stop Democrats from rushing a bill through that chamber early next week.
McConnell said he regrets that there will be no conference committee but believes a bill can be produced in the end that will “in all likelihood, hopefully, be one that can pass on a bipartisan basis.”
Senate rules require two-thirds of the chamber to agree to any rules changes, which will be embedded in the legislation. So Democrats will still need 67 votes to invoke cloture and end debate on the bill. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., aides said, will try to work with Republican leaders to secure the votes needed to minimize any filibuster attempt by DeMint.
A DeMint spokesman said the senator will try to rally conservatives to oppose the legislation when it comes to the floor, but it’s not clear if he will have enough votes to block the bill if the earmark language has been changed.
“If it doesn’t have the enforcement, striking [earmarks] on a point of order . . . that’s a huge loophole,” DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton said......
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18218.html
<h3>Senate tied in knots by filibusters</h3>
By Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers
* Posted on Fri, July 20, 2007
<img src="http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2007/07/20/16/317-20070720-FILIBUSTERS.small.prod_affiliate.91.jpg">
WASHINGTON — This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that's rooted in — and could increase — the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.
The trend has been evolving for 30 years. The reasons behind it are too complex to pin on one party. But it has been especially pronounced since the Democrats' razor-thin win in last year's election, giving them effectively a 51-49 Senate majority, and the Republicans' exile to the minority.
Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 "cloture" votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation. Under Senate rules that protect a minority's right to debate, these votes require a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate.
Democrats have trouble mustering 60 votes; they've fallen short 22 times so far this year. That's largely why they haven't been able to deliver on their campaign promises.
By sinking a cloture vote this week, Republicans successfully blocked a Democratic bid to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by April, even though a 52-49 Senate majority voted to end debate.
This year Republicans also have blocked votes on immigration legislation, a no-confidence resolution for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and major legislation dealing with energy, labor rights and prescription drugs.
Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., forced an all-night session on the Iraq war this week to draw attention to what Democrats called Republican obstruction.
"The minority party has decided we have to get to 60 votes on almost everything we vote on of substance," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "That's not the way this place is supposed to work."
Even Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who's served in Congress since 1973, complained that "the Senate is spiraling into the ground to a degree that I have never seen before, and I've been here a long time. All modicum of courtesy is going out the window."
But many Republicans say the Senate's very design as a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives is meant to encourage supermajority deal-making. If Democrats worked harder to seek bipartisan deals, Republicans say, there wouldn't be so many cloture votes.
"You can't say that all we're going to do around here in the United States Senate is have us govern by 51 votes — otherwise we might as well be unicameral, because then we would have the Senate and the House exactly the same," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
To which Reid responds: "The problem we have is that we don't have many moderate Republicans. I don't know what we can do to create less cloture votes other than not file them, just walk away and say, 'We're not going to do anything.' That's the only alternative we have."
Some Republicans say that Reid forces cloture votes just so he complain that they're obstructing him.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called the all-nighter on Iraq "meaningless, insulting" and "an indignity." "There is no doubt that there are not 67 votes present to override a veto. There is little doubt that there are not 60 votes present to bring the issue to a vote." click to show
Republicans also say that Democrats are forgetting how routinely they threatened filibusters only a few years ago when they were the minority, especially to block many of President Bush's judicial nominees. Back then, Republicans were so mad that they considered trying to change Senate rules to eliminate filibusters — but didn't.
"The suggestion that it's somehow unusual in the Senate to have controversial matters decided by 60 votes is absurd on its face," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Although this year's Congress is taking it to a new level, the frequency of cloture votes has been climbing for decades — the result of more polarized politics in Congress and also evolving Senate rules and practices.
Associate Senate Historian Don Ritchie said that since the nation's start, dissident senators have prolonged debate to try to kill or modify legislation. The word "filibuster" — a translation of the Dutch word for "free-booter" or pirate — appears in the record of an 1840s Senate dispute about a patronage job.
From Reconstruction to 1964, the filibuster was largely a tool used by segregationists to fight civil rights legislation. Even so, filibusters were employed only rarely; there were only three during the 88th Congress, which passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 after two months of filibustering.
Filibusters were infrequent partly because the Senate custom of civility prompted consideration of minority views — and partly because they were so hard to overcome that compromises were struck. In 1917 cloture rules for ending filibusters were put in place, but required a two-thirds vote — so high it was rarely tested.
Post-Watergate, in 1975, the bar was lowered to three-fifths, or 60 votes, and leaders began to try it more often.
