|
House 
Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 07:51:06 PST
|
|
On this day where the negative news about the War in Afghanistan, fresh doubts about President Obama, and a lack of Democratic unity in the Senate regarding Health Care drives a sourly pessimistic news cycle, now is as good a time as any to push back against the doom and gloom brigade. It may be time for the Democratic party to begin to reform itself first before it can ever make a solid effort to reform the country. As much as Republicans have provided a more or less solid base of opposition and obstruction, Democrats have only appeared marginally united and only then for brief periods of time. While I am aware that this is hardly anything new, disorganization will prove to be our own undoing unless we look inward and take stock of our shortcomings. Everyone talks about this, of course, but as Mark Twain put it regarding discussions concerning weather, nobody does anything about it.
The most current gloomy AP story of yesterday was predictably dire,
WASHINGTON - The 60 votes aren't there any more.
With the Senate set to begin debate Monday on health care overhaul, the all-hands-on-deck Democratic coalition that allowed the bill to advance is fracturing already. Yet majority Democrats will need 60 votes again to finish.
Some Democratic senators say they'll jump ship from the bill without tighter restrictions on abortion coverage. Others say they'll go unless a government plan to compete with private insurance companies gets tossed overboard. Such concessions would enrage liberals, the heart and soul of the party.
The first stirrings of a concept known as Intersectionality began to develop in the 1960's and 1970's in opposition to the exclusivity, post-modernism influenced arguments of a prior generation of activists and thinkers. In brief, Intersectionality rightly assumes that taking into account a variety of lenses and perspectives, as well as how they interact with each other is a much better means of attacking a problem. Instead of taking one or two issues in isolation, viewing the similarities and acknowledging the spot at which all points meet would, as it is proposed, facilitate common purpose much more easily. In that spirit, seeking to address interrelated issues that comprise a complex matter rather than focusing too heavily on quibbling details would do our Senators and Representatives well.
As the media has presented it, one would assume that the reservations brought up by individual members of Congress while in hot debate over health care have been matters of profound heft. Certainly the political football of both Stupak and the Public Option are not issues to be taken lightly, but having read many of the published reports regarding day to day conduct in committee, the substantive concerns have often taken a back seat to needless minutia or pointless hair-splitting. Threats and counter-threats in this laughably extended proceeding have ceased being coercive and might as well be duly noted in the Congressional Record without objection. The mystical filibuster, for example, once was feared and sparsely used, and now has become part of process wallpaper to such a degree that even the threat of the procedural measure when invoked produces shrugged shoulders more than abject terror. True filibusters are rare in any case.
The Democratic party might at least consider the idea of Intersectionality if it is to prevent more than nominal GOP gains in 2010 and if it deigns to rule for an extended period of time. Having won, it must now find a way to not overstay its welcome in the good graces of the American people. Democrats know very well what they do not want to be and aren't so versed on what they think they ought to be. Many activists believe that a new way of looking at established rules would push every Democratic figure forward rather than being mired in conventional modes of thought that are long past their expiration date. Many would argue that several of the long term legislators with seniority are long past their expiration date as well. It is an unfortunate fact that we have been rather frequently and alarmingly prone to factionalism in recent history, which is partially a result of a disturbing lack of more or less uniform direction. It should be noted that I do not see this as some greater trend along the same lines as peering at an ant farm, whereby what seems from a distance to be chaotic is upon closer inspection merely a method to the madness.
Seeking to find mutual purpose between individuals and individual organizations alike, rather than pointing out differences and highlighting distinctions could well be our salvation. What complicates this process, however, are the multitude of non-profits and PACs that dot the landscape, many of which are devoted to a single issue. Each was founded out of a desire to make sure that the unique concerns of a particular group or cause was not neglected in the legislative process. They were created based on an inequality or need that cried for alleviation, but with time, however, these groups began to resemble government agencies, whereby bureaus that could have been consolidated with others for the sake of efficiency were allowed to exist alongside similar departments which did more or less identical work. Networking is still a fairly foreign concept to many of the myriad of entities that compromise the Democratic party and help set its agenda. How we think influences how we govern and how we seek to influence that which governs. Though the current model may have had its place once, the time has come to modify our thinking and with it our strategy. Focusing too heavily on where we are not alike rather than how we are alike is, arguably, what led to the decline of the party post-Carter and contributed to the 1994 election debacle.
