The U.S. has no national government in the normal sense of the word and has not had one for longer than I can remember.
The much vaunted system of "checks and balances" is, as the saying goes, for the little people. The same applies to the idea that elected representatives should be responsible to the people who elected them in the first place.
One quibble, Paradox: not just "Christian" principle.
Sorry that I cannot sympathize with you, paradox. I had no choice but to vote for (ugh) John Kerry, but I'll just avoid the choice between pro-war Rudi Giuliani and pro-war Hilary Clinton.
It is my usual practice to vote for an anti-war candidate. That means I am not a member of the Democratic Party base.
Posted by mmeo at July 10, 2007 09:33 AMIt is my usual practice to vote for an anti-war candidate. That means I am not a member of the Democratic Party base.
The Democtaic "base" is not discernably different from the Republi-con base in their support of politicians who support war, and their support of politicians who support corporations at the expense of the people who elected them. Blogs are somewhat responsible for this state of affairs because they do not often enough examine who is funding the politicians through lobbys and PACs.
With the 110th Congress there were many new Democratic members elected to change the way business was being conducted in Washington, yet until the Pelosis, Reids, Hoyers, Feinsteins, Levins, etc. are gone there will be no discernible change in the corporatism encouraged by Congress. Blogs could facilitate this change by following the money and noting who is receiving what from whom.
Posted by phidipides at July 10, 2007 09:54 AMPelosi and Reid gambled the war and impeachment weren’t their responsibility and blew that risk
The perception across the country is simple: the Dems claim to be opposed to the war yet, they keep funding it. Hence the 14% approval number.
Posted by Christopher at July 10, 2007 10:01 AMThe perception across the country is simple: the Dems claim to be opposed to the war yet, they keep funding it. Hence the 14% approval number.
While I agree with you somewhat Christopher, the people are smart enough to see that it is "Continued Republi-con Obstruction" in the Senate that is the true bane of what is happening.
That's why this congress is not getting anything accomplished and it needs to be hammered in the MSM daily.
We will have over 60 votes after the '08' elections in Senate and a Democratic President. To think, we will all have bu$h and his neo-con supporters to thank for that.
Posted by Seven of Six at July 10, 2007 10:34 AMTo think, we will all have bu$h and his neo-con supporters to thank for that.
I hope so, Seven. I hope so.
There are enough Dems in the House to cut off funding. The lack of 60 votes in the Senate is just an excuse. Look at the number of Dem senators that voted against Feingold's amendment to cut off funding. The Dems better get their act together.
Posted by JohnT at July 10, 2007 11:03 AMImpeachment and War. Good title for a book. I have the same two subjects in my mind as bench marks for whether I vote Democratic (after being a life long registered Democrat) or not.
The Republican defectors and the Democrats need to shut the fuck up and act. I'm tired of hearing them. If 86% of the Country disapproves of their leadership, then just what in the hell is their problem? They can take all the corporate money they want, stuff their pockets full, but if we don't vote for them, they won't return to Washington, at least not in the role of a Congress member. Let's put some perspective back into their reality.
Posted by Judith at July 10, 2007 11:04 AMJudith,
"If 86% of the Country disapproves of their leadership, then just what in the hell is their problem?"
The problem is usually the "other guys" congressman/woman. Mine who is getting the highway funding or new research building is great. It is the others that are the problem.
Posted by Howd at July 10, 2007 11:49 AM"We will have over 60 votes after the '08' elections in Senate and a Democratic President."-(Seven of Six)
-You could have 80 votes and a Democratic President. What you cannot bring yourself to realize is that it would not matter. If you ever do realize that then you must start trying to understand why.
Please refrain from arrogantly saying "We." That is not only inaccurate, but gratuitously solipsistic.
"The U.S. has no national government in the normal sense of the word and has not had one for longer than I can remember."- (JB)
-That's more like it, but still off the mark. Perhaps it has had the government that has been 'natural' to it from its inception and the systematic slaughter of its indigenous peoples: Fascism lite.
Please refrain from arrogantly saying "We." That is not only inaccurate, but gratuitously solipsistic.
Jill, now who is being arrogant? Seven of Six doesn't have an arrogant bone in his body, but you are beginning to sound like you do.
Posted by Judith at July 10, 2007 01:28 PM"The Republican defectors and the Democrats need to shut the fuck up and act. I'm tired of hearing them." -(Judith)
-This is a good case in point.
You don't have to hear them if you do not listen to them in the first place. In fact, it is best that you don't listen to them at all.
Dennis Kucinich says some things of importance, but apart from him the rest is chatter from a second rate TV show with bad actors.