By the early 1990s, tensions between then-Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine and Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas upped the ante, and the filibuster-cloture spiral has soared ever since as more partisan politics prevailed. The use of filibusters became "basically a tool of the minority party," Ritchie said.
The current Senate has two other complications: the 51-49 Democratic majority, which includes a pro-war independent and an absent Democrat recuperating from brain surgery, makes it harder to find 60 votes. And the presidency and Congress are controlled by opposing parties, which increases confrontation.
The Senate "has always been a cumbersome and frustrating and slow body because that's what the Constitution wanted," Ritchie said. The new majority's decisions are: "How often are you willing to lose on these issues? Would you rather campaign on the other side being obstructionists? What's a tolerable compromise? They're still working these things out."
Republican Senate leader McConnell said Friday in a news conference that when he became minority leader, "it was not my goal to see us do nothing. I mean, you can always use the next election as a rationale for not doing anything. But as you all know, we've had a regularly scheduled election every two years since 1788, so there's always an election right around the corner."
"A divided government has frequently done important things: Social Security in the Reagan period, when (Democrat) Tip O'Neill was speaker; welfare reform when Bill Clinton was in the White House when there was a Republican Congress. There's no particular reason why divided government can't do important things. We haven't yet, but it's not too late.
"And I think clearly the way to accomplish things is in the political middle, and I would challenge our friends on the other side of the aisle to step up and take a chance on something big and important for our country."
Of course, Democrats say similar things — but then neither side often compromises.
|
will, samcol, and pan.....didn't Ralph Nader draw enough votes away from Gore/Lieberman 2000, in Florida, to hand that state's presidential race to Bush?
Are your criticisms of the lack of accomplishments by congressional democrats as fair and as accurate as they could potentially be? Will Pelosi or Reid build any consensus that will bring more republican crossover votes, if they bring an impeachment action that cannot succeed in the senate? Isn't the real problem that the democratic senate majority is large enough to bring committee and bill drafting control to the democrats, but not the ability to bring bills to actual floor votes that, even if they occurred, would not be veto proof?
I'm at least as liberal/socialist in my view of what needs to happen in the US, as you are, will.....but I see the present choice as either attracting more votes for democrats in upcoming elections, if there is any hope of countering the uniformly conservative republican block in the senate, or withdrawing those votes in upcoming elections from democrats, <h3>assuring that republicans will keep or gain senate seats, and possibly the presidency again in 2008.</h3>
You want there to be other choices, but it takes money, like it or not, and momentum to beat the republican/corporatist political machine....and the democrats, with all of their advantages....access to wealthy contributors and the shear superiority of potential votes, are clearly the only ones who can counter the republican organizing and fund raising abilities.
We don't make the rules or design the playing field, but we sure as hell are victims (or benefactors) of the status quo.....remember?...it's about the art of the possible.....and Pelosi is not the first female SOTH and Hillary the first potentially successful female contender for the office of POTUS because either has ignored that political principle.
If you want change.....I advocate using the democrats to weaken and possibly neutralize the secretive criminal republicans, first, then build a coalition of greens/libertarians/other independents that can be grown to a point where it is a more powerful political opposition block vs. the democrats, than the republicans presently are....anything else does not pass an "art of the possible" "smell" test.....i.e., it's probably too clouded by idealism to ever actually achieve the power to change.....HELLL....the democrats cannot even achieve, even with all of the advantages that they held going into the November, 2006 elections, THE POWER TO CHANGE THINGS, that you say you want to achieve by supporting third party candidates.....NOW!
The reason is, even with all of the info that voters had when they went to the polls 9 months ago, the republican PR machine and campaign treasury, aided by the illegal campaign against voting rights enforcement of the partisanized DOJ, and it's intimidating election eve prosecutions "op", slammed against the senate gains that the democrats should have had.
Last night, in my post in the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=97421&page=2">What causes your rational hatred of George Bush?</a> thread, I posted the article that contained this description of one facet of the democratic (and every other competing party's).....opposition:
Quote:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...frequency.html
News: How the rise of Salem Communications' radio empire reveals the evangelical master plan
By Adam Piore
Illustration: John Hersey
December/January 2006 Issue
.......Atsinger and Epperson started their company 30 years ago as young, idealistic evangelicals. Today Salem is the second-fastest-growing radio chain in the nation. The left—which for years dismissed evangelical activists as out-of-touch zealots—has nothing on the radio dial even close to Salem’s reach and influence. Air America is broadcast on 70 stations and owns none. Salem owns 103 stations in the nation’s largest markets and broadcasts to more than 1,900 affiliates. It owns radio stations in New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Dallas, and Atlanta. In fact, it doesn’t own just one station in those markets. It owns two—sometimes more. In Los Angeles it owns four. In Honolulu it owns seven. It also owns 62 websites and a magazine publishing division.