I wrote a post over the weekend which touched some nerves. In it, I discussed the way our that own fundamental structure as liberals makes getting us on the same page an exercise akin to herding cats. One of the comments left was something to the effect of "I'm a Progressive and no one tells me what to do." Fair enough, except that I wasn't suggesting that the person in question (or anyone, really) follow blindly behind any cause or personality. What I was, however, arguing is that we can't always isolate ourselves in our own identity group and assume that its concerns are of paramount concern to the whole. Until we identify as Democrats first and other identities later, we'll always have unintentionally split allegiances. Any group established for originally altruistic means quickly becomes obsessed with justifying its own existence and in so doing losing sight of the original intent. A common thread runs through so many organizations and it goes well beyond a simple label of "Progressivism". The most successful educational strategies link together a variety of subjects and show students how each is interconnected. This is where true learning begins and this might also be the point at which true unity is allowed to thrive.
I don't believe in groupthink and I certainly don't believe in playing follow-the-leader, but I do know that it is certainly easier when waste and superfluity is trimmed away. I do also know that if everyone had been on the same wavelength before Stupak, then women's rights wouldn't have been so easily bartered away for the sake of a narrow victory. If we truly lived our gospel of multiculturalism and plurality, then human rights would mean more than just the latest atrocity perpetrated in a nation far, far away. If we practiced what we preached, there wouldn't be a need for the Gay District, since LGBTs would live boringly normal lives right next door to us. If we took up the cause of intersectionality, there would be no others who are not like us in some way, shape, or fashion. While I am writing on this particular topic, I am reminded of a woman who is a contributing editor to a Feminist site I regularly visit; she uses this quote as her e-mail signature:
"Engrave this upon your heart: there isn't anyone you couldn't love once you heard their story." --Mary Lou Kownacki
Decry it as naïve optimism if you wish, but post-partisanship, if we have not thrown it upon the dungheap of history quite yet, begins with this simple statement. That which separates us is often artifice, over-reaching, or over-compensation. One President micromanages the Health Care debate, which fails miserably. Another President puts Congress in control, failing to understand that he is capable of keeping bickering legislators in line without seeming dictatorial. We are our own worst enemy, far too often. Arguably we regained both chambers of Congress due to a GOP that had been remarkably good at shooting itself in the foot, if not other members. One wonders what will be our strategy in 2010 besides praying that the economic data and unemployment numbers improve drastically and that the Health Care reform bill passes. How will we learn from four years of mixed results? I can guarantee that the existing framework and system is no viable solution. We know what we are not, now it's time to determine that which we are.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 07:37:19 PST
|
|
It is with no small discouragement that I put my thoughts down today. I never expected to be this disappointed with President Obama's leadership ability and his handling of the proceedings. Still, I concede that perhaps part of it is that the sheer number of daunting challenges which face us must be held in check by the realization that the legislative process is plodding and slow. Every President, to some degree or another, bases his or her definition of Executive authority in contrast to the conduct of the previous person to hold the office. Former President George W. Bush's desire to circumvent the legislative branch and concentrate power in the White House at the expense of other branches no doubt shaped Obama's desire to give Congress its fair share of say and impact. This is a noble gesture, provided it works, and thus far it has not. My hope is that our President will realize that there is a difference between ruling like a dictator and ruling like a strong Executive, and the lines between the two are neither fine, nor blurry.
Because the responsibilities of the President are rather vaguely noted in our Constitution, each occupier of the office has taken his own interpretation of what precisely his job description connotes. Those who have boldly adopted a stance that the Presidency ought to intercede directly and without apology into affairs some might consider the domain of other branches have been variously criticized for threatening to rule as an autocrat. This is inevitable, since human selfishness and common sense dictates that everyone would like as big a piece of the pie as he or she can get. Everyone will also be reliably counted on to object loudly if that piece ends up being reduced in size, especially if one thinks it owed to him or her. Throw in partisan rancor, exaggeration, and media narrative and here one has a familiar formula that has been levied at any number of Presidents who, with the passage of time, history has seen fit to denote as "Great".
The reverse of this, of course, is being too conciliatory to other branches of government, a stance that has regrettably been President Obama's undoing in recent months. Presidents before have kept a tight leash on Congress, not out of some desire for complete control, regardless of how much Senators, Representatives, and pundits scream about it, but out of a genuine understanding that the Executive branch must set the tone, the pace, and the direction. This is especially true now when though both the House and Senate have substantial Democratic majorities, the leadership tends to viscerally underwhelm and no one person has the force of personality to stand out front and be the face of Congressional mettle and resolve. With so much that needs to be done, the President cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and watch with his hands on his hips. He needs to take an active role in the game and if that means that the other players feel as though someone's trying to grab the headlines from them, then so be it.