How many times do people say they are 'tired' of hearing the Democrats when they invariably continue to do so?
The litmus test for me when I meet new people and the subject drifts to politics is this: When someone mentions ANY American presidential candidate seriously, I know immediately that they, themselves, are not serious. That revelation is an immediate indice to talk about something of importance, like Blenheim apricots, and why that now only the wealthy can afford them.
Now all one can do is be polite, and nod in agreement repeatedly in a mannered hypocrisy until the subject changes to something less nonsensical. Now that is truly tiresome.
Posted by Jill Bains at July 10, 2007 01:53 PMJudith,
My apologies if I have inaccurately categorized Seven of Six as 'arrogant.' I really do not know that much about their work to know for sure. The error is clearly mine. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
The 'We' thing is just one of my pet peeves. I should realize that just because someone does this is not an indicator of 'arrogance' but is perhaps just natural for them to do so.
I just, from time to time, would hope that they would be just a tad more careful.
Speaking for others, to an audience where all may not wish to be included in that "We," just gets old. It assumes one is speaking to the choir, when they aren't.
Posted by Jill Bains at July 10, 2007 02:08 PMPlease refrain from arrogantly saying "We." That is not only inaccurate, but gratuitously solipsistic.
Big words from an anarchist.
Posted by Seven of Six at July 10, 2007 02:10 PMThe statement above about the American people being smart enough to recognize obstruction---
When I was growing up, it was a popular thing to believe in the notion "the people" had more common sense and gumption than pundits gave them credit for--it's the sort of thing Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, Will Rogers or some other well-known figure might have said. But I swear to you, my perception is that it is simplly not true now, and may never have been. I think the American people do their best not to be bothered, and only get interested in something political or governmental when they are boxed in and have no choice. Americans, it seems to me, are famous for wanting not so much to get government off their backs as to simply ignore it. It would be tempting to suggest we are just narcissistic and self-absorbed, but I don't believe that either. We freely give out opinions if polled or conversing, but I think we generally are preoccupied with getting through the another working day with our skins intact. My faith we have in the "common wisdom" of the people is slowly evaporating.
Posted by gtash at July 10, 2007 03:03 PMsorry--"My faith in the "common wisdom" of the people is slowly evaporating."
Posted by gtash at July 10, 2007 03:05 PMGtash, are we seeing the "dumbing down" of Americans, where their only interest is in the next reality show and video games?
Posted by Judith at July 10, 2007 03:50 PMJill, rightly or wrongly, I use "we" quite often, as most of us do here. Everyone knows what the poster means. I think that as time goes by, you will begin to understand each of the posters here, and you will not find a better group of human beings.
We all have our little "pet peeves".
Posted by Judith at July 10, 2007 03:59 PMI was just telling some people at a LiveEarth/MoveOn.org event that I thought people in general have a basic goodness, evidenced by how people act in a catastrophic emergency. Everyone gets concerned about others and try to help.
I think with the politics and employment situation in our country, the citizenry is totally burned out (on politics) and scared of getting burned (in employment and/or getting thrown into jail), hence the need for many to watch stupidass teevee in a mindless stupor. And it seems the politicians like us that way, not listening to a goddamned thing we have to say when we have the energy to say it, after walking the streets, writing letters, helping with campaigns, to get them elected....and for what? Exhausting.
Everyone gets concerned about others and try to help.
Sharon, Don't you dare lump me in with everyone! :-)
Your right, it's all part of the plan.
They wouldn't be able to get away with their tyranny without the public being preocuppied.
"Everyone gets concerned about others and try to help." -(Sharon)
-The intent here is good but inaccurate:It should read, "GOOD people get concerned about others and try to help"
As it reads above with "Everyone" leads to sentimentality, and should be avoided as BAD people do not try to help. Never give bad people a free ride by including them where they do not belong.
"Sharon, Don't you dare lump me in with everyone! :-)"
-(Seven of Six)
-Do you want to be counted among the bad or the good? It is better to be totally clear.
Posted by Jill Bains at July 11, 2007 09:01 AMDo you want to be counted among the bad or the good? It is better to be totally clear.
I can be so bad, I'm good. At least the wife tells me that.
Well, I guess I thought writing "in general" covered the generality "everyone" without saying "good" or "bad" as not everyone views things the same way. The teenager who "stole" a bus to help people during the Katrina disaster is one such instance of differing opinion. Let's just say Most people help out in a catestrophic event. Those too shellshocked (or old or handicapped, etc) to help out, are they "bad"? I think not. You wanted details, I'm generalizing.
Posted by Sharon at July 11, 2007 09:49 AM