Though the chain is not as large as Clear Channel Radio (which owns 1,200 stations) or Viacom’s Infinity Broadcasting (178), Salem’s programming is available to one-third of the U.S. population; its websites are read by some 3 million people. Salem Radio Network News division is, according to its website, “the only Christian-focused news organization with fully equipped broadcast facilities at the U.S. House, Senate, and White House manned by full-time correspondents—ensuring timely, on-the-spot coverage of breaking news…specifically created for Christian-formatted radio stations.” In a move that mirrors the Republican Party’s objectives, Atsinger and Epperson have recently expanded Salem’s stable of Christian talk-show hosts—James Dobson, Randall Terry, Janet Parshall—to include conservative Jews like Prager and Michael Medved. The company is a leading outlet for Christian rock, one of the music industry’s fastest-growing segments, and is chasing after black and Latino listeners. The company was also quick to embrace iPod technology to do what evangelicals call “godcasting.”
By melding business savvy, generous political giving, and an unshakable faith in their own moral righteousness, Epperson and Atsinger have built Salem into a blue-chip Wall Street company that has tapped into what Medved calls “a conservative religious counterculture” that is “far more powerful and far more significant than anything in the stupid counterculture of the 1960s.”
For all such thunder, resembles any other radio station. In its studio, a chubby, disheveled engineer spins the dials while a moody young woman struggles to keep pace with the flood of calls to Prager’s show. In his office, general manager Terry Fahy pores over Arbitron ratings and listener patterns. Look a little closer, though, and you’ll notice that the engineer’s T-shirt is emblazoned with a huge American flag and the words “God Bless America,” the screener’s handbag sports a “Jews for Bush and Cheney” pin, and on Fahy’s bookshelf is a small glass cross and a piece of framed scripture—the latter a gift from missionaries who smuggle Bibles into China.
According to University of Akron political science professor John C. Green, conservative Christians listen to Salem’s stations “the same way sports fans listen to sports radio shows,” keeping abreast of the latest developments regarding abortion, gay marriage, Iraq. In many ways, Green says, the chain typifies “the congealing of the religious communities into a potent political force. When traditional issues become important in campaigns—as they did in the last campaign—they can have a huge impact.” Programming such as Salem’s “challenges people to accept their obligation as Christian citizens,” says Frank Wright, president of National Religious Broadcasters. (Epperson currently serves on NRB’s board.) “Our faith in Jesus Christ has eternal spiritual dimensions, but it has a temporal practical obligation to live out your faith in the world around you. That means being involved in the world around you, whether it be the law or medicine—certainly government and politics.”
Salem’s stations allow the religious right to share information, mobilize allies, and galvanize public opinion. During the Terri Schiavo battle, Dobson took to Salem’s airwaves and told listeners: “A woman’s life hangs in the balance. We really have to defend this woman, because if she dies, the lives of thousands of people around the country can be killed, too. There’s a principle here: It’s a paradigm of death versus a paradigm of life.” Dobson’s cohost then reeled off the phone numbers of Florida legislators. Salem’s founders are as politically skilled as their hosts. Time magazine recently named Epperson—who’s twice run for Congress as a Republican—as one of “the 25 most influential evangelicals in America” in a cover-story package that asked “What Does Bush Owe Them?” Atsinger is a Bush Pioneer, meaning he gave $100,000 to the president’s reelection campaign. In the 1990s, he helped revolutionize California politics, first by running Christians for local school boards and then backing candidates who took over the legislature. In 2000, the two men, along with a close political ally, funneled $780,000 into a California state ballot initiative to ban gay marriages. Both have served on the board of the Council for National Policy, a secretive and exclusive network of conservative activists and moneymen. .........
|
I have tirelessly (relentlessly) posted descriptions of the power and the depth of the opposition that you have to underestimate, or dismiss entirely in your idealistic zeal and raw indignation and outrage. Get it through your heads....there are several hundred, incredibly wealth, religiously indoctrinated, extremely committed, conservative "benefactors" of the republican machine that you seek to overcome.....as you endeavor, simultaneously, to diminish the democrats and build your grassroots political parties......
I am not an expert at knowing the opposition, but I do the reserch, I share it, and I listen to CNP/Salem radio whenever my car radio is on....(at least 90 minutes every effing day.....agggghhhh!!!!)