Public opinion of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and of Congress in general reflects this dire situation of which we are faced. A do-nothing accusation lends itself easily to guilty-until-proven-innocent when no one has yet successfully sold Health Care Reform, Financial Reform, Environmental Reform, or any other measure now on the docket. What we have in its place are overly cautious and thoroughly uninspiring pronouncements that promise ultimate success in the wimpiest possible construction ever devised. They almost beg to not offend the hearer. The clear implication is that the latest version of the bill is a coalition of the fragile affair that could break apart at any moment. This does not exactly foment trust, devotion, and fidelity in the eyes of voters.
As is my wont, in instances like these, my mind drifts to similar struggles in different ages. Historical events roughly four and a half centuries ago shaped the formation of our Union and indeed, mirror ours in certain ways.
The climax of the English Civil War was the ascent of a commoner, Oliver Cromwell, to head the island nation. A member of Parliament before the war, Cromwell successfully lead the forces of the legislative body into battle against those supporting the crown and in so doing won eventual victory. A brilliant military strategist and general, Cromwell held little patience for the delays and cross-currents which bogged down passage and enactment of reforms, which meant that with time Cromwell concentrated more and more authority into his own hands. Though he might have been impatient, one cannot help but sympathize to a degree with his dilemma, particularly right now when partisan or even inter-party bickering has brought even the most modest reform measure to a complete halt.
As for the legislative frustrations that typified the times, they first began in the form of the Long Parliament, which was compromised of an expansive group of dissatisfied legislators aghast at the base incompetence of a heavily unpopular King. This then gave way to the high drama of Pride's Purge. The Long Parliament was dissolved in large part because it met for eight years solid but, due to factionalism and indecisiveness, could never manage to come to a solid conclusion or resolution regarding much of anything. The largely deposed King, Charles I, stalled every negotiation by playing different factions in the Parliamentary alliance against each other to his own advantage. When a significant faction sought to keep the King in control, albeit as only a figurehead, thereby disregarding the authority of the army, a coup d'état commenced. The Purge brutally, skillfully removed fully half of the body, leaving behind only those who supported the army, at which point the monarchy was effectively dissolved, the King beheaded, and England's first and only attempt to rule without a sovereign instituted.
What came next was the so-called "Rump Parliament", a term that, as is sometimes the case, was made by its opposition as a means of derision but stuck nonetheless. To this day, the phrase survives and is used to mean a gathering comprised of remnants of a much larger group or organization. Though initially successful, the Rump met its end four years later. Its undoing was a combination of its failure to come up with a new, working Constitution and its flagrant disregard of the wishes of Cromwell, who commanded that the body dissolve, which it refused to do. After personally observing the stalemate for himself, the soon-to-be Lord Protector bellowed,
You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
After the Rump came the appropriately-titled Barebones Parliament, which was even less successful. In disgust, Cromwell took control as a near-dictator and was kept in power by the backing by the army until his death five years later. The complexities of those times are fascinating and cannot be done justice by a brief synopsis, but my greater point is to note the morass between then and now and, in so doing, note how much easier would be our lot if Congress could ever get a thing accomplished without bogging down into a state of maddening paralysis. The Cromwellian Protectorate lasted only slightly longer than one modern-day Presidential term in office, at which point English citizens grew weary of it and re-established the monarchy. It is that lesson above all others which I wish I could impart to our elected representatives and the current occupant of the White House, else they squander a golden opportunity.
How tempting it would be if the ability existed to instantly call for new elections or even a way to rid ourselves of Representative and Senators whose stated agenda seems to be obstructionism and baseless fear-peddling. To return to how I began this post, I know that we are stuck with the men and women we have in Congress. I also understand that we have the theoretical right to throw these people out if they fail to be satisfactory stewards of our trust and our concerns, but one would be remiss to not note how they are often more indebted to the sway of fund raising, high value donors, and corporate interest. Moreover, I concede that the system as it exists is patently not designed for the kind of major overhauls we desperately require. The safeguards in place are designed in part for wiser, paternalistic heads to soberly contemplate, stroke beards meaningfully, and then cautiously proceed. There are too many procedural rules, stalling tactics, and needless esoterica embedded deeply in a branch of government whose ways and means are frequently noted as "arcane".
