ebonlock: (Adric)
The good folks at Sadly, No! are trying to come up with the perfect slogan for the Dems this fall:

“Democrats: We’re marginally less likely to march the whole country down the slow road to actual fascism.”

“Vote Democratic! We’ll probably kill fewer brown people than the other guys. Maybe.”

“Democrats - for when your biggest hope for government is that they won’t use your tax dollars to violate the Nuremberg laws, the Geneva Conventions, and your own damn Constitution.”

“Isn’t it time you voted for change? Of course not! What are you, high?!? Vote Democratic this fall.”

“Democrats! Because the invertebrate community deserves representation, too.”

“If you believe democracy works, raise your hand. Now, get in the line for the exit visas to Canada. The rest of you, vote Democratic!”

Got one of your own to contribute?
ebonlock: (Brock pissed)
Son. Of. A. Bitch.

No, really, Harry Reid is apparently going to ignore Chris Dodd's hold on the telecom bill allowing retroactive immunity to all the companies that aided the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping of US citizens. Why? Well I hate to sound cynical, but it might just have a little bit to do with the fact that AT&T is one of Reid's top 20 contributors.

Well it was nice to have some small faith in the Democratic party for at least a few hours. When their corporate masters crack the whip they come crawling like a bottom with a raging hard-on. Fuckers.

BTW, you can write to Reid here

My own letter:

Dear Senator Reid,

I was shocked and horrified when I read this morning that you were considering overriding Senator Dodd's incredibly principled and steadfast hold on the FISA bill that would allow retroactive immunity for the telecoms. There is a strong indication throughout the web that you are doing so because AT&T is one of your biggest contributors. I don't want to believe that your actions are bought and paid for by corporate interests but I cannot see another interpretation of this action. Do you really care so little for the people you're supposed to represent? Have you no interest in protecting the Constitution and the laws that govern this nation?

I've rarely been given any reason to be proud of my party recently, but Senator Dodd's announcement yesterday made me feel it. It's so sad that only a day later you could do so much to return to me to the perpetual state of shame and disgust I've been feeling for the past 6 years.

You should be ashamed of yourself.
ebonlock: (Hiro)
Holy crap! A Democratic senator who's actually standing up for the rights of the citizens of this country and our Constitution? Do mine eyes deceive me? Please, if I'm dreaming, don't pinch me, I don't want to wake up. Senator Dodd is blocking any FISA bill that includes amnesty for telecoms:

The Military Commissions Act. Warrantless wiretapping. Shredding of Habeas Corpus. Torture. Extraordinary Rendition. Secret Prisons.

No more.

I have decided to place a "hold" on the latest FISA bill that would have included amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by illegally providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.

I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, and I have.

It's about delivering results -- and as I've said before, the FIRST thing I will do after being sworn into office is restore the Constitution. But we shouldn't have to wait until then to prevent the further erosion of our country's most treasured document. That's why I am stopping this bill today.

Two words for you: Fuck. Yes.

Give the Senator a little love here, and hell if you can afford it, throw some money his way. It's not every day you get a little of your faith in humanity returned to you, nor faith in the political system and your own party again, and I intend to enjoy it.

via Glenn Greenwald.
ebonlock: (Monarch)
Brad at Sadly, No! points us to this coverage of Al Gore's presentation to the Congress:

The reviews only grew more savage when Gore crossed over to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in the afternoon for a second hearing. “You’ve been so extreme in some of your expressions that you’re losing some of your own people,” announced Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), the committee’s ranking Republican and the man who has called man-made global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Inhofe informed Gore that scientists are “radically at odds with your claims.” Displaying a photograph of icicles in Buffalo, Inhofe demanded: “How come you guys never seem to notice it when it gets cold? . . . Where is global warming when you really need it?”

No, really, an elected official actually said this. Brad adds:

And that’s about it, folks. Because it’s cold in Buffalo during the winter, global warming can’t be real.

There are times when I think we just deserve to die off. This is one of them.

However, just when you start to lose all hope you read the rest of the story:

Barton informed Gore that some of his ideas “are just flawed.” Under Gore’s plan, Barton said, “we can have no new industry, no new cars and trucks on the streets, and apparently no new people.”

But this was no match for Gore. “The planet has a fever,” he lectured Barton. “If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, ‘Well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it’s not a problem.’ If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame-retardant. You take action.” [Editor's note: Day-um! Can I just once again say how very much I heart Al Gore?]

The audience laughed. Barton started reading the newspaper, then discovered he wasn’t getting much support even from his own side. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) admitted he paid to see “An Inconvenient Truth.” Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), implicitly rebuking flat-Earth colleagues, said: “It’s possible to be a conservative without appearing to be an idiot.” Barton flashed a grin of annoyance.

I'd like to think Mr. Bartlett is correct about this, I really would, but I can't really find any significant factual basis for his argument. Although I have to say that I admire the hell out of anyone who can make it as far as Congress while sharing the first name of the mildly evil and mentally challenged sheriff on "Dukes of Hazard".