I know "stuff"...like this...and all of it influences the way people vote and who they contribute campaign donations to and doe volunteer political work for:
Quote:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pb.../CLASSIFIEDS01
Harris rival creates buzz
Attorney Will McBride's father-in-law is chairman of the nation's largest Christian radio network.
By JEREMY WALLACE
jeremy.wallace@heraldtribune.com
The least known of the trio of Republicans hoping to beat Katherine Harris in the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate is the one creating the biggest buzz in political circles.
In the two weeks since Orlando attorney Will McBride jumped into the race, he hasn't done interviews, circulated his resume or created a campaign team. The other two candidates who filed to run against Harris on the May 12 deadline -- Pinellas County developer Peter Monroe and LeRoy Collins Jr., the son of a former governor -- have been much more public than McBride.
Still, McBride is the most talked about among political watchers because of his personal wealth, his family connections to one of the biggest names in the conservative Christian movement and his access to top White House leaders.
McBride, 33, grew up in Florida as the son of migrant workers and built himself into a successful businessman able to put millions of his own money into the race, said Lew Oliver, chairman of the Orange County Republican Party.
"He has a lot of potential," Oliver said. "He has the assets to run a respectable and credible campaign."
If that personal money isn't enough, McBride has access to millions more through his wealthy in-laws. McBride is the son-in-law of Stuart Epperson, co-founder and chairman of Salem Communications, the nation's largest Christian radio broadcasting network.
Salem Communications owns more than 100 mostly AM radio stations across the country, including a dozen in Florida, broadcasting to an estimated 5 million listeners a week. The company also owns Christian-oriented magazines and Web sites.
Salem Communications has used its media empire as a springboard to influence the political landscape. The company, through contributions and on-air radio hosts talking up the issue, was instrumental in defeating a gay rights amendment in California in 2000.
Salem Communications and its employees have donated more than $400,000 to federal campaigns -- all of which went to Republican candidates.......
|
CNP is Salem radio, it's Amway...it's Blackwater.....private secuirty army, 20,000 strong...... Epperson of CNP and the Salem network, sponsors a politically ambitious, son-in-law, a child of migrant farmworkers.....
CNP...a secretive network of billionaire and near billionaire, christian evangelist zealots, teamed with AIPAC, and less prominent, religiously indoctrinated political/militaristic organizations.....less prominent, but richly funded and highly influential, and that's just one facet of the republican "ORG", that you seem to have no qualms about strengthening, by default, as a direct outcome of your "independent" politics.
I've laid it out for you, in post after post.....and you minimize what is actually at stake, politically, because you are "fed up".
Do you really think that the democrats are "the same" as the CNP billionaires, other politically active evangelicals, and the corporate benefactors of the republican cause?
Quote:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...GDFR1UV512.DTL
WANING INFLUENCE
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice finds that her star is fading
Joel Brinkley
Sunday, July 22, 2007
......A few months ago, she decided to write an opinion piece about Lebanon. She enlisted John Chambers, chief executive officer of Cisco Systems as a co-author, and they wrote about public/private partnerships and how they might be of use in rebuilding Lebanon after last summer's war. No one would publish it.
Think about that. Every one of the major newspapers approached refused to publish an essay by the secretary of state. Price Floyd, who was the State Department's director of media affairs until recently, recalls that it was sent to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and perhaps other papers before the department finally tried a foreign publication, the Financial Times of London, which also turned it down.
As a last-ditch strategy, the State Department briefly considered translating the article into Arabic and trying a Lebanese paper. But finally they just gave up. "I kept hearing the same thing: 'There's no news in this.' " Floyd said. The piece, he said, was littered with glowing references to President Bush's wise leadership. "It read like a campaign document."
Floyd left the State Department on April 1, after 17 years. He said he was fed up with the relentless partisanship and the unwillingness to consider other points of view. His supervisor, a political appointee, kept "telling me to shut up," he said. Nothing like that had occurred under Presidents Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush. "They just wanted us to be Bush automatons." .......
|
John Chambers is CEO of Cisco Systems...there are probably hundreds of other CEO's of huge US/Multinationals Corps who match his political mindset.
I beg you to "wake TFU", and......as far as the direction of your posts and the sentiments in them.....to "STFU", too. I post this to you, based on the facts about the opposition and it's threat to our politics, facts that I share with you, over and over....and, if you read about CNP/Salem and their noise network and their townhall.com "web presence", and about the partisan "makeover" of the DOJ amd how it now suppresses voting, and YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE part of your "IT's BOTH PARTIES"....dismissal, as you advocate for personally fragmenting the potential power of your own votes, then I'll accept that I cannot reach you!
Last edited by host; 07-27-2007 at 10:58 PM..
|