However, the time for real leadership arrived about four or five months ago. While I concede that President Obama picked his strategy for Health Care Reform based on the failed example of President Clinton, it is long past due for a change in strategy. Sometimes in seeking to avoid a mistake, we over-compensate and create new problems in the process. Cautiousness is sometimes a viable public option, but as regards a Democratic caucus that is beholden to so many different identity groups, so much ideological difference, and a big tent that strains to be wide enough to accept everyone, else they pitch their own somewhere else, Presidential authority is the only way to get everyone on board. If the Left has a true skill, it is in finding hairline cracks in party unity. If the Obama of 2008 can return, then all will be forgiven and we can move forward. Otherwise, we will be stuck with mealy-mouthed, soft-pedaled promises and over-cautious optimism.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:38:36 PST
|
( - promoted by buhdydharma )
Crossposted at Daily Kos
I'd like to share with you all this comment that was placed in my diary yesterday by Dkos User lascaux, as I think it sums up what we as Progressive activists and the Democrtaic base MUST accomplish in order to effect REAL CHANGE we can believe in.
What I learned
What this reform fight has taught me:
it is not enough to elect a progressive president, we need to elect liberals and progressives in congress as well.
The frustrating inability of this Democratically controlled Congress is PROOF that our job did NOT END when Obama won the Presidential election in 2008. In fact, our work has just begun, and we must face it with the same dedication, intensity and enthusiasm that we did in 2008, or we WILL lose, because we simply don't have the money to compete with the special interests that control our Government.
But we DO have the people, and they can't beat that.
So, here's how we should FIGHT BACK.
|
|
There's More...
:: (33
Comments, 696 words in story)
|
|
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 14:25:00 PDT
|
( - promoted by buhdydharma )
Also, on Daily Kos President Carter: Many Children Were Tortured Under Bush
Call Congress and AG Eric Holder TODAY and Demand Justice!
What more do you need in order to pick up the phone, send an e-mail and jump out of your chair to YELL LOUDER!
 Yell Louder! Take Action against the Bush/Cheney criminals today. AG Holder is leaning towards a Special Prosecutor, H.Res 383 is calling for investigations and review, and now this . .
The House Intelligence Committee asked the CIA to provide documents about the now-canceled program to kill al-Qaida leaders, and agency officials said it would comply with the request, congressional officials said Tuesday.
~snip~
The House request for documents is likely a precursor to what would likely become a full-blown investigation into the secret operation and why the program was not disclosed to Congress. Panetta, meanwhile, has ordered a thorough internal review of the program, agency spokesman George Little said.
Huffington Post
bold text added by diarist
CIA? Death Squads? How do I know Dick Cheney is at the bottom of this?
Because he is . . .
|
|
There's More...
:: (11
Comments, 1308 words in story)
|
|
Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 07:42:35 PDT
|
Crossposted at http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
I was recently told that an effective way of contacting my Congress Critter is to write a hand written letter and then send it off to them. Apparently, the effort that goes into writing an actual letter is a clear signal that I mean business, much more so than a phone call that never reaches my Congressperson or an e-mail that can be easily deleted.
Therefore, I propose that we all get some "Get Well Cards" and send them off to our Representatives in Congress. That way, they will know we really, really care.
We know the votes are there. Are the vertebrae there is the question.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Choosing the right card is important. It can be funny or angry, home made or store bought, and you should definitely personalize the message on the inside.
The message should be as clear as daylight. We want health care reform with a real and robust public option. You want to get re-elected. We should work together in order to accomplish our goals.
Send one to both your Senators and your Congressional Representative, as well as your local State Representatives. Let them know that the American public will not tolerate bullshit on this issue, or any other issue where the status quo and Big Business stands in the way of real reform and progress.
Mailing addresses for your Representative in the House can be found here at writerep.house.gov
And your Senators mailing address can be found here at www.senate.gov
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 449 words in story)
|
|
Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 12:52:49 PDT
|
(5:00PM EST - promoted by Nightprowlkitty)
Crossposted at http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
Representative Barney Frank has introduced H.R. 2835, a bill which is intended to reschedule marijuana for medical use and end federal interference in state laws.
To provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States.
govtrack.us
Moving the Overton window happens one step at a time. We need to take bigger steps. This bill does not address the problems inherit in the drug war or the marijuana prohibition issue. If you want a national drug policy that makes sense, this bill does not address the problem, and right now our national drug policy is a big part of THE problem.