Over on the Senate side, Inhofe was determined to avoid a fate like Barton’s. Given just 12 minutes to question Gore, Inhofe warned him that “I want the same ad-lib time that you have.” When Gore didn’t answer his questions succinctly enough, Inhofe ordered: “I’m going to ask you to respond for the record in writing.”

“Well,” said Gore, “if I choose to respond to you verbally here, I hope that’ll be okay, too.”

“If it’s a very brief response,” Inhofe directed, then declared that Gore could not answer any questions until Inhofe had finished his allotted time.

Boxer broke in. “You’re not making the rules,” she said, raising the gavel. “You used to when you had this.” The hall filled with applause.

If she'd added "bitches" to that final statement I'd seriously start worshipping at that woman's feet.
ebonlock: (Monarch)
Ok so I'm missing a rehearsal tonight but actually feeling better than I was earlier this afternoon and that's a big step in the right direction. Since I've got some extra time on my hands I thought I'd share this with you all:

A new poll of likely voters finds that President Bush and his party no longer have the advantage on issues of foreign policy and national security, which they used to dominate.

The poll, conducted for NPR by a Republican and a Democratic pollster, suggests that the ongoing instability in Iraq, the Dubai ports deal, job outsourcing and other global issues in the news lately appear to be weighing heavily on voters' minds in this midterm election year.

Republican pollster Glen Bolger says that, from his perspective, the results are a "bunch of ugly numbers."


It's not uncommon to see polls where Democrats beat Republicans on domestic issues, such as the economy and jobs, health care and Social Security. But in this poll, when asked which party they trust more on issues such as the Iraq war, foreign ownership of U.S. ports and attention to homeland security, majorities chose the Democrats. Only on the question of Iranian nuclear weapons do the president and his party come out ahead.

Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg says the numbers present Democrats with a real opportunity for electoral gains. "All of these issues are related to different kinds of foreign threats to the country," he notes. "On every single issue, voters favor the Democrats. This is a different landscape -- we were looking for 20-point advantages for Republicans on anything related to security. This ought to be the center of where you would trust the Republicans, and that's not happening here. There's clearly a new opening, new doubts about the Republicans and new openings for the Democrats."

Digby comments:

Feingold seems to feel this zeitgeist and so do some others (like the Iraq veteran band of brothers who are running as Democrats.) The rest of the caucus is lagging behind, mired in 2002 thinking.

Separating themselves from the president --- and forcing the Republicans to rally around him --- is good politics. The NSA wiretapping issue in and of itself is not going to rally the greater public to Bush. It's the optics of Democrats issuing a rebuke that counts. The base, on the other hand, is hungering for leadership on these specific issues and wants desperately to rally around the party. Yet they are treated with terrible disrespect even though the polls show that two thirds of the country are unhappy and a majority is ready to throw the bums out.

Democrats do themselves no favors by following a cautious strategy in this climate. They are driving their voters crazy and convincing everyone else that they don't have the will to win. The Republicans have a very slick machine, based in churches and fueled by talk radio, that will work overtime to get their base out. Their survival depends on it. Democrats cannot depend on low GOP turnout to get them over the line.

Which reminded me of my favorite quote from Ed Helms and his brilliant piece on Paul Hackett:

"I got mugged the other day... and this bum was beating me with a bottle. And I said, you know what? I'm going to sit back and wait for him to accidentally hit himself with the bottle. Sure enough, he did! I mean, I was unconscious, but I think I won that battle."

Damn right

Jan. 18th, 2006 10:11 am
ebonlock: (Colbert Report)
In yesterday's post I quoted Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hackett whose words were so refreshingly honest and ballsy I just need to quote them again today:

“The Republican Party has been hijacked by religious fanatics, who are out of touch with mainstream America. Think of the recent comments by Pat Robertson - a religious fanatic by any measure - that the United States should assassinate a democratically elected leader in Venezuela, and that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was divine punishment because Sharon wished to trade land for peace.”

Since the Republican Party has been utterly unable to stand for something positive, they have created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, and have pandered to religious fanatics not to vote for something they believe in, but to vote against their fellow Americans with whom they disagree. Those among us who would use religion and politics to divide rather than unite Americans should be ashamed.”

Amen to that. Better still when the GOP noise machine rose to attack him, he replied back with yeah I said it, I'll say it again, wanna make something of it? Hot damn! But it gets better:

With succinct coherence, Hackett said: “I’m pro-choice, I’m pro-gayrights, I’m pro-gun-rights. Call me nuts, but I think they’re all based on the same principle and that is we don’t need government dictating to us how we live our private lives.”

Asked to define being pro-gay rights, Hackett said anybody who tries to deny homosexuals the same rights, including marriage, as every other citizen is un-American. Are you saying, he was asked, that the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted in November 2004 to constitutionally deny same-sex marriages are un-American?

If what they believe is that we’re going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that’s un-American. They’ve got to accept that. It’s absolutely un-American.

As Jon Stewart pointed out, it's rather depressing that our nation is now less progressive than South Africa...

*sniff* My god it's nice to feel proud of my party again, or at least a member or two in it.


ebonlock: (Default)

August 2013

25262728 293031


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 08:43 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios