Does anyone have a clue as to the plan of attack of the Democratic Party in the upcoming election? Insisting that they aren't like republicans just isn't going to make it.
Voters who had had enough of the criminal incompetence and corruption of Republican rule will vote Democrat, Progressive or Independent for sure, but what of the moderate or (gasp) liberal republican? Democrats need to lay out a plan to reverse the near irreparable damage caused by republicans during the last 5 years.
Here is an idea or two.
The war on Iraq. The current plan of staying until the Iraqis can provide "their own security" is not a plan, it is a recipe for more of the same and anyone advocating such a "solution" is part of the problem. The American people are not tired of the war because it seems to be dragging on, rather they are tired of the war because they know, they know, we are there as a result of a lie. They want a plan, any plan short of the one they remember from Vietnam. Can the Democrats deliver on this?
Perhaps the first thing that should be done is to acknowledge that the government of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq. If it is truly a sovereign government then the United States should cease meddling in Iraqi affairs of state, the recent call by Bush for the prime minister to step down comes to mind. We should honor the request of the Iraqi government and remove our troops from the country, period. As for the security of the oil fields, perhaps when we realize that oil field security is the responsibility of the Iraqis and the oil itself belongs to them.
To paraphrase a comment from the days of Vietnam, how can we get the troops out of Iraq? Ships and planes, the same way they got there in the first place. Could a post US dominated Iraq be any worse than the Iraq of today? Not likely and perhaps, just perhaps, once we are out of Iraq, the Iraqis will come together. If they don't and the Civil War continues, then what? Like the rest of the world did during OUR civil war, LEAVE THEM ALONE! It is THEIR country, it is THEIR problem, it is THEIR place to work out a solution.
How about a no nonsense, straight forward ban on the use of torture, gulags and abuse of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? How about a serious effort to restoring the good name of America in the eyes of the world?
Congress on the take? How about requiring lobbyists to document all gifts, donations (including meals), etc. in addition to the time, location and subject of their meetings? How about requiring the same of congressmen? How about requiring publication of these logs in a new, public journal? Or, as an alternative, how about allowing no gifts of any kind? How about disallowing any congressman from joining, as a lobbyist or in any capacity, industries which they regulated or otherwise ruled over while they were in office?
How refreshing it would be to see democrats offering a clear alternative to the corruption and incompetence of republican rule.
Newt Gingrich was correct when he said that the best slogan democrats could have would be two words, "Had enough?" But a catchy slogan, no matter how appropriate, is not enough. Democrats must offer real choices for the real problems created by republicans, they must show the people that they "get it" and will bring real change, governed by the voice of the people, to Washington.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Thursday, March 23, 2006
The Bush Regime
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made"
--- From The Great Gatsby
Isn't that really what Bush was saying with his comment that ending the war of aggression in Iraq and bringing the troops home would have to wait for another president? Has not that been the story of his life?
Time and again, like Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire, Bush has “always depended on the kindness of strangers' to clean up the messes he has made of everything he's ever done. A failure in business who could not find oil in West Texas. A failure in the baseball world who would trade Sammy Sosa away for next to nothing. A failure in the world of state government, running Texas into the ground and burying its people in an ocean of red ink. Sound familiar?
Bush is a failure as president, running up the largest deficits in the history of the republic, bringing the specter of financial ruin to generations yet to be born. He is a failure as Commander-in-Chief, for as a result of his ill thought out war of aggression in Iraq, the army, reserves and national Guard are near the breaking point in terms of both men and material.
Finally, he is a failure of monumental proportions because of the damage he has done to the reputation of The United States of America. From pre-emptive war, to the acceptance of torture, to the Soviet style gulags in Guantamano and elswhere, to the brazen violation of the Bill of Rights in conducting warrantless monitoring of the words and deeds of American citizens.
It is past time to say ENOUGH! In the words of Robert Welch so long ago, 'At long last have you no shame?' Words today meant not for Bush, his Band of Bunglers and Cadre of Corruptables but words meant for the American people!