The bill, which was co-sponsored by 13 bipartisan Members of Congress at the time of introduction, would change federal policy on medical marijuana in a number of ways. Specifically, the Act would change marijuana from a Schedule I drug, classified as having no medical value, to a Schedule II drug, which would recognize marijuana's medical efficacy and create a regulatory framework for the FDA to begin a drug approval process for marijuana. The act would also prevent interference by the federal government in any local or state run medical marijuana program.
commondreams.org
What seems like a valiant effort to protect medical marijuana users is not quite the problem. Of course I want medical marijuana users to be able to get the medicine they are prescribed, but that is not the Problem.
|
|
There's More...
:: (13
Comments, 937 words in story)
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:33:03 PDT
|
(9 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
The Wall Street bailout plan has been defeated in the House.
WASHINGTON - In a moment of historic drama in the Capitol and on Wall Street, the House of Representatives voted on Monday to reject a $700 billion rescue of the financial industry.
The vote against the measure was 228 to 205. Supporters vowed to try to bring the rescue package up for consideration again as soon as possible.
...
House leaders pushing for the package kept the voting period open for some 40 minutes past the allotted time, trying to convert "no" votes to "yes" votes by pointing to damage being done to the markets, but to no avail.
Whatever the relative merits of the economic legislation, this is still a very good day for our Republic.
It is far past time the Congressional Leadership realized that they are Representatives of the People - not of Wall Street bankers, corporate moguls, and foreign money lenders. With public opinion so dead set against this bill, Pelosi and the others had no business trying to ram it through the House without adequate discussion and debate.
Hopefully, the defeat of Paulson's Folly today will be a harbinger of a new era of greater accountability and responsibility by our elected representatives to the wishes of those whom they purport to represent.
But whatever the future may hold, at least on this day our Constitutional Republic has shown that it still has some life left in it.
Update: More on the vote from KagroX here.
|
|
Discuss
:: (13
Comments)
|
|
Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:37:27 PDT
|
This diary is an "out and out" plea to Daily Kos users to contribute to the NC House 09 campaign of Harry Taylor.
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 129 words in story)
|
|
Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 21:21:19 PDT
|
(10 am - promoted by ek hornbeck)
I suppose this isn't a shock to anyone, but once again the House Democrats are ignoring their Constitutional power of the purse and are working on funding the Iraq occupation well into 2009. Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House Democrats work on huge Iraq money bill according to a story in the San Francisco Chronicle.
House Democratic leaders are putting together the largest Iraq war spending bill yet, a measure that is expected to fund the war through the end of the Bush presidency and for nearly six months into the next president's term.
Neither the Bush administration nor Congress has been forthright with Americans about the true costs of the Iraq invasion and occupation. Now, once again the House Democrats are betraying the voters who put them into power in 2006 as they maneuver to fund the Iraq occupation once again to a tune of $108 billion, plus $70 billion of "breathing room" funding for the next president.
|
|
There's More...
:: (24
Comments, 549 words in story)
|
|
Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 19:16:01 PDT
|
Today Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher, Jr., Barbara Ehrenreich and Danny Glover published a open letter to American progressives urging them to join them and support Barack Obama. Why? Because Obama's campaign is a movement.
We intend to join and engage with our brothers and sisters in the vast rainbow of social movements to come together in support of Obama's unprecedented campaign and candidacy. Even though it is candidate-centered, there is no doubt that the campaign is a social movement, one greater than the candidate himself ever imagined
I think this is a very important letter and I'll take a deeper look at it in this essay.
|
|
There's More...
:: (4
Comments, 1433 words in story)
|
|
Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:32:00 PDT
|
(Affluence creates poverty. Marshall McLuhan - promoted by pfiore8)
On Monday, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law released its 2007 Congressional Poverty Scorecard. The President of the Center, John Bouman, noted that in states with the highest poverty rates, their congressional delegations tended to score the worst.
"Poverty is everywhere in America, but it is interesting that in states with the highest concentrations of poverty, the Congressional delegations seem least interested in supporting initiatives that fight poverty," said John Bouman, president of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, which released the study. "This appears deeper than simply opposing spending. A member could have opposed any of the measures we analyzed that called for new spending and still could have voted to support half of the poverty-fighting measures on our list."
Former presidential candidate John Edwards was also on the center's conference call with reporters.
"We can get the national leadership and we can get the congressional leadership we need," Edwards said. "But first voters need to be educated as to who is doing the work and who is not."
|
|
There's More...
:: (5
Comments, 399 words in story)
|
|
Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 15:33:57 PST
|
( - promoted by buhdydharma )
(This is the third diary in a 24-hour fundraiser for Gilda Reed, Democratic Candidate for Katrina-Burdened LA-01.)
