What will the Dems do now that they control Congress?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Admiral


Because there is a difference between a disagreeing with a position, and questioning someone's right to disagree. The piece de resistance is Lieberman's quote last December saying, "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril." I apologize, in that he didn't outright say Democrats were unpatriotic, but the implication is that criticizing the president is harmful to national security. This is an embrace of the authoritarian talking points that certain Republicans use, and has no place in our discourse.

Questioning someones right to disagree?

Even if one says questioning the president puts the nation in increased peril that is by no means an advocacy of questioning someones right to disagree. It simply means that part of the equation needs to be understood when making comments. It doesn't advocate forcefully shutting them up.

Sorry, I don't see it.

As for having no place in discourse why not? If unified United States is an essential part of foreign policy then why is it not part of discourse?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The quoted remarks were in support of Senator Strom Thurman who ran for President in 1948 on a platform of segregation, white racial superiority, and anti-mesegination (because it would dilute the purity of white blood). Lott said his state voted for Thurman and America would have been a better place if everyone had voted for that white supremist piece of dog****.

Everyone needs to remember exactly where Trent Lott stands and not forget it.

Yawn...... tell me something that I don't know already.



Like





Hoyer winzzzzz!!!! Murtha losez!!!!!

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Questioning someones right to disagree?

Even if one says questioning the president puts the nation in increased peril that is by no means an advocacy of questioning someones right to disagree. It simply means that part of the equation needs to be understood when making comments. It doesn't advocate forcefully shutting them up.

Sorry, I don't see it.

As for having no place in discourse why not? If unified United States is an essential part of foreign policy then why is it not part of discourse?

First, the United States is unified, regardless of the heat or rancor of the discourse. No one, or at least no one we can take seriously, is undertaking any action which would willfully put this nation at risk. The fact of the matter is that domestic political discussion only shapes international relations in a meaningful, understandable way, in that it effects our foreign policy. As such, it is a totally responsible argument to say that X course of action would place the United States in danger. But it is totally irresponsible to say that the act of advocating X course of action places the United States in danger. And that is what Lieberman was doing. His quote showed a desire to limit debate, when the fact of the matter is, our entire democratic state is based upon the notion of free and unlimited debate.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Admiral
But it is totally irresponsible to say that the act of advocating X course of action places the United States in danger. And that is what Lieberman was doing. His quote showed a desire to limit debate, when the fact of the matter is, our entire democratic state is based upon the notion of free and unlimited debate.

His quote itself was speech, part of the debate. Which,it seems some people felt needed to be suppressed.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Admiral,

I guess I still don't see what you are on about. When one looks at the offending quote from Lieberman

"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril"

at the face of it it states obvious facts.
President = Commander in chief.
Matters of war are the province of the president as commander in chief.
Presidents credibility is important to execute war accordingly.
Unsuccessful war means nation at peril.


I see nothing here that promotes censorship except of the self adminstering kind. Another words understanding the implications of ones words. Good advice regardless of the situation.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Yawn...... tell me something that I don't know already.

The why the hell did you claim it wasn't clear as day? Now you're claiming the racism was so clear even you could see it!

[Ramo]

More troubling for Lott regarding race is his association with the Council of Conservative Citizens, aka the Country Club Klan. His contacts continued through the late 90's, IIRC.

[Ramo]

flip side of the George Will - McCain thingie. You have to be both pure on substantive issues, AND on governance issues. They love Murtha on Iraq, but they also know that lobbyist money stengthens the role of DLCers within the Dem party, and dilutes the power of "netroots" money. I was thinking more of the attack on Hoyer, though.

I don't know why you're so conspiratorial. The simple idea here is that politics should be funded by ordinary citizens. The only reason why this could possibly be interpreted as "defunding" is if you don't believe that your ideas can win without a megaphone. I sympathize with the DLC on trade, and I think that's nonsense.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The why the hell did you claim it wasn't clear as day? Now you're claiming the racism was so clear even you could see it!

No his (Lotts as well as Thurmonds) racism is of historical note and well known. I take issue with the thought that his being nice (and perhaps even condescendingly so) to an Old potentially senile(and yes racist) Fart on his 100th birthday at a private event was in anyway a recommendation for a return to segregation.

That is idiocy pure and simple.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


I don't know why you're so conspiratorial. The simple idea here is that politics should be funded by ordinary citizens. The only reason why this could possibly be interpreted as "defunding" is if you don't believe that your ideas can win without a megaphone. I sympathize with the DLC on trade, and I think that's nonsense.

I believe that public funding is the best way to establish a level playing field. Allowing private funding, but eliminating ALL lobbyist-corporate funding, tends to favor middle to upper middle class individual donors, folks with a very distinct self-interest agenda, that can be as distorting as corporate money. For example on outsourcing, visas on high tech workers, etc.

and ive seen enough anti-clintonista hate from certain quarters of the left, and from the Kos people in recent years, to suspect a good part of it IS about defunding views they dont like. Now Im exaggerating a bit, JUST as I am in my charecterization of George Will and the high tories (a response from him would be that the "simple" idea is freedom of speech.)

[Arrian]

Public funding

-Arrian

[Ramo]

Dodd's introducing legislation to restore habeas corpus.

Dear Leader of course, recently cited the MCA to deny a grad student from Qatar living in Peoria, IL with wife and kids the right to meaningfully challenge his detention. He's been in solitary for years, in a South Carolina military prison. What a bunch of authoritarian douches.

Washington- Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), an outspoken opponent of the Military Commission Act of 2006, today introduced legislation which would amend existing law in order to have an effective process for bringing terrorists to justice.

The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act:

* Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees
* Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants
* Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials
* Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence the deem to be unreliable
* Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions
* Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight
* Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions

This is currently not the case under the Military Commission Act, which will be the subject of endless legal challenges. As important, the bill would also seek to ensure that U.S.servicemen and women are afforded the maximum protection of a strong international legal framework guaranteed by respect for such provisions as the Geneva Conventions and other international standards, and to restore America’s moral authority as the leader in the world in advancing the rule of law.

“I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists,” Sen. Dodd said. “But there is a right way to do this
and a wrong way to do this. It’s clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3661

[Ramo]

And yes, public financing

[lord of the mark]

well, I too look forward to the public trial of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. That way we can see if its true that

"al-Marri was in possession of a telephone card that was previously used to call a number in Dubai linked to the reputed Al Qaeda finacier, Mustafa al-Hawsawi. After searching al-Marri's computer, a folder was found labeled "jihad arena", which according to the government, contained information on hydrogen cyanide, a poisonous gas used in chemical weapons, along with lectures by Osama bin Laden and a cartoon of planes crashing into the World Trade Center"

[Odin]

Gee, this so-called "conservative Democrat" doesn't sound very conservative to me...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246

Class Struggle
American workers have a chance to be heard.

BY JIM WEBB
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.

This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism. Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society.

Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes.

Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."

More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

With this new Congress, and heading into an important presidential election in 2008, American workers have a chance to be heard in ways that have eluded them for more than a decade. Nothing is more important for the health of our society than to grant them the validity of their concerns. And our government leaders have no greater duty than to confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization.


Mr. Webb is the Democratic senator-elect from Virginia.

...he sounds more like a Populist.