At long last America, have you no shame as a result of what these corrupt criminals have done and continue to do to America?"
--- From The Great Gatsby
Isn't that really what Bush was saying with his comment that ending the war of aggression in Iraq and bringing the troops home would have to wait for another president? Has not that been the story of his life?
Time and again, like Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire, Bush has “always depended on the kindness of strangers' to clean up the messes he has made of everything he's ever done. A failure in business who could not find oil in West Texas. A failure in the baseball world who would trade Sammy Sosa away for next to nothing. A failure in the world of state government, running Texas into the ground and burying its people in an ocean of red ink. Sound familiar?
Bush is a failure as president, running up the largest deficits in the history of the republic, bringing the specter of financial ruin to generations yet to be born. He is a failure as Commander-in-Chief, for as a result of his ill thought out war of aggression in Iraq, the army, reserves and national Guard are near the breaking point in terms of both men and material.
Finally, he is a failure of monumental proportions because of the damage he has done to the reputation of The United States of America. From pre-emptive war, to the acceptance of torture, to the Soviet style gulags in Guantamano and elswhere, to the brazen violation of the Bill of Rights in conducting warrantless monitoring of the words and deeds of American citizens.
It is past time to say ENOUGH! In the words of Robert Welch so long ago, 'At long last have you no shame?' Words today meant not for Bush, his Band of Bunglers and Cadre of Corruptables but words meant for the American people!
At long last America, have you no shame as a result of what these corrupt criminals have done and continue to do to America?"
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Random thoughts
Massaoui, arrested on Aug 20, 2001, was charged as an accessory in the events of 9/11 because he knew of the plot and did nothing to alert the authorities so that they might have prevented the attack.
George W. Bush, given the PDB of Aug 6, 2001 titled "Bin Laden determined to strike the US" knew of the plot and did nothing to alert the appropriate security personnel so that they might have prevented the attack of 9/11.
George W. Bush possessed this knowledge, and was in a position to do something with it on Aug 6, 2001, a full 13 days before Massaoui was arrested.
Explain to me again why Massaoui is on trial and Bush is not.
South Dakota passed into law an anti-abortion law that bans all abortions, out of an alleged reverence for the life of the fetus, save when one is required to spare the life of the mother.
Does this mean that South Dakota values the life of the mother over the life of the fetus? If so then the law is a sham and is more about limiting what a woman may or may not do in the event she finds herself in the first trimester of an unwanted pregnancy.
The doctor or other medical personnel performing an abortion can be charged with a felony. Given the fact that there are few examples of a doctor forcing a pregnant woman to have an abortion, one can presume that said doctor would not be doing the procedure were it not for the woman requesting it. If the doctor can be charged with a felony does the law also address the fact that the woman is an accessory and therefore also subject to a felony charge? If not then the law is a sham and designed only to limit the choices that are a woman's right regarding the outcome of unwanted pregnancies.
George W. Bush, given the PDB of Aug 6, 2001 titled "Bin Laden determined to strike the US" knew of the plot and did nothing to alert the appropriate security personnel so that they might have prevented the attack of 9/11.
George W. Bush possessed this knowledge, and was in a position to do something with it on Aug 6, 2001, a full 13 days before Massaoui was arrested.
Explain to me again why Massaoui is on trial and Bush is not.
South Dakota passed into law an anti-abortion law that bans all abortions, out of an alleged reverence for the life of the fetus, save when one is required to spare the life of the mother.
Does this mean that South Dakota values the life of the mother over the life of the fetus? If so then the law is a sham and is more about limiting what a woman may or may not do in the event she finds herself in the first trimester of an unwanted pregnancy.
The doctor or other medical personnel performing an abortion can be charged with a felony. Given the fact that there are few examples of a doctor forcing a pregnant woman to have an abortion, one can presume that said doctor would not be doing the procedure were it not for the woman requesting it. If the doctor can be charged with a felony does the law also address the fact that the woman is an accessory and therefore also subject to a felony charge? If not then the law is a sham and designed only to limit the choices that are a woman's right regarding the outcome of unwanted pregnancies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