GILDA REED WILL NOT ABANDON US
Livingston. Vitter. Jindal. When it comes to Louisiana's First District, none of them stuck it out. There's no stability to be had when an entire community of American citizens is used as a political stepping stone. Gilda Reed will not abandon anyone, ever. Imagine that.
As for the Republicans running for LA-01 today, we can see from the Times-Picayune, the new crop of candidates are just as interested in "seat-hopping" as the old:
As Bobby Jindal drops his title of U.S. representative in favor of Louisiana governor today, voters will begin posing a number of questions to the candidates who hope to succeed him in Congress. Among them:
-- What qualifications do you have to be my voice in Washington?
-- What is your position on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq?
-- How can you bring home the bacon?
|
|
There's More...
:: (15
Comments, 586 words in story)
|
|
Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:14:25 PST
|
|
The People's House, The House of Representatives. Emphasis on......Represent. Conceived as the most basic building block of our democracy, elegantly simple. The People living in an area choose someone, one of their neighbors, to go to Washington and sit in The Peoples House and represent their interests, their concerns and their identity within our national government. But all too often this most simple of mechanisms of democracy has been corrupted, and those who are chosen to Represent The People.... instead represent the moneyed and powerful interests who would use our democracy for far less noble ends.
Especially those darn Republicans!
So when there is a chance to elect one of those "better Democrats" that we all wish to see in the halls of The People's House, it is incumbent on us to do so. When we can take a seat that has been held by those aforementioned Republicans, it is URGENT that we do so.
And today, and for the next 24 hours, you have a chance to help!
I give you Gilda Reed, Candidate for Louisiana's First Congressional district.
This will be posted at Daily Kos in one hour, to kick off the Round-The-Clock Fundraiser, please head over there then...and do what you can to help. As usual, you Dharmaniacs are ahead of the curve!
|
|
There's More...
:: (26
Comments, 1868 words in story)
|
|
Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 15:04:14 PST
|
|
Last night I placed a post here with this photo and the letter that accompanied THE BUTTON, and abit more.
A little refresher, THE BUTTON and the letter to the House and Senate members:
 January 24, 2008
Dear Senator,
It is with great pleasure that I am able to present you with this limited edition "I am a Bush Republican" commemorative button on the occasion of President Bush's final State of the Union Address. It would be a shame to let this event pass without a show of solidarity among those who have stood by him and enabled his legacy to be established on so many issues.
Without your steadfast support of President Bush's domestic, foreign and economic policies, there is no doubt America would not be in the position it is in today. Please wear this button on Monday evening to show your constituents that you support President Bush, his policies and how proud you are of your contribution to his legacy.
Sincerely,
Brad Woodhouse
President
Americans United for Change
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 380 words in story)
|
|
Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 15:24:56 PST
|
|
Lets see how many Own Up to their Lockstep Support of the Policies Set Forth and they Readily Backed!!!
I received the follow from Americans United For Change.
This is what they passed out to Republicans in the House and Senate and their Press Release.
Americans United for Change began delivering these "I'm a Bush Republican" buttons to all of the Republicans in the House and Senate today in advance of Bush's Final State of the Union Address on Monday with the message: "your votes helped build his legacy; you should show your support for him by proudly declaring that you're a Bush Republican." On Monday, as cameras scan the House Chamber during the State of the Union Address, we'll see how many Republicans - those who have voted for Bush's policies on Iraq, the economy, energy and health care - are willing to put their lapels where there votes have been and wear a button with this simple message: "I'm a Bush Republican." The buttons were attached to the letter below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (5
Comments, 237 words in story)
|
|
Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:35:06 PST
|
|
These are the words of the great rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel.
And it is these words, and this man, that have inspired rabbi Dennis Shulman (D) to challenge conservative extremist Scott Garrett (R) in NJ-5 this 2008.
Like his spiritual forefather, Shulman has concluded that he can no longer speak about God and remain silent on Iraq, as well as many of the other pressing and important issues of our times.
To learn more about Dr. Shulman, who is also a practicing psychologist, check out this recent New York Sun profile: Shulman Aims To Be First Blind Rabbi in Congress
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 06:23:06 PDT
|
|
reposted from dailyKos, with changes
This is the first in a series estimating how many House seats we will gain in the 2008 election. For those who like to cut to the chase, my best guess is a net gain of 6 seats. There is less than a 5% chance that we lose seats, and about a 7% chance that we gain more than 10.
Details below the fold
|
|
There's More...
:: (10
Comments, 430 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
|
March on Washington
Saturday, March 20
|
